Oral Arguments on Thursday for the adoption and foster care act | todaysthv.com
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) -- Thursday, at 9 a.m. the Arkansas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Act 1, the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act.
"We've said all along that this issue is about child welfare," said Family Council Action Committee President Jerry Cox. "We are confident that the Arkansas Supreme Court will rule in favor of keeping Act 1 part of Arkansas law."
In 2008, Arkansas voters passed Act 1-a law that prevents foster or adoptive children from being place in cohabiting homes-by 57-percent of the vote.
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, March 16, 2011
What if every CPS Family Filed a Damage Claim against their County??
What if every CPS Family Filed a Damage Claim against their County??
Pastor Wiley Drake says his Parishioner Sarah Sandy, who Commissioner Jane L. Shade would not allow as her pastor and Spiritual Counselor in the court room has filed..
"Claim for Money or Damages Against The county of Orange"
HEADLINE: Buena Park California March 15, 2011
Sarah Sandy has filed a "Claim for Money or Damages Against The County of Orange" as of 3-15-2011 and has indicated that there are many more to follow from her group of friends.
All over $25,000.00
Service dated 3/15/2011
Ms Sandy indicates she is asking all her fellow victims to follow her lead not only in California, but around the Nation. Several have already said they would also file.
Pastor Wiley says they have mounted a Nation Wide pray chain for these victims'
It's easy to do......................................
contact wiley Drake 1-714-865-8132
Pastor Wiley Drake says his Parishioner Sarah Sandy, who Commissioner Jane L. Shade would not allow as her pastor and Spiritual Counselor in the court room has filed..
"Claim for Money or Damages Against The county of Orange"
HEADLINE: Buena Park California March 15, 2011
Sarah Sandy has filed a "Claim for Money or Damages Against The County of Orange" as of 3-15-2011 and has indicated that there are many more to follow from her group of friends.
All over $25,000.00
Service dated 3/15/2011
Ms Sandy indicates she is asking all her fellow victims to follow her lead not only in California, but around the Nation. Several have already said they would also file.
Pastor Wiley says they have mounted a Nation Wide pray chain for these victims'
It's easy to do......................................
contact wiley Drake 1-714-865-8132
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) S.RES.99.IS
Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
S.RES.99.IS
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
Bill PDF XML
[Help]
Printer Friendly[Help] Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status
S.RES.99 -- Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children... (Introduced in Senate - IS)
SRES 99 IS
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 99
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 10, 2011
Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BURR, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.
Whereas the Senate affirms the commitment of the people and the Government of the United States to the well-being, protection, and advancement of children, and the protection of the inalienable rights of all persons of all ages;
Whereas the Constitution and laws of the United States and those of the several States are the best guarantees against mistreatment of children in this Nation;
Whereas the Constitution, laws, and traditions of the United States affirm the rights of parents to raise their children and to impart their values and religious beliefs;
Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York November 20, 1989, and entered into force September 2, 1990, if ratified, would become a part of the supreme law of the land, taking precedence over all State laws and constitutions;
Whereas the United States, and not the several States, would be held responsible for compliance with this Convention if ratified, and as a consequence, the United States would create an incredible expansion of subject matter jurisdiction over all matters concerning children, seriously undermining the constitutional balance between the Federal Government and the governments of the several States;
Whereas Professor Geraldine Van Bueren, the author of the principal textbook on the international rights of the child, and a participant in the drafting of the Convention, has described the `best interest of the child standard' in the treaty as `provid[ing] decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents';
Whereas the Scottish Government has issued a pamphlet to children of that country explaining their rights under the Convention, which declares that children have the right to decide their own religion and that parents can only provide advice;
Whereas the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly interpreted the Convention to ban common disciplinary measures utilized by parents;
Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom was found to be in violation of the Convention by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for allowing parents to exercise a right to opt their children out of sex education courses in the public schools without a prior government review of the wishes of the child;
Whereas the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has held that the Governments of Indonesia and Egypt were out of compliance with the Convention because military expenditures were given inappropriate priority over children's programs;
Whereas these and many other interpretations of the Convention by those charged with its implementation and by other authoritative supporters demonstrates that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are utterly contrary to the principles of law in the United States and the inherent principles of freedom;
Whereas the decisions and interpretations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child would be considered by the Committee to be binding and authoritative upon the United States should the United States Government ratify the Convention, such that the Convention poses a threat to the sovereign rights of the United States and the several States to make final determinations regarding domestic law; and
Whereas the proposition that the United States should be governed by international legal standards in its domestic policy is tantamount to proclaiming that the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the several States are incompetent to draft domestic laws that are necessary for the proper protection of children, an assertion that is not only an affront to self-government but an inappropriate attack on the capability of legislators in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York November 20, 1989, and entered into force September 2, 1990, is incompatible with the Constitution, the laws, and the traditions of the United States;
(2) the Convention would undermine proper presumptions of freedom and independence for families in the United States, supplanting those principles with a presumption in favor of governmental intervention without the necessity for proving harm or wrong-doing;
(3) the Convention would interfere with the principles of sovereignty, independence, and self-government in the United States that preclude the necessity or propriety of adopting international law to govern domestic matters; and
(4) the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.99:
112th Congress (2011-2012)
S.RES.99.IS
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
Bill PDF XML
[Help]
Printer Friendly[Help] Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status
S.RES.99 -- Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children... (Introduced in Senate - IS)
SRES 99 IS
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 99
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 10, 2011
Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BURR, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.
Whereas the Senate affirms the commitment of the people and the Government of the United States to the well-being, protection, and advancement of children, and the protection of the inalienable rights of all persons of all ages;
Whereas the Constitution and laws of the United States and those of the several States are the best guarantees against mistreatment of children in this Nation;
Whereas the Constitution, laws, and traditions of the United States affirm the rights of parents to raise their children and to impart their values and religious beliefs;
Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York November 20, 1989, and entered into force September 2, 1990, if ratified, would become a part of the supreme law of the land, taking precedence over all State laws and constitutions;
Whereas the United States, and not the several States, would be held responsible for compliance with this Convention if ratified, and as a consequence, the United States would create an incredible expansion of subject matter jurisdiction over all matters concerning children, seriously undermining the constitutional balance between the Federal Government and the governments of the several States;
Whereas Professor Geraldine Van Bueren, the author of the principal textbook on the international rights of the child, and a participant in the drafting of the Convention, has described the `best interest of the child standard' in the treaty as `provid[ing] decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents';
Whereas the Scottish Government has issued a pamphlet to children of that country explaining their rights under the Convention, which declares that children have the right to decide their own religion and that parents can only provide advice;
Whereas the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly interpreted the Convention to ban common disciplinary measures utilized by parents;
Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom was found to be in violation of the Convention by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for allowing parents to exercise a right to opt their children out of sex education courses in the public schools without a prior government review of the wishes of the child;
Whereas the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has held that the Governments of Indonesia and Egypt were out of compliance with the Convention because military expenditures were given inappropriate priority over children's programs;
Whereas these and many other interpretations of the Convention by those charged with its implementation and by other authoritative supporters demonstrates that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are utterly contrary to the principles of law in the United States and the inherent principles of freedom;
Whereas the decisions and interpretations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child would be considered by the Committee to be binding and authoritative upon the United States should the United States Government ratify the Convention, such that the Convention poses a threat to the sovereign rights of the United States and the several States to make final determinations regarding domestic law; and
Whereas the proposition that the United States should be governed by international legal standards in its domestic policy is tantamount to proclaiming that the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the several States are incompetent to draft domestic laws that are necessary for the proper protection of children, an assertion that is not only an affront to self-government but an inappropriate attack on the capability of legislators in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted at New York November 20, 1989, and entered into force September 2, 1990, is incompatible with the Constitution, the laws, and the traditions of the United States;
(2) the Convention would undermine proper presumptions of freedom and independence for families in the United States, supplanting those principles with a presumption in favor of governmental intervention without the necessity for proving harm or wrong-doing;
(3) the Convention would interfere with the principles of sovereignty, independence, and self-government in the United States that preclude the necessity or propriety of adopting international law to govern domestic matters; and
(4) the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.99:
Bring Emma Home Alive-CPS Murder Update!
UPDATE: 3/9/2011
http://emmarouth.weebly.com/cps-murder-update.html
The real-life nightmare for the Routh children, and mother Brandy just becomes more horrifying with EACH PASSING HOUR, IN the texas CPS Custody, having closer to fulfilling this anticipated goal~cashing in on Emma’s murder, which come to find is in even greater dollar amounts than first anticipated!
The living nightmare:
I will first begin with Emma’s very progressive deteriating health, being a lot worse than even imagined. Emma and Dalton are being used as guinea pigs in order for the Aunt, the fathers sister, to receive bonus’. With Emma’s arms all bruised from needles, her veins are now shot, and swollen, as previous pictures have shown~she is on 12 different medications, none of which pertain to her health needs, they are study drugs, sedatives. Emma now has GVH, which means she will need another transplant, and that’s just not possible. She also has contracted HERPES; and a LUNG CONDITION, DUE TO THE SMOKING AROUND HER; PTSD, which stands for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-YA DON’T SAY!
Brandy’s visits with the children, she brings them a gift. Her last visit with the children, they {Emma and 3 yr old Dalton} told their mother Brandy at the end of the visit, “to take the gifts home and put them on their bed”, because they can’t keep them, that the Aunt throws them away~ in the trashcan. These visits are also without the accompaniment Brandy’s mother, or family members, due to none of Brandy’s family permitted to see the children, in fact, neither is the State Representative of Texas. YES, that’s what I said Folks~the State Representative Nichols was refused admission to visit the child. As well as, received a response from Obudsman Office telling that his complaints AGAINST CPS, on behalf of Emma, were unfounded, and that he didn’t do any research? And that it’s the Judge who have taken the children. Well, aren’t the Judge and CPS working hand and hand? The Judge’s reason~well, here ya go folks~the big CHING CHING!!
Apparently, Judge Pam Foster-Fletcher, had been the Routh’s divorce. This Judge IS THE SAME Judge now with this CPS case. She is a Judge fully aware of this families goings on, especially with her being in part, having been the person having ruled on the stipulations in the divorce settlement.
This Judge with the knowledge of the indifferences between Emma and Daltons parents, Brandy{mother} and Clint{father} and his family members, of whom which all had part at physically abusing the children, as well as their being against Brandy deciding for Emma to have the bone marrow surgery to sustain her life. Which made cause for the judge to order that Brandy would have to agree, and sign an affidavit that would relinquish the father from incurring any of the costs, as well as her not applying for Welfare benefits. So she didn’t hesitate. Brandy was given the house and Clint ordered to pay the mortagage, which he hadn’t, nor was he enforced to do so, resulting in Brandy and the children homeless; here comes the money matter~the paid in full insurance policy on the child for 400 million buks, clints grandmother took out upon her death~the Judge ordered that the primary caregiver would receive those monies, if Clint continued to reside at his mothers, due to the abuse to the kids, but he still does, and with the state now being the Primary caregiver~they are looking at the big “400K” PLAN~CHING-CHING! With the Judges knowledge of the family history, is able to devise and knowingly, put unreachable demands on Brandy; for example, knowing Brandy and kids live at Brandy’s dads, due to losing their home-and the Judge permitting for it to happen, yet she is making one of the stipulations that Brandy acquire their own home. Then she ordered for Brandy to meet with their appointed counselor` of whom which brandy had prior consultations with so it would be a conflict of interest for her to see her now, {which i don't understand how the conflict of interest doesn't apply on the Judges' behalf} making for it to appear on record that Brandy isn’t fulfilling that which they required of her, for return of the children come the April 4th court date.
So, let me see how many of us`starts an uprising about this being done to one of OURS; A CHILD at THAT, SHE IS FOR REAL~AND NOW, BARELY ALIVE…ANYONE? ANYONE? SOMEBODY~ANYBODY? YOU FOLKS, RIGHT THERE IN TEXAS, WOULD IT BE ASKING TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO APPEAR AT ANDERSON CTY. COURTHOUSE ON APRIL 4TH, IN SUPPORT OF OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CHILDREN! YOU DON'T HAVE TO TESTIFY, so there's no worry about your kids being taken...
And yes, I am looking into prices for cost of a train there, from Philadelphia! So if any of you know/recommend of the most inexpensive route for me to take, due to my being a single parent, on a very strict fixed income and unable to afford public transportation most of the time~but I’m not giving away our kids future FREEDOMS without a fight! I WANT our Justice system to continue to do right by the future generations~OUR KIDS, if the laws that are manadated are to be manipulated and abused by THE GOVERNMENT TO IT’S PEOPLE and we permit it, then, " What the hell did those who left England, and fought for "THEIR FUTURE GENERATIONS"~US, was for nothing, if here we are~giving it right back, silently and without even a bat of the eye~just giving away our kids rights! Well, you need to hear this, and Ima tell it: War isn’t just fought over seas and anybody could want Freedom, but you have to be willing to go for it, and take it! Well, that part was done for us, don’t be pussy wusses and give it up so easily…and for those of you in fear of going to court in show of support for fear of your child might be next~well, whatta ya think your silence is giving them! You're giving our future kids rights away, making for them to have to fight another CIVIL war, again because we are too scared to back one another up...
NIP THIS IN THE BUTT!
Lynn Picciano, mother, grandmother, U.S. Citizen
Philadelphia, PA
http://emmarouth.weebly.com/cps-murder-update.html
The real-life nightmare for the Routh children, and mother Brandy just becomes more horrifying with EACH PASSING HOUR, IN the texas CPS Custody, having closer to fulfilling this anticipated goal~cashing in on Emma’s murder, which come to find is in even greater dollar amounts than first anticipated!
The living nightmare:
I will first begin with Emma’s very progressive deteriating health, being a lot worse than even imagined. Emma and Dalton are being used as guinea pigs in order for the Aunt, the fathers sister, to receive bonus’. With Emma’s arms all bruised from needles, her veins are now shot, and swollen, as previous pictures have shown~she is on 12 different medications, none of which pertain to her health needs, they are study drugs, sedatives. Emma now has GVH, which means she will need another transplant, and that’s just not possible. She also has contracted HERPES; and a LUNG CONDITION, DUE TO THE SMOKING AROUND HER; PTSD, which stands for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-YA DON’T SAY!
Brandy’s visits with the children, she brings them a gift. Her last visit with the children, they {Emma and 3 yr old Dalton} told their mother Brandy at the end of the visit, “to take the gifts home and put them on their bed”, because they can’t keep them, that the Aunt throws them away~ in the trashcan. These visits are also without the accompaniment Brandy’s mother, or family members, due to none of Brandy’s family permitted to see the children, in fact, neither is the State Representative of Texas. YES, that’s what I said Folks~the State Representative Nichols was refused admission to visit the child. As well as, received a response from Obudsman Office telling that his complaints AGAINST CPS, on behalf of Emma, were unfounded, and that he didn’t do any research? And that it’s the Judge who have taken the children. Well, aren’t the Judge and CPS working hand and hand? The Judge’s reason~well, here ya go folks~the big CHING CHING!!
Apparently, Judge Pam Foster-Fletcher, had been the Routh’s divorce. This Judge IS THE SAME Judge now with this CPS case. She is a Judge fully aware of this families goings on, especially with her being in part, having been the person having ruled on the stipulations in the divorce settlement.
This Judge with the knowledge of the indifferences between Emma and Daltons parents, Brandy{mother} and Clint{father} and his family members, of whom which all had part at physically abusing the children, as well as their being against Brandy deciding for Emma to have the bone marrow surgery to sustain her life. Which made cause for the judge to order that Brandy would have to agree, and sign an affidavit that would relinquish the father from incurring any of the costs, as well as her not applying for Welfare benefits. So she didn’t hesitate. Brandy was given the house and Clint ordered to pay the mortagage, which he hadn’t, nor was he enforced to do so, resulting in Brandy and the children homeless; here comes the money matter~the paid in full insurance policy on the child for 400 million buks, clints grandmother took out upon her death~the Judge ordered that the primary caregiver would receive those monies, if Clint continued to reside at his mothers, due to the abuse to the kids, but he still does, and with the state now being the Primary caregiver~they are looking at the big “400K” PLAN~CHING-CHING! With the Judges knowledge of the family history, is able to devise and knowingly, put unreachable demands on Brandy; for example, knowing Brandy and kids live at Brandy’s dads, due to losing their home-and the Judge permitting for it to happen, yet she is making one of the stipulations that Brandy acquire their own home. Then she ordered for Brandy to meet with their appointed counselor` of whom which brandy had prior consultations with so it would be a conflict of interest for her to see her now, {which i don't understand how the conflict of interest doesn't apply on the Judges' behalf} making for it to appear on record that Brandy isn’t fulfilling that which they required of her, for return of the children come the April 4th court date.
So, let me see how many of us`starts an uprising about this being done to one of OURS; A CHILD at THAT, SHE IS FOR REAL~AND NOW, BARELY ALIVE…ANYONE? ANYONE? SOMEBODY~ANYBODY? YOU FOLKS, RIGHT THERE IN TEXAS, WOULD IT BE ASKING TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO APPEAR AT ANDERSON CTY. COURTHOUSE ON APRIL 4TH, IN SUPPORT OF OUR FELLOW AMERICAN CHILDREN! YOU DON'T HAVE TO TESTIFY, so there's no worry about your kids being taken...
And yes, I am looking into prices for cost of a train there, from Philadelphia! So if any of you know/recommend of the most inexpensive route for me to take, due to my being a single parent, on a very strict fixed income and unable to afford public transportation most of the time~but I’m not giving away our kids future FREEDOMS without a fight! I WANT our Justice system to continue to do right by the future generations~OUR KIDS, if the laws that are manadated are to be manipulated and abused by THE GOVERNMENT TO IT’S PEOPLE and we permit it, then, " What the hell did those who left England, and fought for "THEIR FUTURE GENERATIONS"~US, was for nothing, if here we are~giving it right back, silently and without even a bat of the eye~just giving away our kids rights! Well, you need to hear this, and Ima tell it: War isn’t just fought over seas and anybody could want Freedom, but you have to be willing to go for it, and take it! Well, that part was done for us, don’t be pussy wusses and give it up so easily…and for those of you in fear of going to court in show of support for fear of your child might be next~well, whatta ya think your silence is giving them! You're giving our future kids rights away, making for them to have to fight another CIVIL war, again because we are too scared to back one another up...
NIP THIS IN THE BUTT!
Lynn Picciano, mother, grandmother, U.S. Citizen
Philadelphia, PA
Monday, March 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)