Luke's Army Newsletter No 3 | lukesarmy.com
Please say a prayer for Luke Borusiewicz on the second anniversary of his death at two years old in foster care.
Unfortunately there is still no word from the coroner regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of Luke Borusiewicz.
3 Angels. Welcome to the Luke's Army newsletter no. 3. It accompanies the 3 angels as they travel across the world to the people they are meant for.
3 angels, this means a lot to me. It is the most art pieces I have ever had at once, I think. I am hopeless with my art. I love the fact that people genuinely love what I have created. I can't wait to give it away. Sometimes giving the ones I have already promised to others, away. Out of the many I have done, never have I taken money in exchange for a drawing. I am thankful that I have survived while keeping this part of my life sacred, and not influenced by financial gain. Finally, I feel a bit proud, this is admittedly a commendable attribute of anyone's persona.
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
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Civil RICO: AManual for Federal Attorneys
Civil RICO:
A Manual for
Federal Attorneys
October 2007
RICO ManForFedAtt Cover 10/11/07 2:08 PM Page 1Civil RICO:
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968
A Manual for
Federal Attorneys
October 2007
Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005
Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief
Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief
(202) 514-3594
Written By:
Frank J. Marine, Consultant
Patrice M. Mulkern
The assistance of the following is acknowledged and greatly appreciated:
David M. Brink
Gregory C.J. Lisa
James Francis McKenzie
Melissa Marquez-Oliver
Melvin Otey
Gerald Toner
Catherine M. Weinstock
Cover Design by Linda M. Baer
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/civrico.pdf
Read More:
A Manual for
Federal Attorneys
October 2007
RICO ManForFedAtt Cover 10/11/07 2:08 PM Page 1Civil RICO:
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968
A Manual for
Federal Attorneys
October 2007
Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005
Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief
Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief
(202) 514-3594
Written By:
Frank J. Marine, Consultant
Patrice M. Mulkern
The assistance of the following is acknowledged and greatly appreciated:
David M. Brink
Gregory C.J. Lisa
James Francis McKenzie
Melissa Marquez-Oliver
Melvin Otey
Gerald Toner
Catherine M. Weinstock
Cover Design by Linda M. Baer
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/civrico.pdf
Read More:
PARENTING AS A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
PARENTING AS A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
Argument
Does "The Best Interest of the Child" standard exceed the limits of the Due Process and the
Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment?
This brief questions if the State has abrogated the U.S. Constitution in it's parens patriae
authority by applying the best interest of the child standard in child custody determinations.
Troubling , the "best interest of the child" gives no special weight to a parent's fundamental right
when the court is determining the best interest of the child. Instead the "best interest of the child"
lies within the discretion of the trial court, thus, the parents are at the tender mercy of the court.
This legal principal, without constitutional protection derived from the Bill of Rights, we believe
exceeds the bounds of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th
Amendment!
The United States Supreme Court in several context has consistently upheld the
importance of the parent child relationship: "A state needs at least clear and convincing evidence
in order to sever a parental relationship". (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. (1982). It is cardinal
with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary
function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.
( Prince V. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) And it is in recognition of this that [our]
decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." ( Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 US 510, 534-535 (1925) A parent's right to "the companionship, care,
custody, and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any
property right. ( May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952). The parent-child relationship "is an
important interest that 'undeniably warrants deference and absent a powerful countervailing
interest, protection.'" Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) Justice O'Conner speaking for the Court
stated, "The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall 'deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of the law.' "We have long recognized that the
[Fourteenth] Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart,
'guarantees more than fair process.' . . . . "The Clause also includes a substantive component
that 'provides heightened protection against government interference with certain
fundamental rights and liberty interest.'" and "the liberty interest of parents in the care ,
custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest
recognized by this Court."
Justice Thomas in concurring in the judgment stated, " The opinion of the plurality,
Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter recognize such a right, but curiously none of them
articulates the appropriate standard of review. I would apply strict scrutiny to infringements of
fundamental rights."
The Troxel Court had difficulty accepting the Washington State's broad application of the
child's best interest standard, "Once the visitation petition has been filed in court and the matter
is placed before a judge, a parent's decision that visitation would not be in the child's best interest
is accorded no deference" ..."Instead, ....places the best-interest determination solely in the hands
of the judge. Should the judge disagree with the parent's estimation of the child's best interest,
the judge's view necessarily prevails." Id. The Court stated this "exceeded the bounds of the Due
Process Clause." Not that the Court intervened, "but failed to accord the determination of Granville, a fit custodial parent, any material weight." Id. The Court further explained, "the Due
Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make
child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better decision could be made"
The Court further stated, "In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot be doubted that the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of
parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children". Id. And
that a fit parent is an "important" "aspect" of the case, "for there is a presumption that fit parents
act in the best interest of their children". Id.
Justice Stevens, in his dissent, raises a very important point cautioning that the best
interest of the child would have limits under the Federal Constitution:
The phrase 'best interest of the child' appears in no less than 10 current
Washington state statutory provisions governing determinations from
guardianship to termination to adoption. . . . More broadly, a search of current
state custody and visitation laws reveals fully 698 separate references to the 'best
interest of the child' standard, a number that, at minimum, should give the Court
some pause before it upholds a decision implying that those words, on their face,
may be too boundless to pass muster under the Federal Constitution. Id at footnote
#5
Similarly, in Ohio as in Washington State the child's best interest is applied in deciding
child custody disputes. The CRC believes the child's best interest standard as applied in Ohio and
in most states "sweeps too broadly" and exceeds the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause.
The best interest of the child is not a magic wand for the State to unnecessarily restrict the
parent-child relationship. As a matter of constitutional law the best interest of the child must be
balanced with the parents liberty interest. If the court is unable to find a Nexus of harm or
potential harm between the parent and the child than the court must place an order that
maximizes participation of both parents with their children.
The CRC is convinced how the child's best interest as applied does not comply with the
federal Constitution. The CRC does not reject that such a standard should be done away with, the
CRC believes that parents' fundamental rights in rearing their children is subsumed within the
child's best interest standard.
The other half of the equation is the state must show harm or potential harm to the child
before restricting a fit parent from the "care, custody, and management of his or her children".
When the parent-child relationship is restricted by a family Court Order such restrictions must be
done in the least restrictive means.
The above U.S. Supreme Court cases illustrate that the parent-child relationship is
protected by the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution and is now beyond
debate. However, divorced or separated parents currently do not enjoy this heightened
protection.
In 1978, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that only the relationships of those parents
who from the time of conception of the child, never establish custody and who fail to support or
visit their child(ren) are unprotected by the equal protection and due process clauses of the
Constitution. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). Divorced parents must then enjoy
the same rights and obligations of their children as if still married. The state can impair a parentchild relationship through issuance of a limited visitation order, however, it must make a determination that it has a compelling interest in doing so. Trial courts must as a matter of
constitutional law, fashion orders which will maximize the time children spend with each parent.
Maximizing time with each parent is the only constitutional manner by which a parent is
able to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship after divorce. While geographic distance,
school schedules and the like must be factored into the custody and visitation calculus, trial
courts faced with a custody and visitation decision must accord appropriate constitutional respect
to maintain a healthy parent child relationship by granting each parent as much responsibility and
time as possible with the child.
The federal Due Process and Equal Protection rights extend to both parents equally, for
example, in adoption proceedings. In Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, (1979) the Supreme
Court found that a biological father who had for two years, but no longer, lived with his children
and their mother was denied equal protection of the law under a New York statute which
permitted the mother, but not the father, to veto an adoption. In Lehr v. Robinson (1983) 463
U.S. 248, the Supreme Court held that:
When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of
parenthood by 'com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child,' Caban,
[citations omitted], his interest in personal contact with his child acquires
substantial protection under the Due Process Clause." (Id. at 261-262)
The key factor in the Due Process and Equal Protection analysis is the fitness of the
parents.
The natural father's federal constitutional rights do not depend on the identity of the
person attempting to infringe upon them. That is the threshold showing required to impinge upon
a parent's relationship with one's children should not be less when married than when unmarried.
One's rights should not be less when the biological mother seeks to attack the constitutionally
protected relationship than when a potential adopter/third party seeks to attack that relationship.
Simply stated, protected fundamental rights do not evaporate in a child custody/visitation
proceeding.
In every circumstance under which a parental right to physical custody may be
terminated in which the courts have spoken on the standard of proof to be applied, the holding
has been that the proof must be by "clear and convincing" evidence.
In cases where joint physical custody is not ordered in a divorce setting, the parent
without custody has been deprived of physical custody, just as in any other setting. The identity
of the person who has custody of the child is irrelevant to the requisite proof required to deprive
one parent of physical custody. Surely an action to determine whether a parental right should be
retained is as fundamental to the parent child relationship as an action to terminate that
relationship.
Holly Robinson has spelled out this argument in detail:
It is accepted constitutional doctrine that the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment protects interests that are recognized as constituting "life" or
Property". In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has recognized that
individuals possess a fundamental liberty interest -- entitled to constitutional
protection -- regarding such matters as the decisions whether to have children,
decisions concerning the upbringing of children, and the retention of theirchildren through exercise of custody. Read together, the cases clearly establish a
zone of privacy around the parent-child relationship, which only can be invaded
by the state when the state possesses a sufficiently compelling reason to do so. As
a result, when the marital breakdown occurs, both parents are entitled to
constitutional protection of their right to continue to direct the upbringing of their
children through the exercise of custody. Adequate protection of this parental
right requires that parents be awarded joint custody [or expansive
visitation]...unless a compelling state interest directs otherwise.
H.L. Robinson, "Joint Custody: Constitutional Imperatives", 54 Cinn. L. Rev. 27, 40-41 (1985)
See also, Ellen Cancakos: "Joint Custody as a Fundamental Right". Arizona Law Review, Vol.
23, No. 2 (Tucson, Az: University of Arizona Law College), Tuscon, 95721. Also, Cynthia A.
McNeely: "Lagging Behind the Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias in the Family
Court", 25 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 335, 342+ (1998)
CONCLUSION
Custody orders must bear sufficient respect for the constitutional protections inherent in
the parent-child relationship regardless of whom is attacking the parent-child relationship. Given
the long history of cases by the Supreme Court it can no longer be doubted that the best interest
of the child must be coupled with harm to the child before restricting a parent's fundamental
liberty interest in parenting his or her child. Trial courts therefore must consider equal time with
both parents and deviate from that starting point as circumstances warrant.
__________________________________
David L. Levy, Esq.
President and CEO of the Children's Rights Council
Argument
Does "The Best Interest of the Child" standard exceed the limits of the Due Process and the
Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment?
This brief questions if the State has abrogated the U.S. Constitution in it's parens patriae
authority by applying the best interest of the child standard in child custody determinations.
Troubling , the "best interest of the child" gives no special weight to a parent's fundamental right
when the court is determining the best interest of the child. Instead the "best interest of the child"
lies within the discretion of the trial court, thus, the parents are at the tender mercy of the court.
This legal principal, without constitutional protection derived from the Bill of Rights, we believe
exceeds the bounds of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th
Amendment!
The United States Supreme Court in several context has consistently upheld the
importance of the parent child relationship: "A state needs at least clear and convincing evidence
in order to sever a parental relationship". (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. (1982). It is cardinal
with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary
function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.
( Prince V. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) And it is in recognition of this that [our]
decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." ( Pierce v.
Society of Sisters, 268 US 510, 534-535 (1925) A parent's right to "the companionship, care,
custody, and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any
property right. ( May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952). The parent-child relationship "is an
important interest that 'undeniably warrants deference and absent a powerful countervailing
interest, protection.'" Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) Justice O'Conner speaking for the Court
stated, "The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall 'deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of the law.' "We have long recognized that the
[Fourteenth] Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart,
'guarantees more than fair process.' . . . . "The Clause also includes a substantive component
that 'provides heightened protection against government interference with certain
fundamental rights and liberty interest.'" and "the liberty interest of parents in the care ,
custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest
recognized by this Court."
Justice Thomas in concurring in the judgment stated, " The opinion of the plurality,
Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter recognize such a right, but curiously none of them
articulates the appropriate standard of review. I would apply strict scrutiny to infringements of
fundamental rights."
The Troxel Court had difficulty accepting the Washington State's broad application of the
child's best interest standard, "Once the visitation petition has been filed in court and the matter
is placed before a judge, a parent's decision that visitation would not be in the child's best interest
is accorded no deference" ..."Instead, ....places the best-interest determination solely in the hands
of the judge. Should the judge disagree with the parent's estimation of the child's best interest,
the judge's view necessarily prevails." Id. The Court stated this "exceeded the bounds of the Due
Process Clause." Not that the Court intervened, "but failed to accord the determination of Granville, a fit custodial parent, any material weight." Id. The Court further explained, "the Due
Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make
child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better decision could be made"
The Court further stated, "In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot be doubted that the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of
parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children". Id. And
that a fit parent is an "important" "aspect" of the case, "for there is a presumption that fit parents
act in the best interest of their children". Id.
Justice Stevens, in his dissent, raises a very important point cautioning that the best
interest of the child would have limits under the Federal Constitution:
The phrase 'best interest of the child' appears in no less than 10 current
Washington state statutory provisions governing determinations from
guardianship to termination to adoption. . . . More broadly, a search of current
state custody and visitation laws reveals fully 698 separate references to the 'best
interest of the child' standard, a number that, at minimum, should give the Court
some pause before it upholds a decision implying that those words, on their face,
may be too boundless to pass muster under the Federal Constitution. Id at footnote
#5
Similarly, in Ohio as in Washington State the child's best interest is applied in deciding
child custody disputes. The CRC believes the child's best interest standard as applied in Ohio and
in most states "sweeps too broadly" and exceeds the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause.
The best interest of the child is not a magic wand for the State to unnecessarily restrict the
parent-child relationship. As a matter of constitutional law the best interest of the child must be
balanced with the parents liberty interest. If the court is unable to find a Nexus of harm or
potential harm between the parent and the child than the court must place an order that
maximizes participation of both parents with their children.
The CRC is convinced how the child's best interest as applied does not comply with the
federal Constitution. The CRC does not reject that such a standard should be done away with, the
CRC believes that parents' fundamental rights in rearing their children is subsumed within the
child's best interest standard.
The other half of the equation is the state must show harm or potential harm to the child
before restricting a fit parent from the "care, custody, and management of his or her children".
When the parent-child relationship is restricted by a family Court Order such restrictions must be
done in the least restrictive means.
The above U.S. Supreme Court cases illustrate that the parent-child relationship is
protected by the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution and is now beyond
debate. However, divorced or separated parents currently do not enjoy this heightened
protection.
In 1978, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that only the relationships of those parents
who from the time of conception of the child, never establish custody and who fail to support or
visit their child(ren) are unprotected by the equal protection and due process clauses of the
Constitution. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). Divorced parents must then enjoy
the same rights and obligations of their children as if still married. The state can impair a parentchild relationship through issuance of a limited visitation order, however, it must make a determination that it has a compelling interest in doing so. Trial courts must as a matter of
constitutional law, fashion orders which will maximize the time children spend with each parent.
Maximizing time with each parent is the only constitutional manner by which a parent is
able to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship after divorce. While geographic distance,
school schedules and the like must be factored into the custody and visitation calculus, trial
courts faced with a custody and visitation decision must accord appropriate constitutional respect
to maintain a healthy parent child relationship by granting each parent as much responsibility and
time as possible with the child.
The federal Due Process and Equal Protection rights extend to both parents equally, for
example, in adoption proceedings. In Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, (1979) the Supreme
Court found that a biological father who had for two years, but no longer, lived with his children
and their mother was denied equal protection of the law under a New York statute which
permitted the mother, but not the father, to veto an adoption. In Lehr v. Robinson (1983) 463
U.S. 248, the Supreme Court held that:
When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of
parenthood by 'com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child,' Caban,
[citations omitted], his interest in personal contact with his child acquires
substantial protection under the Due Process Clause." (Id. at 261-262)
The key factor in the Due Process and Equal Protection analysis is the fitness of the
parents.
The natural father's federal constitutional rights do not depend on the identity of the
person attempting to infringe upon them. That is the threshold showing required to impinge upon
a parent's relationship with one's children should not be less when married than when unmarried.
One's rights should not be less when the biological mother seeks to attack the constitutionally
protected relationship than when a potential adopter/third party seeks to attack that relationship.
Simply stated, protected fundamental rights do not evaporate in a child custody/visitation
proceeding.
In every circumstance under which a parental right to physical custody may be
terminated in which the courts have spoken on the standard of proof to be applied, the holding
has been that the proof must be by "clear and convincing" evidence.
In cases where joint physical custody is not ordered in a divorce setting, the parent
without custody has been deprived of physical custody, just as in any other setting. The identity
of the person who has custody of the child is irrelevant to the requisite proof required to deprive
one parent of physical custody. Surely an action to determine whether a parental right should be
retained is as fundamental to the parent child relationship as an action to terminate that
relationship.
Holly Robinson has spelled out this argument in detail:
It is accepted constitutional doctrine that the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment protects interests that are recognized as constituting "life" or
Property". In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has recognized that
individuals possess a fundamental liberty interest -- entitled to constitutional
protection -- regarding such matters as the decisions whether to have children,
decisions concerning the upbringing of children, and the retention of theirchildren through exercise of custody. Read together, the cases clearly establish a
zone of privacy around the parent-child relationship, which only can be invaded
by the state when the state possesses a sufficiently compelling reason to do so. As
a result, when the marital breakdown occurs, both parents are entitled to
constitutional protection of their right to continue to direct the upbringing of their
children through the exercise of custody. Adequate protection of this parental
right requires that parents be awarded joint custody [or expansive
visitation]...unless a compelling state interest directs otherwise.
H.L. Robinson, "Joint Custody: Constitutional Imperatives", 54 Cinn. L. Rev. 27, 40-41 (1985)
See also, Ellen Cancakos: "Joint Custody as a Fundamental Right". Arizona Law Review, Vol.
23, No. 2 (Tucson, Az: University of Arizona Law College), Tuscon, 95721. Also, Cynthia A.
McNeely: "Lagging Behind the Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias in the Family
Court", 25 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 335, 342+ (1998)
CONCLUSION
Custody orders must bear sufficient respect for the constitutional protections inherent in
the parent-child relationship regardless of whom is attacking the parent-child relationship. Given
the long history of cases by the Supreme Court it can no longer be doubted that the best interest
of the child must be coupled with harm to the child before restricting a parent's fundamental
liberty interest in parenting his or her child. Trial courts therefore must consider equal time with
both parents and deviate from that starting point as circumstances warrant.
__________________________________
David L. Levy, Esq.
President and CEO of the Children's Rights Council
Friday, January 21, 2011
Home - US Concerned Parents
Home - US Concerned Parents
We know the laws that serve us in CT.: www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm New poster reads- "STOP DCF/CPS kidnapping our children for PROFIT$"
http://www.fightcps.com/
corrupt Family court Judges bilk parents of $$$$$$$ Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in CT. allows DCF/CPS to kidnap our children for profit$
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME is now considered a condition
I'm a '"JUDICIAL ABUSE ADVOCATE" copyrighted by posting it here. --- If you or a loved one has been falsely accused or wronged by the DCF/CPS and the Family/child support/probate/criminal Courts and you have seen corruption in these places and you know that you did not do what they are trying to say you did, we support all issues concerning Children and families that they have put you into a situation you did not have before, please contact me, Cheryl Martone, founder, Feb.2009 of the US CONCERNED PARENTS support group. phone: 860-301-1274 This is not a me club or a fan club, it is a place for HELP FOR PARENTS -- We can give information, guidance, knowledge as to what is going on in the system (they dragged you into) for children's and parental rights, knowledge, understanding of what they are doing, help each other and give notices to discussions/meeting/events about Family Preservation. How to protect your family from the unlawful ways of the State Agencies that are making money from federal funds (Title IV) off your child if they get taken away and unlawfully put into the system. How the corrupt CPS/DCF/Family/child support/probate/criminal Courts are keeping you in hearings for years (unlawfully). Please contact us so we can talk about the injustices and make a *change*( going to Legislation to speak(testify) talk about the laws if they are right or wrong and make them right) to protect the Future of America, our children. Please contact me, to tell your nightmare story about DCF/CPS/GAL's/Attorney's when children and parents are pushed into (DCF/CPS/Family/child support/probate/criminal) COURTS, that we can tell you how you were illegally brought there.
I INVITE all PARENTS, ADULT CHILDREN who are/were in the system (DCF/CPS/Family) and Family members to become a member (MEMBERS PAGE) of "US Concerned Parents" support group. There are guidelines set one has to follow to be a member. - RULES & INVITATION: go to "OUR STORY" page for now.
***PUBLIC HEARING: AN ACT CONCERNING PARENTAL RIGHTS IN JUVENILE MATTERS - GO TO JUVENILE MATTERS PAGE here FOR details. TUES. MARCH 9, 2010 10AM Room 2A You have can have a voice here to make the laws and testify to make change for Children's and Parents RIGHTS
*IMPORTANT EVENT TO MEET TOGETHER AT: APRIL 25TH, 2010 IS PAA DAY- PARENTAL ALIENATION AWARENESS DAY- TIME: 3:00PM - 9:00PM Please get in touch with me: email me for details: ctparent@gmail.com sponsors of this event: Save Our Kids-Parental Alienation Foundation, Ken Krajewski - 860-881-6311 http://www.fatherwithoutchristmas.com
IN CT. PLease VOTE FOR US SENATOR---- LINDA McMAHON & FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL ---MARTHA DEAN ON Tues. August 10 in the Primaries ALL U.S. Citizens can vote, go to the polls on this day to stop the demorats corruption. Thankyou These candidates are republicans and they are doing a good job and I know they will continue to work for the people when they are voted in on TUES. Nov. 2, 2010. You can do your part by going to the campaign offices and volunteering to get the good ones in office to protect our rights. I think you have to register to vote, check with your town registrars office at least a week before voting.
We know the laws that serve us in CT.: www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm New poster reads- "STOP DCF/CPS kidnapping our children for PROFIT$"
http://www.fightcps.com/
corrupt Family court Judges bilk parents of $$$$$$$ Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in CT. allows DCF/CPS to kidnap our children for profit$
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME is now considered a condition
I'm a '"JUDICIAL ABUSE ADVOCATE" copyrighted by posting it here. --- If you or a loved one has been falsely accused or wronged by the DCF/CPS and the Family/child support/probate/criminal Courts and you have seen corruption in these places and you know that you did not do what they are trying to say you did, we support all issues concerning Children and families that they have put you into a situation you did not have before, please contact me, Cheryl Martone, founder, Feb.2009 of the US CONCERNED PARENTS support group. phone: 860-301-1274 This is not a me club or a fan club, it is a place for HELP FOR PARENTS -- We can give information, guidance, knowledge as to what is going on in the system (they dragged you into) for children's and parental rights, knowledge, understanding of what they are doing, help each other and give notices to discussions/meeting/events about Family Preservation. How to protect your family from the unlawful ways of the State Agencies that are making money from federal funds (Title IV) off your child if they get taken away and unlawfully put into the system. How the corrupt CPS/DCF/Family/child support/probate/criminal Courts are keeping you in hearings for years (unlawfully). Please contact us so we can talk about the injustices and make a *change*( going to Legislation to speak(testify) talk about the laws if they are right or wrong and make them right) to protect the Future of America, our children. Please contact me, to tell your nightmare story about DCF/CPS/GAL's/Attorney's when children and parents are pushed into (DCF/CPS/Family/child support/probate/criminal) COURTS, that we can tell you how you were illegally brought there.
I INVITE all PARENTS, ADULT CHILDREN who are/were in the system (DCF/CPS/Family) and Family members to become a member (MEMBERS PAGE) of "US Concerned Parents" support group. There are guidelines set one has to follow to be a member. - RULES & INVITATION: go to "OUR STORY" page for now.
***PUBLIC HEARING: AN ACT CONCERNING PARENTAL RIGHTS IN JUVENILE MATTERS - GO TO JUVENILE MATTERS PAGE here FOR details. TUES. MARCH 9, 2010 10AM Room 2A You have can have a voice here to make the laws and testify to make change for Children's and Parents RIGHTS
*IMPORTANT EVENT TO MEET TOGETHER AT: APRIL 25TH, 2010 IS PAA DAY- PARENTAL ALIENATION AWARENESS DAY- TIME: 3:00PM - 9:00PM Please get in touch with me: email me for details: ctparent@gmail.com sponsors of this event: Save Our Kids-Parental Alienation Foundation, Ken Krajewski - 860-881-6311 http://www.fatherwithoutchristmas.com
IN CT. PLease VOTE FOR US SENATOR---- LINDA McMAHON & FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL ---MARTHA DEAN ON Tues. August 10 in the Primaries ALL U.S. Citizens can vote, go to the polls on this day to stop the demorats corruption. Thankyou These candidates are republicans and they are doing a good job and I know they will continue to work for the people when they are voted in on TUES. Nov. 2, 2010. You can do your part by going to the campaign offices and volunteering to get the good ones in office to protect our rights. I think you have to register to vote, check with your town registrars office at least a week before voting.
CPS - A System Out of Control: Former CPS Agent Accused of Murdering Foster Child - Trial Begins on Tuesday
CPS - A System Out of Control: Former CPS Agent Accused of Murdering Foster Child - Trial Begins on Tuesday
The Mansfield woman — and former Department of Children and Families employee — accused of killing a foster child in her care is expected to appear in court Tuesday.
Suzanne Listro, 43 of 260 Stearns Road, was charged with the May 19, 2008, death of 7-month-old Michael Brown Jr.
After months of delay, her jury trial is slated to start at Rockville Superior Court at 10 a.m.
Listro’s Hartford attorney, Hu-bert Santos of Santos & Seeley, could not be reached for comment this morning.
Listro was charged July 16, 2008, with first-degree manslaughter and risk of injury to a minor. She pleaded not guilty to both charges in a December 2008 court appearance.
Listro had worked with DCF for 12 years and spent a year as a “children’s services consultant.”
She was terminated from the department following the death of Brown.
According to DCF Commission-er Susan Hamilton, Brown was Listro’s first foster placement with the department.
Brown was in Listro’s care one week when he died from a “blunt traumatic head injury.”
According to court records, Listro said Brown’s injuries were sustained from “falling off the bed.”
Listro said Brown fell from the bed when she was ejecting a tape from the VCR in her bedroom and the boy began crying, according to the police report.
Court records state she told police Brown cried and screamed, but then stopped and went limp while she picked him up.
However, court documents show Dr. Ronald Gross of Hartford Hospital told police “the victim’s injury did not appear consistent with the reported fall.”
Gross was the physician who pronounced Brown dead at 9:55 p.m. the evening of May 19, 2008, after he was transported to Hartford for medical attention.
The Office of the Chief State’s Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide.
As a result of the death of baby Brown, several state officials called for a “complete overhaul” of the DCF to ensure no more deaths or incidents occur.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in October 2008 the department needed to be broken up and sections need to be reassigned.
“At the core of DCF’s problems and our recommendations is a fatal dilemma,” said Blumenthal at the time, adding DCF currently hires private individuals for additional services for abused and neglected children.
Blumenthal said the department cannot both hire and regulate providers.
“Doing both presents an inherent, inevitable conflict of interest,” he said. “The agency cannot be both contractor and regulator.”
In a report released in May, it was determined Brown’s death may be attributed to procedural flaws in the DCF.
The report was compiled by the Child Welfare League of America, in collaboration with DCF and the Office of the Child Advocate.
The Child Welfare League is a national nonprofit group in Virginia dedicated to child welfare issues.
According to the report, it was discovered foster parent pre-training did not “adhere” to certain components of the department’s prescribed training curriculum.
In addition to improper training, previous claims of child neglect against Listro were lost in paperwork within the department.
During the investigation, it was discovered personnel responsible for licensing Listro as a foster parent were not aware of two previous “unsubstantiated” investigations connected to the care of Listro’s own child.
In addition to Listro coming under fire, the department is also being blamed for the death of Brown.
His parents sought in May 2009 to sue to department for wrongful death.
The notice of a wrongful-death claim — dated May 12 — was sent to James Smith, the state’s claim commissioner, by Louis Flynn Jr. of the Hartford law firm Brown, Paindiris and Scott on behalf of Michael Brown Sr. of East Hartford.
According to the notice, the claims for damages for the estate of Michael Brown Jr. are estimated to be $15 million.
POSTED BY DIVOTDAWG AT 12:07 AM
The Mansfield woman — and former Department of Children and Families employee — accused of killing a foster child in her care is expected to appear in court Tuesday.
Suzanne Listro, 43 of 260 Stearns Road, was charged with the May 19, 2008, death of 7-month-old Michael Brown Jr.
After months of delay, her jury trial is slated to start at Rockville Superior Court at 10 a.m.
Listro’s Hartford attorney, Hu-bert Santos of Santos & Seeley, could not be reached for comment this morning.
Listro was charged July 16, 2008, with first-degree manslaughter and risk of injury to a minor. She pleaded not guilty to both charges in a December 2008 court appearance.
Listro had worked with DCF for 12 years and spent a year as a “children’s services consultant.”
She was terminated from the department following the death of Brown.
According to DCF Commission-er Susan Hamilton, Brown was Listro’s first foster placement with the department.
Brown was in Listro’s care one week when he died from a “blunt traumatic head injury.”
According to court records, Listro said Brown’s injuries were sustained from “falling off the bed.”
Listro said Brown fell from the bed when she was ejecting a tape from the VCR in her bedroom and the boy began crying, according to the police report.
Court records state she told police Brown cried and screamed, but then stopped and went limp while she picked him up.
However, court documents show Dr. Ronald Gross of Hartford Hospital told police “the victim’s injury did not appear consistent with the reported fall.”
Gross was the physician who pronounced Brown dead at 9:55 p.m. the evening of May 19, 2008, after he was transported to Hartford for medical attention.
The Office of the Chief State’s Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide.
As a result of the death of baby Brown, several state officials called for a “complete overhaul” of the DCF to ensure no more deaths or incidents occur.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in October 2008 the department needed to be broken up and sections need to be reassigned.
“At the core of DCF’s problems and our recommendations is a fatal dilemma,” said Blumenthal at the time, adding DCF currently hires private individuals for additional services for abused and neglected children.
Blumenthal said the department cannot both hire and regulate providers.
“Doing both presents an inherent, inevitable conflict of interest,” he said. “The agency cannot be both contractor and regulator.”
In a report released in May, it was determined Brown’s death may be attributed to procedural flaws in the DCF.
The report was compiled by the Child Welfare League of America, in collaboration with DCF and the Office of the Child Advocate.
The Child Welfare League is a national nonprofit group in Virginia dedicated to child welfare issues.
According to the report, it was discovered foster parent pre-training did not “adhere” to certain components of the department’s prescribed training curriculum.
In addition to improper training, previous claims of child neglect against Listro were lost in paperwork within the department.
During the investigation, it was discovered personnel responsible for licensing Listro as a foster parent were not aware of two previous “unsubstantiated” investigations connected to the care of Listro’s own child.
In addition to Listro coming under fire, the department is also being blamed for the death of Brown.
His parents sought in May 2009 to sue to department for wrongful death.
The notice of a wrongful-death claim — dated May 12 — was sent to James Smith, the state’s claim commissioner, by Louis Flynn Jr. of the Hartford law firm Brown, Paindiris and Scott on behalf of Michael Brown Sr. of East Hartford.
According to the notice, the claims for damages for the estate of Michael Brown Jr. are estimated to be $15 million.
POSTED BY DIVOTDAWG AT 12:07 AM
The Truth Bites "NH"Speak Out about family court endangerment of children SAVE THE DATE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
The Truth Bites "NH"
Speak Out about family court endangerment of children SAVE THE DATE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
From: CA Protective Parents Association
Subject: News from CA Protective Parents Association
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 4:25 PM
Dear Friends,
Congratulations to Mo Hannah and her team for a great Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany NY! We heard it was awesome.
1. SAVE THE DATES: February 13 and 14, 2011.
Mothers of Lost Children will gather at the White House from 2:00 to 4:00 pm Sunday 2/13 for a vigil and speak out about family court endangerment of children. On Monday 2/14 at 11:00 am we will gather at the US Department of Human Services, 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington DC for a press conference to protest the huge expenditure on Fatherhood and the zero expenditure on Motherhood. At noon we will march to Congress to ask again for Congressional hearings. It is crucial to maintain our presence in Washington DC. We encourage all you brave and hardy souls to join us in person. Wear your warmest clothes. See www.mothers-of-lost-children.com
Please consider writing letters to your 2 US Senators and your 1 Congressmember (http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ ) to request Congressional hearings on the failure of family courts to protect children. You can attach a 1 page summary of your case, if you wish.
2. MEDIA. Let us know at cppa001@aol.com if you want to be contacted:
a. A freelance reporter has asked 48 Hours to cover our issue from the perspective of crimes that are being mishandled. She is looking for current cases in which there is evidence of criminal activiity such as molest, and a family court trial is coming up.
b. A Bay Area reporter is interested in PAS cases.
3. CA AUDIT. The Bureau of State Audits findings will be published on Jan 20, 2011. It has taken 3 years of hard work by Center for Judicial Excellence and CPPA to get the audit approved by the Legislature and finalized by BSA. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/ .
4. CHILDREN'S VOICES. Next year, on Jan 1, 2012, AB1050 (Ma) goes into effect. Children will have the right in CA to speak directly to the judge (unless the judge states the reason for refusing their request). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1050_bill_20100827_chaptered.html
4. GOOD NEWS. We've heard of several cases in which family and appellate courts have protected abused children. Our persistent activism is helping. There are picketers outside the courthouse in San Diego every Friday, court watch in various counties, blogs all over the place, Youtube videos mocking biased judges, complaints to the Commission on Judicial Performance, meetings with, and letters to, legislators, Congressmembers, and the White House. Mothers of Lost Children demonstrations in May and October 2010 effectively framed it as a civil and human rights movement.
Speak Out about family court endangerment of children SAVE THE DATE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
From: CA Protective Parents Association
Subject: News from CA Protective Parents Association
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011, 4:25 PM
Dear Friends,
Congratulations to Mo Hannah and her team for a great Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany NY! We heard it was awesome.
1. SAVE THE DATES: February 13 and 14, 2011.
Mothers of Lost Children will gather at the White House from 2:00 to 4:00 pm Sunday 2/13 for a vigil and speak out about family court endangerment of children. On Monday 2/14 at 11:00 am we will gather at the US Department of Human Services, 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington DC for a press conference to protest the huge expenditure on Fatherhood and the zero expenditure on Motherhood. At noon we will march to Congress to ask again for Congressional hearings. It is crucial to maintain our presence in Washington DC. We encourage all you brave and hardy souls to join us in person. Wear your warmest clothes. See www.mothers-of-lost-children.com
Please consider writing letters to your 2 US Senators and your 1 Congressmember (http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ ) to request Congressional hearings on the failure of family courts to protect children. You can attach a 1 page summary of your case, if you wish.
2. MEDIA. Let us know at cppa001@aol.com if you want to be contacted:
a. A freelance reporter has asked 48 Hours to cover our issue from the perspective of crimes that are being mishandled. She is looking for current cases in which there is evidence of criminal activiity such as molest, and a family court trial is coming up.
b. A Bay Area reporter is interested in PAS cases.
3. CA AUDIT. The Bureau of State Audits findings will be published on Jan 20, 2011. It has taken 3 years of hard work by Center for Judicial Excellence and CPPA to get the audit approved by the Legislature and finalized by BSA. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/ .
4. CHILDREN'S VOICES. Next year, on Jan 1, 2012, AB1050 (Ma) goes into effect. Children will have the right in CA to speak directly to the judge (unless the judge states the reason for refusing their request). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1050_bill_20100827_chaptered.html
4. GOOD NEWS. We've heard of several cases in which family and appellate courts have protected abused children. Our persistent activism is helping. There are picketers outside the courthouse in San Diego every Friday, court watch in various counties, blogs all over the place, Youtube videos mocking biased judges, complaints to the Commission on Judicial Performance, meetings with, and letters to, legislators, Congressmembers, and the White House. Mothers of Lost Children demonstrations in May and October 2010 effectively framed it as a civil and human rights movement.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)