AFRA News: CPS IS out to KILL you:
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2011
CPS IS out to KILL you
One of the essays I wrote against CPS a long time ago was about the deleterious effect of CPS on your health. (CPS in your life will kill you 4-30-2004).
That essay was based on the fact that the utter terror of a CPS "investigation" DID destroy MY health and DID cause me to lose a life-time of hard work.
I still believe this was deliberate. If not deliberate, it was extremely calloused, cruel malfeasance.
Whether it was deliberate terrorism against me personally, or just regular old communism, my health- and life- WAS destroyed by it.
The words "Childrens Protective Services" carry a dictionary full of synonyms- particularly ones associated with oppression, fascism and tyranny. To people like me, "CPS" carries NO association with anything good, honorable or desirable.
Today, I read a new essay by Dr. Mercola-
3 Foods that Can Trigger a Stroke
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 10 2011
I think Dr. Mercola somewhat mis-named this article. There are some MAJOR items discussed in that article of special concern to women involving a huge multiplication of increased risk of STROKE.
That new article by Dr. Mercola should be read thoroughly ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM of the article- ESPECIALLY by women.
Because whether it is deliberate or not, CPS in your life WILL KILL YOU.
"Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own."--Aesop (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist
If CPS hasn't attacked YOUR FAMILY yet, see If you are ever approached by anyone from social services.... and WHEN THEY COME AFTER YOU
Learn as much as you can, as fast as you can at How To Fight CPS
Get YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ON THE RECORD with your Sworn Declaration
Leonard Henderson, co-founder
American Family Rights Association
http://familyrights.us
"Until Every Child Comes Home" ©
"The Voice of America's Families" ©
Posted by Leonard Henderson
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
Monday, October 10, 2011
Stop Child Adoption Bonuses & Rewards For Governors Pool Treasury
Stop Child Adoption Bonuses & Rewards For Governors Pool Treasury - The Petition Site:
Target: Barack Obama, President of the United States of America
Sponsored by: Shredded Society
While the economy falls and the employment rates drops, the states still collect state adoption bonuses and rewards for placing a child up for adoption. Families in America are not being informed in public of the fight they will be up against once entering into the family courts where there are incentives for the states to hold onto a child. A court case can be moved and guided by a financial incentive for the states to move towards termination of parental rights for the state adoption bonuses and rewards.
Adoption bonuses and rewards should not be allowed for the states as an incentive for terminating parental rights so the state can proceed towards adoption.
State child Custody Cases can be dragged out for months by the courts to acheive the 17 to 22 months time limit that gives the states reason to keep a child in states custody and terminate parental rights.
State child bonuses and rewards can cuase motivation by the states to wrongfully terminate parental rights and place a child up for adoption even when a parent is found to be perfectly fit to care for the child.
Under Missouri law statute 452.000 to terminate parental rights abandonment, abuse, or neglect must be determined.
In the case of A.M.S. these three elements were not determined in order for the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights.
Has this child been held by illegal servitude by the state of Missouri?
Should this case be brought to the media to expose the trail of how children can be taken into custody and then put up on the adoption block of the Missouri's state adoption program?
This petition of the A.M.S. case contains the full timeline and paper trail of the state's unlawful act of acting on complete and total ignorance, and or having full knowledge of their deleberate intent to create and use a child for profit, bonuses and rewards.
Which one is it, acting on ignorance or deleberate intent to set a child up for the state adoption program?
The State of Missouri Has proven by the A.M.S. case that they can select one child out of three for a state adoption.
Selecting children from a family should not be allowed for state adoptions.
*The A. M. S. case, a case that was groomed, Judges making rulings out of carelessness, and recklessness, endangering the child due to the judges carelessness and reckless decisions.
*Court appointed counselors creating false hood in order to shadow the judges mistakes and errors and or deliberate intents.
*A group of family court officers who teamed up together against the parent to acheive the same goal.
*In the end the state of Missouri collected adoption bonuses and rewards for the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, who was selected out of a family of three children.
A. Judge Carolynn Whittington put the child in the home of the other parent, whom the state would use as their excuse to take the child into state's custody.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)
B. Judge Melvynn Weisman also committed the same act as Judge Carolynn Whittington.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)
C. Judge Melvynn Weisman did the termination of parental rights.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
D. Judge Susan Block did the adoption.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on the actual photo of when the adoption proceedings took place)
E. Appeals court Judges Lawrence E. Mooney P.J. Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, J.J. would throw out the appeals or dismiss it.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
C. Guardian Ad Litim Margaret Donnelly and Brian Dunlop
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
D. Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar reported that the other parents allegations regarding the Mother were outlandish and delusional.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
E. Following the reports of the Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar, the St. Louis family courts continued to proceed toward terminating parental rights and unlawfully putting the Mother's youngest child up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court records)
F. The family courts noted in their reports that the other parent made continuous hotline calls on a daily basis.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the reports made by social services and the family courts)
G. The other parent was diagnosed with a mental desease that brought on suddent dullusions.
The St. Louis family court judges and social services had priviledged information regarding the other parents history, and still allowed the other parent to use their hotline as a means to harrass and make a full blown case out of that lead to parental termination and the child going up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the court records)
H. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported that they found evidence that the other parent was fabricating allegations to harrass the Mother and held the evidence in their locker room.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police report)
I. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported to the family courts that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives report)
J. Following the investigation of the police detectives report stating that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed, the state of Missouri still wanted to carry the case to terminate parental rights to the Mother's youngest child, selected out of three of the Mother's children.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through records)
K. The state of Missouri dressed the Mother's youngest child in a costume shortly after they took her from the other parent whom the Judges gave instant custody orders too prior to taken the child.
(This is a factual statement that can be viewed on the photographs taken by someone who works within the system and the instant custody orders can by court orders)
L. The state of Missouri began to put the Mother into federally funded programs following the police detectives orders to close the case and that no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives reports and the state of Missouri's orders to begin their programs dated after the police report to close the case)
M. On the witness stand, Social Worker, Becky Price testified that she signed a document knowing there was a lie written in it.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court transcript of her testimony and by the actual letter in which she signed)
N. The purpose of that letter was a response to the Mother's request that they would let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back sense she finished and competed all of their programs that they required her to do.
The state of Missouri's response was to "not put anything in writing to let the Mother know".
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the actual letters that the Mother sent requesting that they let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back along with their responding letter stating to the effect that they would not put anything in writing to let her know)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mother's youngest child, out of three was lined up by the state officials and instructed to stand up against the wall with other children who were also apart of Missouri's state adoptions.
The Mother's youngests child, was made to stand in a long line as she watched the court officials take two children into a room at a time, where the child would observe two children at a time being adopted out by Judge Susan Block from the St. Louis Family Courts.
Judge Susan Block has been noted in news articles along with Judge Melvynn Weisman who terminated the Mother's rights for their support together with an event called Adoption Fair Saturdays in St. Louis, Missouri.
O. From Judge Melvynn Weisman terminating the Mother's parental rights, to Judge Susan Block doing the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, to both judges working together on Adoption Fair Saturdays, gives the "ultimate impression" that they work together at acheiving the state of Missouri's adoption bonuses and rewards for children who they get adopted out.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by court records, news articles and from the memory of the Mother's youngest child who recalled the day of her state adoption)
P. The Mother's other two children were attending school and living under her roof, under her care and custody when Gaurdian Ad Litem Margeret Donnelly, Missouri State Representative, who ran for the state of Missouri's attorney general recommended that the Mother's parental rights be terminated.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by school and housing records, and a court transcript)
Q. There was a rocking chair among many others placed in the small visiting room where the Mother was court ordered to visit with her youngest child who was held by the state of Missouri.
(The above statement is factual and can be seen on a photograph and the rocking chair was referred to in the phychologist, Lisa Emmenggar and social worker, Becky Price reports)
R. The court appointed psychologist, Lisa Emennaggar testified that the Mother rocked the child to sleep during one of the court ordered visits. Lisa Emennaggar stated to the effect that there was no communication between the child and Mother during that time which indicated to her that there was no emotional connection or bonding between the Mother and child.
(The above statement is factual and the testimony of Psychologist Lisa Emmenggar can be read on the court transcript in regard to the the Mother rocking the child in the rocking chair)
Under the Missouri law statute 452.00 in order to terminate parental rights, abandonment, abuse or neglect must be determined.
None of these three elements existed to terminate the Mothers parental rights.
S. The St. Louis Family Courts were allowed by the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights, collect bonuses and rewards for the child, and destroy the files after the crime was committed.
(The message left of the St. Louis family courts stating that the files were shredded can be heard in the video in the upper left hand corner of this petition)
Read the reasons to terminate the Mother's parental rights by the St. Louis Family courts, signed by Judge Melvynn Weisman.
1: Due to the amount of time the child has been in the system, the bond has slowly diminished, leaving no reason to return the child to the Mother.
2: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a mental condition which cannot be reversed which renders the Mother unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control.
3: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a chemical dependency which cannot be treated and which prevents her from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control for the child.
4: There was no evidence presented that the Mother has committed any severe or recurrent acts of physical emotional or sexual abuse toward the child or any other child in the family.
(The above numbered four statements is factual and can be verified by the court records)
T. Social Services blocked out sections of the Mother's files with a black marker and sections of the files were deleted.
(The statement above can be verified by the actual files that social services provided)
U. On the very same day the state took the Mother's youngest child from the other parent, the state dressed her up in a costume and began to make her stand around and pose for them while they photographed her.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by viewing the actual photographs, and if you view the video above in the upper left hand corner, you can also see them presented in the video)
Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition,
Shredded Society
Target: Barack Obama, President of the United States of America
Sponsored by: Shredded Society
While the economy falls and the employment rates drops, the states still collect state adoption bonuses and rewards for placing a child up for adoption. Families in America are not being informed in public of the fight they will be up against once entering into the family courts where there are incentives for the states to hold onto a child. A court case can be moved and guided by a financial incentive for the states to move towards termination of parental rights for the state adoption bonuses and rewards.
Adoption bonuses and rewards should not be allowed for the states as an incentive for terminating parental rights so the state can proceed towards adoption.
State child Custody Cases can be dragged out for months by the courts to acheive the 17 to 22 months time limit that gives the states reason to keep a child in states custody and terminate parental rights.
State child bonuses and rewards can cuase motivation by the states to wrongfully terminate parental rights and place a child up for adoption even when a parent is found to be perfectly fit to care for the child.
Under Missouri law statute 452.000 to terminate parental rights abandonment, abuse, or neglect must be determined.
In the case of A.M.S. these three elements were not determined in order for the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights.
Has this child been held by illegal servitude by the state of Missouri?
Should this case be brought to the media to expose the trail of how children can be taken into custody and then put up on the adoption block of the Missouri's state adoption program?
This petition of the A.M.S. case contains the full timeline and paper trail of the state's unlawful act of acting on complete and total ignorance, and or having full knowledge of their deleberate intent to create and use a child for profit, bonuses and rewards.
Which one is it, acting on ignorance or deleberate intent to set a child up for the state adoption program?
The State of Missouri Has proven by the A.M.S. case that they can select one child out of three for a state adoption.
Selecting children from a family should not be allowed for state adoptions.
*The A. M. S. case, a case that was groomed, Judges making rulings out of carelessness, and recklessness, endangering the child due to the judges carelessness and reckless decisions.
*Court appointed counselors creating false hood in order to shadow the judges mistakes and errors and or deliberate intents.
*A group of family court officers who teamed up together against the parent to acheive the same goal.
*In the end the state of Missouri collected adoption bonuses and rewards for the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, who was selected out of a family of three children.
A. Judge Carolynn Whittington put the child in the home of the other parent, whom the state would use as their excuse to take the child into state's custody.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)
B. Judge Melvynn Weisman also committed the same act as Judge Carolynn Whittington.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)
C. Judge Melvynn Weisman did the termination of parental rights.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
D. Judge Susan Block did the adoption.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on the actual photo of when the adoption proceedings took place)
E. Appeals court Judges Lawrence E. Mooney P.J. Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, J.J. would throw out the appeals or dismiss it.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
C. Guardian Ad Litim Margaret Donnelly and Brian Dunlop
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
D. Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar reported that the other parents allegations regarding the Mother were outlandish and delusional.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)
E. Following the reports of the Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar, the St. Louis family courts continued to proceed toward terminating parental rights and unlawfully putting the Mother's youngest child up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court records)
F. The family courts noted in their reports that the other parent made continuous hotline calls on a daily basis.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the reports made by social services and the family courts)
G. The other parent was diagnosed with a mental desease that brought on suddent dullusions.
The St. Louis family court judges and social services had priviledged information regarding the other parents history, and still allowed the other parent to use their hotline as a means to harrass and make a full blown case out of that lead to parental termination and the child going up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the court records)
H. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported that they found evidence that the other parent was fabricating allegations to harrass the Mother and held the evidence in their locker room.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police report)
I. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported to the family courts that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives report)
J. Following the investigation of the police detectives report stating that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed, the state of Missouri still wanted to carry the case to terminate parental rights to the Mother's youngest child, selected out of three of the Mother's children.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through records)
K. The state of Missouri dressed the Mother's youngest child in a costume shortly after they took her from the other parent whom the Judges gave instant custody orders too prior to taken the child.
(This is a factual statement that can be viewed on the photographs taken by someone who works within the system and the instant custody orders can by court orders)
L. The state of Missouri began to put the Mother into federally funded programs following the police detectives orders to close the case and that no charges would be filed against the Mother.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives reports and the state of Missouri's orders to begin their programs dated after the police report to close the case)
M. On the witness stand, Social Worker, Becky Price testified that she signed a document knowing there was a lie written in it.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court transcript of her testimony and by the actual letter in which she signed)
N. The purpose of that letter was a response to the Mother's request that they would let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back sense she finished and competed all of their programs that they required her to do.
The state of Missouri's response was to "not put anything in writing to let the Mother know".
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the actual letters that the Mother sent requesting that they let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back along with their responding letter stating to the effect that they would not put anything in writing to let her know)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mother's youngest child, out of three was lined up by the state officials and instructed to stand up against the wall with other children who were also apart of Missouri's state adoptions.
The Mother's youngests child, was made to stand in a long line as she watched the court officials take two children into a room at a time, where the child would observe two children at a time being adopted out by Judge Susan Block from the St. Louis Family Courts.
Judge Susan Block has been noted in news articles along with Judge Melvynn Weisman who terminated the Mother's rights for their support together with an event called Adoption Fair Saturdays in St. Louis, Missouri.
O. From Judge Melvynn Weisman terminating the Mother's parental rights, to Judge Susan Block doing the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, to both judges working together on Adoption Fair Saturdays, gives the "ultimate impression" that they work together at acheiving the state of Missouri's adoption bonuses and rewards for children who they get adopted out.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by court records, news articles and from the memory of the Mother's youngest child who recalled the day of her state adoption)
P. The Mother's other two children were attending school and living under her roof, under her care and custody when Gaurdian Ad Litem Margeret Donnelly, Missouri State Representative, who ran for the state of Missouri's attorney general recommended that the Mother's parental rights be terminated.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by school and housing records, and a court transcript)
Q. There was a rocking chair among many others placed in the small visiting room where the Mother was court ordered to visit with her youngest child who was held by the state of Missouri.
(The above statement is factual and can be seen on a photograph and the rocking chair was referred to in the phychologist, Lisa Emmenggar and social worker, Becky Price reports)
R. The court appointed psychologist, Lisa Emennaggar testified that the Mother rocked the child to sleep during one of the court ordered visits. Lisa Emennaggar stated to the effect that there was no communication between the child and Mother during that time which indicated to her that there was no emotional connection or bonding between the Mother and child.
(The above statement is factual and the testimony of Psychologist Lisa Emmenggar can be read on the court transcript in regard to the the Mother rocking the child in the rocking chair)
Under the Missouri law statute 452.00 in order to terminate parental rights, abandonment, abuse or neglect must be determined.
None of these three elements existed to terminate the Mothers parental rights.
S. The St. Louis Family Courts were allowed by the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights, collect bonuses and rewards for the child, and destroy the files after the crime was committed.
(The message left of the St. Louis family courts stating that the files were shredded can be heard in the video in the upper left hand corner of this petition)
Read the reasons to terminate the Mother's parental rights by the St. Louis Family courts, signed by Judge Melvynn Weisman.
1: Due to the amount of time the child has been in the system, the bond has slowly diminished, leaving no reason to return the child to the Mother.
2: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a mental condition which cannot be reversed which renders the Mother unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control.
3: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a chemical dependency which cannot be treated and which prevents her from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control for the child.
4: There was no evidence presented that the Mother has committed any severe or recurrent acts of physical emotional or sexual abuse toward the child or any other child in the family.
(The above numbered four statements is factual and can be verified by the court records)
T. Social Services blocked out sections of the Mother's files with a black marker and sections of the files were deleted.
(The statement above can be verified by the actual files that social services provided)
U. On the very same day the state took the Mother's youngest child from the other parent, the state dressed her up in a costume and began to make her stand around and pose for them while they photographed her.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by viewing the actual photographs, and if you view the video above in the upper left hand corner, you can also see them presented in the video)
Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition,
Shredded Society
the Supreme Court listed five principles of law which are pertinent to a collateral attack on an adoption decree
In List Adoption
Case, supra, the Supreme Court listed five principles of law
which are pertinent to a collateral attack on an adoption decree.
In determining this appeal certain principles of
law must be kept in mind:
(1) an adoption decree
entered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties is generally immune
from collateral attack, particularly where the record
shows a substantial compliance with the adoption
statute;
(2) where the record in the adoption
proceedings affirmatively reveals a lack of
jurisdiction, then the adoption decree is subject to J. A11020/06
- 15 -collateral attack;
(3) notice to a natural parent of the
adoption proceedings and the consent of a natural
parent, where necessary, are jurisdictional
prerequisites in an adoption proceeding;
(4) when an adoption decree is collaterally attacked, the entry of
the decree raises a presumption of its validity and
regularity and an implication arises that the court did
find the necessary facts and did perform all the steps
essential to the jurisdiction of the court;
(5) the burden is upon the person attacking an adoption
decree to establish its invalidity by clear and
convincing evidence.
Case, supra, the Supreme Court listed five principles of law
which are pertinent to a collateral attack on an adoption decree.
In determining this appeal certain principles of
law must be kept in mind:
(1) an adoption decree
entered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties is generally immune
from collateral attack, particularly where the record
shows a substantial compliance with the adoption
statute;
(2) where the record in the adoption
proceedings affirmatively reveals a lack of
jurisdiction, then the adoption decree is subject to J. A11020/06
- 15 -collateral attack;
(3) notice to a natural parent of the
adoption proceedings and the consent of a natural
parent, where necessary, are jurisdictional
prerequisites in an adoption proceeding;
(4) when an adoption decree is collaterally attacked, the entry of
the decree raises a presumption of its validity and
regularity and an implication arises that the court did
find the necessary facts and did perform all the steps
essential to the jurisdiction of the court;
(5) the burden is upon the person attacking an adoption
decree to establish its invalidity by clear and
convincing evidence.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Supreme Court ruling allows grandparents custody rights
Supreme Court ruling allows grandparents custody rights :: New York Family Law Blog:
But what about the rest of the Grandparent's and relatives who've already lost their grandchildren due to Federal mandates never being followed? Family members were never even considered. Will this be just another law that DCYF/CPS won't follow? Is there any recourse for these families?
Posted On: October 3, 2011 by Stephen Bilkis
Supreme Court ruling allows grandparents custody rights
The Supreme Court in South Dakota has ruled in favor of grandparents being granted parental custody of their grandchildren, said a NY Family Lawyer. This ruling is being seen as a victory for children whose parents are seen as unfit because it gives the children a chance to have a stable family life with grandparents or other people who love them instead of being thrust into foster care with strangers. The Family Lawyer in NYC mentioned that in such circumstances, a judge will rule in favor of the grandparents or others who know the child if it has been deemed that the biological parents are not capable of providing basic needs, like food, shelter and clothing. This comes as great news to grandparents and other relatives who do not want to see the children taken out of the context of their family because of the ineptitude of the parents. According to the Lawyer, it makes sense to allow the children to be raised by family members who are not their parents because it gives them stability in knowing that they are valued members of their family and that even though their biological parents may have been facing unforeseen circumstances that has labeled them unfit, they can continue to be appreciated and nurtured within the larger family unit that they have come to know. Reports received by the courts in New York City and Long Island suggest that drug and alcohol abuse can contribute to a biological parent losing custody of their children, as con domestic violence. Extenuating circumstances such as homelessness can also be cases in which another family member might win custody of the child if it is seen as being a solution that offers the child a better quality of life and stability. Determining custody and parental rights can be stressful and emotionally devastating, especially when one does not know all of the options available in such a situation.
A New York Family Attorney can help ease the struggle and pain in situations where the needs of the child must be taken into consideration. A reputable New York Family Attorney will represent you fairly, honestly and accurately. The firm of Stephen Bilkis & Associates with convenient locations thorughout the Metropolitan Area, including servicing Tribeca, NY City, can be of invaluable assistance to you if you find yourself a party to a case. Facing the Court without professional representation could lead to disastrous results.
But what about the rest of the Grandparent's and relatives who've already lost their grandchildren due to Federal mandates never being followed? Family members were never even considered. Will this be just another law that DCYF/CPS won't follow? Is there any recourse for these families?
Posted On: October 3, 2011 by Stephen Bilkis
Supreme Court ruling allows grandparents custody rights
The Supreme Court in South Dakota has ruled in favor of grandparents being granted parental custody of their grandchildren, said a NY Family Lawyer. This ruling is being seen as a victory for children whose parents are seen as unfit because it gives the children a chance to have a stable family life with grandparents or other people who love them instead of being thrust into foster care with strangers. The Family Lawyer in NYC mentioned that in such circumstances, a judge will rule in favor of the grandparents or others who know the child if it has been deemed that the biological parents are not capable of providing basic needs, like food, shelter and clothing. This comes as great news to grandparents and other relatives who do not want to see the children taken out of the context of their family because of the ineptitude of the parents. According to the Lawyer, it makes sense to allow the children to be raised by family members who are not their parents because it gives them stability in knowing that they are valued members of their family and that even though their biological parents may have been facing unforeseen circumstances that has labeled them unfit, they can continue to be appreciated and nurtured within the larger family unit that they have come to know. Reports received by the courts in New York City and Long Island suggest that drug and alcohol abuse can contribute to a biological parent losing custody of their children, as con domestic violence. Extenuating circumstances such as homelessness can also be cases in which another family member might win custody of the child if it is seen as being a solution that offers the child a better quality of life and stability. Determining custody and parental rights can be stressful and emotionally devastating, especially when one does not know all of the options available in such a situation.
A New York Family Attorney can help ease the struggle and pain in situations where the needs of the child must be taken into consideration. A reputable New York Family Attorney will represent you fairly, honestly and accurately. The firm of Stephen Bilkis & Associates with convenient locations thorughout the Metropolitan Area, including servicing Tribeca, NY City, can be of invaluable assistance to you if you find yourself a party to a case. Facing the Court without professional representation could lead to disastrous results.
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
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
Saturday, October 8, 2011
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)