BIG BIG WIN FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN

Loudermilk_v_Arpaio_No_CV06-0636-PHX-EHC

From: Connecticut DCF Watch


Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:26 PM
Subject: HOT OFF THE PRESS: Here is the Federal Judge's Ruling on Coerced Cooperation against CPS/DCF.

The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional.

Today, We just got the copy of the ruling against DCF/CPS that they can NOT threaten or coerce you into cooperating with them no more than the police can threaten or coerce you into cooperating with them. This ground breaking ruling is in the attachment as a pdf file.

Pass this on to your attorney and anyone else who has been abused by DCF/CPS. Below is the news release by the organization that argued the case.

Judges also can not force parents to cooperate with DCF for that also violates parents rights to remain silent. A judge can not force parents to cooperate with DCF no more than they can force you to cooperate with the police.


Connecticut DCF Watch
Civil Rights Advocates For Families
P.O. Box 9775
Forestville, CT 06011-9775
860-833-4127
Admin@connecticutdcfwatch.com
www.connecticutDCFwatch.com


BIG BIG WIN FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN

There you have it, DCF and its employees can not threaten parents with court orders or the removal of children because parents assert their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights and refuse to cooperate. Parents do not have to cooperate with DCF what so ever and DCF employees have to go away when parents deny them access to their home and children. They must conclude their investigation without the cooperation of the parents and children.

DCF workers here in Connecticut are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can.

All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police.

Connecticut DCF Watch


October 22, 2007
Federal Judge Rules Social Worker Fear Tactics Unconstitutional
A federal court in Arizona has ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody, made to coerce cooperation with a social services investigation, violates the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.

As detailed in the March/April 2007 issue of the Court Report, social workers and sheriff’s deputies had come to the home of Home School Legal Defense Association members John and Tiffany Loudermilk, demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children. The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry to their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation.

Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff’s deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.

HSLDA filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Loudermilk family, alleging that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the unjustified threat to remove the children was a separate constitutional violation of the family’s Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and family integrity. The social workers and assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that neither the search nor the threat to remove the children violated the Loudermilks’ constitutional rights.

On September 27, 2007, the judge ruled in the Loudermilks favor, stating: “Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.” With regard to the assistant attorney general, the court ruled that “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that [the attorney] . . . by ‘threat’ exerted ‘coercive pressure’ on them to allow the search of their home so that their children would not be removed.”

The judge’s ruling allows the case to proceed to trial. “The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional,” said James R. Mason, Senior Counsel for HSLDA. “We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country.”

Other Resources

Judge’s Ruling in the Loudermilk Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)


Connecticut DCF Watch
Special Family Advocate on Constitutional Protection
P.O. Box 9775
Forestville, CT 06011-9775
860-833-4127
Admin@connecticutdcfwatch.com
www.connecticutDCFwatch.com

P.S. Check out our web site for the FREE handbook on parental rights. There is also a manual on "reasonable efforts" with sections for Attorneys, Judges and Agencies

Whores of The Court-New Book

Whores of The Court

In this provocative and well-researched book, Margaret Hagen, Ph.D, reveals how expert psychological testimony is a total fraud, showing how the courts have increasingly embraced not a cutting-edge science but, instead, a discipline that represents a terrifying retreat into fantasy and hearsay; a discipline propelled by powerful propaganda, arrogance, and greed.

Dr. Hagen sounds a clarion wake-up call, offering some startling – and much-needed – recommendations about how we can reclaim our own ability to judge and supplying vital advice on how we can protect ourselves from the ravages of psychological testimony in our own lives.


Professor
Margaret A. Hagen
“A damning indictment of the psychologizing – and undermining – of the American legal system. With righteous wrath and devastating wit, this sweeping critique should stir national debate.”

-- Publishers Weekly

N.H. Rec. employee was fired for alleged abuse

Rec. employee was fired for alleged abuse | SeacoastOnline.com:

EPPING — Notifying town officials is a central component of a new Recreation Department policy being drafted by the Board of Selectmen, interim Town Administrator Gregory Dodge, and Recreation Director Nicole Bizzaro.

Color of Law

Color (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating. [2]
The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law", it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Enforcement of "color of law" does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include forced vaccinations for school aged children under threat of expulsion or placing the child's parents under arrest where no law exists to do so. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.[3] Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. "Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer."[4]

Shy children now candidates for dangerous psychiatric drugs

Shy children now candidates for dangerous psychiatric drugs:

(NaturalNews) New guidelines for mental illness turn shyness in children from a personality trait into a mental disorder that warrants drug treatment. Drug companies already target children, who fidget too much in class or have trouble concentrating on their homework, with stimulant drugs for treating attention deficit disorder. Now children who sit too quietly or are more withdrawn than their peers will also be targeted with medication for social anxiety disorder or depression.

Learn more:

Judge Denny Chin of Federal Court Discusses Sentencing

Judge Denny Chin of Federal Court Discusses Sentencing - NYTimes.com:

ON Feb. 2, 2004, Marlo Kidd awaited sentencing before Judge Denny Chin of Federal District Court in Manhattan. She had pleaded guilty to acting as a lookout for two masked gunmen who had robbed a bank in Yonkers, and under federal sentencing guidelines, she faced a prison term of up to six years.

Ex-foster child awaits ruling on state help

Ex-foster child awaits ruling on state help | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com:

LEXINGTON, KY. — In and out of foster homes since age 6, Clairessa Johnson said she was ready to leave state care last year after she turned 18.