CPS violates these EVERY CASE
Print one of these up and keep it handy it for future use- Violation_Warning-Denial_Rights_under_Color_Law.pdf
THE RIGHTS-
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Statutes-
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) Reasonable Efforts
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) Relative Placement
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
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
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
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 55 - KIDNAPPING
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1203
STATUTE
(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.
United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 109 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
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
FRAUD
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
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.
http://familyrights.us/bin/CPS_violates_these_every_case.htm
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
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Kangaroo Court-Definition
Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.
The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.
Read More:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Kangaroo+Court
The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.
Read More:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Kangaroo+Court
An American Phenomenon: The Widespread Psychiatric Drugging of Infants and Toddlers
An American Phenomenon: The Widespread Psychiatric Drugging of Infants and Toddlers
The United States has become the psychiatric drugging capital of the world, medicating children at a younger and younger age.
April 20, 2010 |
By Evelyn Pringle
The United States has become the psychiatric drugging capital of the world for kids with children being medicated at a younger and younger age. Medicaid records in some states show infants less than a year old on drugs for mental disorders.
The use of powerful antipsychotics with privately insured children, aged 2 through 5 in the US, doubled between 1999 and 2007, according to a study of data on more than one million children with private health insurance in the January, 2010, "Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry."
The number of children in this age group diagnosed with bipolar disorder also doubled over the last decade, Reuters reported.
Of antipsychotic-treated children in the 2007 study sample, the most common diagnoses were pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation (28.2%), ADHD (23.7%), and disruptive behavior disorder (12.9%).
The study reported that fewer than half of drug treated children received a mental health assessment (40.8%), a psychotherapy visit (41.4%), or a visit with a psychiatrist (42.6%) during the year of antipsychotic use.
"Antipsychotics, which are being widely and irresponsibly prescribed for American children--mostly as chemical restraints--are shown to be causing irreparable harm," warned Vera Hassner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, in a February 26, 2010 InfoMail.
"These drugs have measurable severe hazardous effects on vital biological systems, including: cardiovascular adverse effects that result in shortening lives; metabolic adverse effects that induce diabetes and the metabolic syndrome," she wrote. "Long-term use of antipsychotics has been shown to result in metabolic syndrome in 40% to 50% of patients."
The lead researcher on the study above, Columbia University psychiatry professor Mark Olfson, told Reuters that about 1.5% of all privately insured children between the ages of 2 and 5, or one in 70, received some type of psychiatric drug in 2007, be it an antipsychotic, a mood stabilizer, a stimulant or an antidepressant.
Psychiatric drugs bathe the brains of growing children with agents that threaten the normal development of the brain, according to Dr Peter Breggin, founder of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), and author of about 20 books, including "Medication Madness."
The drugs themselves are causing severe disorders in millions of children in the US, he warns. "Substances like antidepressants, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotic drugs cause severe, and potentially permanent, biochemical imbalances."
American Phenomenon
A number of presentations at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in May 2009, addressed the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, including one titled, "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder: A Critical Look at an American Phenomenon," at which Dr Peter Parry, a consultant child & adolescent psychiatrist, and senior lecturer at Flinders University in Australia, presented a survey on, "Australian and New Zealand's Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists' Views on Bipolar Disorder Prevalence and on Rates of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder in the USA."
Dr Parry and his colleagues conducted a survey of child and adolescent psychiatrists in Australia and New Zealand. Of the 199 psychiatrists who responded to the survey, 90.5% thought pediatric bipolar disorder was overdiagnosed in the US.
In an October 1, 2009 article titled, "Medicating Our Children," Dr Parry reports that since "the mid-1990s in the USA, some researchers have claimed that Paediatric Bipolar Disorder (PBD) frequently starts prior to puberty."
One of PBD's main proponents, Harvard University's Professor Joseph Biederman, stating onset "is squarely in the preschooler age group," he notes.
Parry explains that "PBD has been created by moving the diagnostic goalposts away from traditional concepts of bipolar disorder."
"In children," he says, "episodes were redefined to last hours instead of days or weeks and, instead of manic elation, severe anger in children sufficed as mania."
"Unlike diagnoses like ADHD or depression, or simply accepting a child has serious emotional and behavioural problems in reaction to various stressors, PBD implies a lifelong severe mental illness requiring of strong psychiatric medication," Parry warns.
"In the USA," he says, "the public is furthermore exposed to direct pharmaceutical advertising that can feed the natural desire parents of distressed and aggressive children have for a quick solution by suggesting a simple medication fix."
"The medicating of America's children has become intensely controversial, highlighted by the tragic case of Rebecca Riley, a four-year-old Boston girl diagnosed at 28 months old with ADHD and PBD," he points out.
Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Independent Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government.
Read More:http://www.alternet.org/drugs/146551
The United States has become the psychiatric drugging capital of the world, medicating children at a younger and younger age.
April 20, 2010 |
By Evelyn Pringle
The United States has become the psychiatric drugging capital of the world for kids with children being medicated at a younger and younger age. Medicaid records in some states show infants less than a year old on drugs for mental disorders.
The use of powerful antipsychotics with privately insured children, aged 2 through 5 in the US, doubled between 1999 and 2007, according to a study of data on more than one million children with private health insurance in the January, 2010, "Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry."
The number of children in this age group diagnosed with bipolar disorder also doubled over the last decade, Reuters reported.
Of antipsychotic-treated children in the 2007 study sample, the most common diagnoses were pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation (28.2%), ADHD (23.7%), and disruptive behavior disorder (12.9%).
The study reported that fewer than half of drug treated children received a mental health assessment (40.8%), a psychotherapy visit (41.4%), or a visit with a psychiatrist (42.6%) during the year of antipsychotic use.
"Antipsychotics, which are being widely and irresponsibly prescribed for American children--mostly as chemical restraints--are shown to be causing irreparable harm," warned Vera Hassner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, in a February 26, 2010 InfoMail.
"These drugs have measurable severe hazardous effects on vital biological systems, including: cardiovascular adverse effects that result in shortening lives; metabolic adverse effects that induce diabetes and the metabolic syndrome," she wrote. "Long-term use of antipsychotics has been shown to result in metabolic syndrome in 40% to 50% of patients."
The lead researcher on the study above, Columbia University psychiatry professor Mark Olfson, told Reuters that about 1.5% of all privately insured children between the ages of 2 and 5, or one in 70, received some type of psychiatric drug in 2007, be it an antipsychotic, a mood stabilizer, a stimulant or an antidepressant.
Psychiatric drugs bathe the brains of growing children with agents that threaten the normal development of the brain, according to Dr Peter Breggin, founder of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), and author of about 20 books, including "Medication Madness."
The drugs themselves are causing severe disorders in millions of children in the US, he warns. "Substances like antidepressants, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotic drugs cause severe, and potentially permanent, biochemical imbalances."
American Phenomenon
A number of presentations at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in May 2009, addressed the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, including one titled, "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder: A Critical Look at an American Phenomenon," at which Dr Peter Parry, a consultant child & adolescent psychiatrist, and senior lecturer at Flinders University in Australia, presented a survey on, "Australian and New Zealand's Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists' Views on Bipolar Disorder Prevalence and on Rates of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder in the USA."
Dr Parry and his colleagues conducted a survey of child and adolescent psychiatrists in Australia and New Zealand. Of the 199 psychiatrists who responded to the survey, 90.5% thought pediatric bipolar disorder was overdiagnosed in the US.
In an October 1, 2009 article titled, "Medicating Our Children," Dr Parry reports that since "the mid-1990s in the USA, some researchers have claimed that Paediatric Bipolar Disorder (PBD) frequently starts prior to puberty."
One of PBD's main proponents, Harvard University's Professor Joseph Biederman, stating onset "is squarely in the preschooler age group," he notes.
Parry explains that "PBD has been created by moving the diagnostic goalposts away from traditional concepts of bipolar disorder."
"In children," he says, "episodes were redefined to last hours instead of days or weeks and, instead of manic elation, severe anger in children sufficed as mania."
"Unlike diagnoses like ADHD or depression, or simply accepting a child has serious emotional and behavioural problems in reaction to various stressors, PBD implies a lifelong severe mental illness requiring of strong psychiatric medication," Parry warns.
"In the USA," he says, "the public is furthermore exposed to direct pharmaceutical advertising that can feed the natural desire parents of distressed and aggressive children have for a quick solution by suggesting a simple medication fix."
"The medicating of America's children has become intensely controversial, highlighted by the tragic case of Rebecca Riley, a four-year-old Boston girl diagnosed at 28 months old with ADHD and PBD," he points out.
Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Independent Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government.
Read More:http://www.alternet.org/drugs/146551
A screening of the “heartbreaking but inspirational” new film DHS - Give Us Back Our Children
Jane Boyer
cjb
www.abusefreedom.com
abusefreedomunited
803 438 8119
You are Invited
A screening of the “heartbreaking but inspirational” new film
DHS - Give Us Back Our Children
followed by a Community Dialogue on
Child Welfare, Poverty & Welfare Cuts -Does Caregiving Count?
Friday, December 3, 5:30-8:30pm
Tabernacle Church
3701 Chestnut St. (W. Philly)
· Child welfare from the point of view of children as well as of mothers, grandmothers & other relative caregivers & supporters. Our poverty is not child neglect, & we refuse to be punished for it. Of every 1000 of the poorest children in Phila County, the Dept of Human Services snatches 28 children from families – the highest rate in the US – and children of color are more likely to be its victims.
· Cuts in welfare, lack of housing, and domestic abuse resulting in the detention of children by DHS and criminalization of mothers. Older people are forced out of their homes into institutions and into debt.
· The Luzerne County case exposed how “justice” for children and young people is about money. Phila has the highest incarceration rate in the US, with 1 in 9 Black adults under 35 behind bars. PA has the highest number of minors serving life sentences without parole. State crime against children.
· Valuing the caregiver and those they care for - children, elders, people with mental health and other disabilities, veterans. And those who are cared for also do caregiving.
· Raising children is a job: mothers count, count mother’s work! The caregiving work of a mother is valued at $100,000/year (Alternet.com, 2007).
· Living wages/income, quality healthcare, housing, education and healthy food for all caregivers and our families. Money for mothers, not banks, war and occupation.
· Policymakers and advocates invited to hear from YOU!
Come & speak out! Spanish translation, childcare, refreshments. Wheelchair accessible.
Documentary film showing: DHS - Give Us Back Our Children:
mothers & others come together to reclaim children from the child welfare industry
18 min. To order www.everymothernetwork.net
cjb
www.abusefreedom.com
abusefreedomunited
803 438 8119
You are Invited
A screening of the “heartbreaking but inspirational” new film
DHS - Give Us Back Our Children
followed by a Community Dialogue on
Child Welfare, Poverty & Welfare Cuts -Does Caregiving Count?
Friday, December 3, 5:30-8:30pm
Tabernacle Church
3701 Chestnut St. (W. Philly)
· Child welfare from the point of view of children as well as of mothers, grandmothers & other relative caregivers & supporters. Our poverty is not child neglect, & we refuse to be punished for it. Of every 1000 of the poorest children in Phila County, the Dept of Human Services snatches 28 children from families – the highest rate in the US – and children of color are more likely to be its victims.
· Cuts in welfare, lack of housing, and domestic abuse resulting in the detention of children by DHS and criminalization of mothers. Older people are forced out of their homes into institutions and into debt.
· The Luzerne County case exposed how “justice” for children and young people is about money. Phila has the highest incarceration rate in the US, with 1 in 9 Black adults under 35 behind bars. PA has the highest number of minors serving life sentences without parole. State crime against children.
· Valuing the caregiver and those they care for - children, elders, people with mental health and other disabilities, veterans. And those who are cared for also do caregiving.
· Raising children is a job: mothers count, count mother’s work! The caregiving work of a mother is valued at $100,000/year (Alternet.com, 2007).
· Living wages/income, quality healthcare, housing, education and healthy food for all caregivers and our families. Money for mothers, not banks, war and occupation.
· Policymakers and advocates invited to hear from YOU!
Come & speak out! Spanish translation, childcare, refreshments. Wheelchair accessible.
Documentary film showing: DHS - Give Us Back Our Children:
mothers & others come together to reclaim children from the child welfare industry
18 min. To order www.everymothernetwork.net
Statute of Limitations for Prosecution of Child Abuse
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Statute_of_Limitations_for_Prosecution_of_Child_Abuse_09.pdf
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Grandma Is Pissed Grandkids Were Placed In Foster Care of 'Transvestite' Couple
Grandma Is Pissed Grandkids Were Placed In Foster Care of 'Transvestite' Couple
"It's not right," says the unidentified Australian grandmother who's furious to see her 4-year-old grandson and 12-year-old granddaughter removed from her daughter's home and placed in the care of a gay male couple in Queensland. "I can't understand it at all. I was really upset.
Read more: http://www.queerty.com/grandma-is-pissed-grandkids-were-placed-in-foster-care-of-transvestite-couple-20101123/#ixzz169gic8Bw
"It's not right," says the unidentified Australian grandmother who's furious to see her 4-year-old grandson and 12-year-old granddaughter removed from her daughter's home and placed in the care of a gay male couple in Queensland. "I can't understand it at all. I was really upset.
Read more: http://www.queerty.com/grandma-is-pissed-grandkids-were-placed-in-foster-care-of-transvestite-couple-20101123/#ixzz169gic8Bw
How To File A Child Welfare Grievance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtCGN9p6yk&feature=player_embedded
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)