New definitions of child abuse "Imminent danger". Part 3 of 3

Foster Parents; New definitions of child abuse "Imminent danger". Part 3 of 3 - National Foster Families | Examiner.com:

Imminent danger. Part 3 of 3

In part 2 we were exploring a what if scenario. If CPS comes to your door saying they have had a report that your child (ren) are in imminent danger, from you or someone in your household. Now we gave you the methods that have worked best across the nation. Now we offer you a few more quotes from one of our favorite websites, Massoutrage.

Let us continue;
One of the favorite tactics of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF - Formerly Dept. Of Social Services) is to come on Friday night to take children from homes. They have special after-hours units which roam around like devouring monsters and remove children in the nighttime. This accomplishes several things. You are not expecting it, so it strikes more terror and fear. If they get your children, then they then get to keep them all weekend, and to obtain disclosures about abuse or neglect for court purposes, often using mind altering drugs to do so. And, you can't do anything about it on Friday night, since the court is closed.

You may have an inkling that the people on your porch want your child. Or you may not know why they are there. Either way, you have the best chance of keeping your family intact if you follow the instructions in this material. They are not foolproof, but they have helped many families to make the intruders go away.

Mr. Hession’s first rule; Shut up.
Another quote from Mass outrage website

“The first DCF dirty trick is making you think they would NEVER use dirty tricks to take your children. Beneath the nice exterior of your friendly DCF agent is a person whose job is to take children - your children. DCF takes children from about 25% of the families for which they provide services, and that percentage is on the increase.

Now you have learned what this new phrase now being utilized across our country means. You know what to do if this phrase is heard from your doorstep. Agencies are using this term to remove foster children from their current foster homes. You will have an Administrative Inquiry and/or an Administrative Hearing, this term must be defined as to what the danger was and what the Investigative report indicated. You are entitled to a copy of that report prior to the Hearing date.

Do you know your rights? If not it is time for you to go back to school, my friend.

Suggested reading; Educational Resources first listing and second listing part 1 / part 2 / part 3

Nfpcar.org or Foster Parents Legal Solutions come learn with us, travel on the road to learning with us. We are your educational resource. More info on handling your own case, Link.

Changing definitions of child abuse "Imminent danger". 1 / 3

Foster Parents; Changing definitions of child abuse "Imminent danger". 1 / 3 - National Foster Families | Examiner.com:

"Imminent danger". Part 1 of 3

In this series, we are going to be examining several different definitions (phrases) we have seen used to charge foster parents with child abuse. It is our responsibility to keep our finger on the pulse of our nation, keeping CPS under a microscope unfortunately, is required for the survival of parenting in general. We have a very creative protection entity?

Why is this relevant to you, because the more prepared you are the better your response to these situations. As we remind you that we are not attorneys, just advocates who teach you how to not only protect yourself and your families but stand with you in defense of parenting across the United States.
Now that said, let us continue. The phrases we are looking at in this series.

Part 1. Imminent danger.

Part 2. Preponderance of evidence.

Terminology being used more frequently.


Part 3. Medical neglect.

Part 4. Failure to protect.

Let us get started with Part 1. Imminent danger.

When someone tells you imminent danger, exactly what does this mean? It means that your child is in immediate danger. Let us give you an example of this.

Normally one does research on any word (s) or phrase we are defining, however; there is no explanation available on this phrase. . We researched Blacks, Barons, and our favorite legal dictionary sites Find Law.com none of which had a explanation for “imminent danger”. Therefore, we must seek our own definition.

First source let our favorite definitions reference, Wikipedia where we find this statement;

The page "Imminent danger" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

Now let us go to Webster’s Dictionary for our first word imminent.

Imminent denotes that something is ready to fall or happen on the instant; as, in imminent danger of one's life.
Danger; Exposure to injury, peril; risk; insecurity.
Note; we are not quoting in entirety for obvious reasons, we have selected one of the definitions in each word.

Now combine the two definitions for an explanation of this phrase recently put into operation in child abuse cases. Understand, this phrase (terminology) is utilized by Child Protective Services not just the foster care community, but also in biological homes.

Define; you are accused of exposing the child to immediate loss, pain, or other harm. The child is unsafe in your care, or in your foster home.
How could this phrase be used against me, you ask? Let us set up a framework, ready? Your doorbell rings, opening the door you find a social worker and a police officer on your porch, they tell you that they have a report indicating that a child (ren) is (are) in “imminent danger”. Okay, so now you have someone who has reported you because they believe that a foster child (ren) in your home is (are) in danger?

Stay with us as we explore many very interesting terms, child abuse is on the rise? Are we worse parents or is the term "child abuse" expanding to cover whatever we do?

Suggested reading Define Child Abuse. Part 1 / part 2 /part 3 / part 4.

Suggested by the author:
Foster Parents; the Foster Care System can it be salvaged? Slide show part 1 of 12
Foster Parents; the Foster Care System, can it be salvaged? Part 2 0f 12
Foster Parents; the Foster Care System, Can we salvage it? Part 3 of 12
Foster Parents; the Foster Care System, Can we salvage it? Part 4 of 12
Foster Parents; the Foster Care System, can it be salvaged? part 5 of 12

Foster Parents; All parents, CPS where does it end?

Foster Parents; All parents, CPS where does it end? - National Foster Families | Examiner.com:

Marilyn Harrison, Foster Families Examiner
November 4, 2011

Foster Parents; All parents

CPS, where does it end?

Our office received two particularly disturbing messages this week. The source does no matter, what does matter is the infringement on the rights of all parents across this nation, we the people. We offer you a few disturbing quotes from this article. Written by Shaun Rabb, Published FOX 4 News,Thursday, 03 Nov 2011. Link to article.

DALLAS; “Child Protective Services workers showed up at the Occupy Dallas camp Thursday to question a family about living in a tent with a 9-month-old baby.“ Apparently they are trying to say my baby is unsafe here. My baby is clothed, fed, has a space heater, has food formula, everything he needs,” he said”.

The article went on to say “CPS is familiar with the family. The agency had been looking for them since Sept. 23”, “I’m hoping that our son and us will be able to walk out of the CPS office. We’ve done nothing wrong. We’re doing nothing wrong. We’ve broken no laws. Our baby’s not neglected,” Karpich said. Our final quote, “Thursday, several dozen Occupy Dallas demonstrators were out protesting to save a historic Dallas bridge and create jobs”.

Question; is your family being looked at by CPS. So, for clarification purposes, let us understand that a family living in a tent in these economic times is subject to scrutiny by CPS. The fact that this family is affiliated or somehow connected to Occupy has nothing to do with this right.

On the other hand, we see so many instances where CPS was informed of abuse taking place in a home, at times a home where they have successfully reunified the child with the parents. Unfortunately, it is the child, or in most cases, the baby who discovers the unwise decision made on his/her behalf. We see in the news that many children die every year most under the age of one year.
We have said repeatedly, the ones who know the children and/or the real biological parents are the foster parents who see the results, the aftermath of visits to their parents. We also see the real efforts the parents are making trying to get their children back. Question; Do agencies ask or even consider our opinions? Yet, Congress acknowledged our worth by giving us the right to appear in court on behalf of our foster children?

We all hope for reunification, that is our goal, however; we would like to see a realistic team effort in the approach to reunification efforts.
Being poor, struggling to makes ends meet, losing our homes, our jobs, living in a tent does not mean we are bad parents, that we are guilty of child abuse, or should lose our children. There are enough real child abuse cases to keep CPS working steady without creating child abuse definitions to fit whatever parents do in relation to their children.

The key word is their children, our children, we the people. Remember us?
Suggested by the author:
Foster Parents; CPS in the news.
Foster Parents; CPS house coming down.

Kangaroo court

Kangaroo court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

A kangaroo court is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".[1]
The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. A kangaroo court's proceedings deny, hinder or obstruct due process rights in the name of expediency. Typically, a kangaroo court will deliberately abuse one or more of the following rights of the accused:
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
right to control one's own defense e.g. selecting one's own defense counsel
right to hear a full and precise statement of the charges made against the accused
right to have adequate time and resources to prepare a defense against the charges
right not to incriminate oneself
right to summon witnesses
right of cross-examination
right to introduce evidence which supports acquittal of the accused
right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay
right not to be tried on secret evidence
right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality, prejudice or conflict of interest
right to have a verbatim stenographic record of the trial proceedings created
right to have no interference or undue influence made by external agencies e.g. political or military leaders
right of appeal against conviction
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Mock justice
2.1 Examples of show trials
3 As informal proceedings in sports
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit]Etymology

The term kangaroo court may have been popularized during the California Gold Rush of 1849. The first recorded use is from 1853 in a Texas context.[2] It comes from the notion of justice proceeding "by leaps", like a kangaroo.[2] The phrase is considered an Americanism.[2]
[edit]Mock justice

The term is often applied to courts subjectively judged as such, while others consider the court to be legitimate and legal. A kangaroo court may be a court that has had its integrity compromised; for example, if the judge is not impartial and refuses to be recused.
It may also be an elaborately scripted event intended to appear fair while having the outcome predetermined from the start. Terms meaning "show trial", like the German Schauprozess, indicate the result is fixed before (usually guilty): the "trial" is just for show. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's kangaroo trials against his enemies, whom he labeled enemies of the people, were notorious, notably in the context of the Great Purge.
In 2008, Singapore’s Attorney-General applied to the High Court to commence contempt proceedings against three individuals who appeared in the new Supreme Court building wearing identical white T-shirts bearing a palm-sized picture of a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s gown.[3]
Following the January 25 Revolution in Egypt in 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces used military trials to obtain convictions of civilians in possibly over 10,000 trials that lasted on average 20 minutes, and in some cases lasting only a few minutes.[4]

Maryanne Godboldo finally gets daughter back from state child abductors; all charges confirmed as unwarranted

Maryanne Godboldo finally gets daughter back from state child abductors; all charges confirmed as unwarranted:

(NaturalNews) The horrific saga of Maryanne Godboldo's battle with domestic terrorists in the government of her home state of Michigan appear to finally be coming to an end. The Detroit Free Press reports that two higher courts have confirmed the ruling of a lower court several months ago that Godboldo's refusal to administer the dangerous Risperdal drug to her daughter was fully legal, and that all charges and actions taken against her by the state were unwarranted.

Learn more:

Letter From Jurors in State vs. Wendy Titelman – Jury Takes a Stand For Mother and Children…

Letter From Jurors in State vs. Wendy Titelman – Jury Takes a Stand For Mother and Children… | Carver County Corruption:

Julia Fletcher states: State vs. Caroline Rice reminds me of the letter the jury foreman sent to the judge in Wendy Titelman’s case:

“State of Georgia vs. Wendy Titelman

Child Protective Services – in DC’s Roque Gerald’s CPS (CFSA) Corruption and Coverup

Child Protective Services – in DC’s Roque Gerald’s CPS (CFSA) Corruption and Coverup | Affluent.WS:

Child Protective Services - in DC's Roque Gerald's CPS (CFSA) Corruption and Coverup


Washington DC Child Protective Services (CFSA) clearly does not do ongoing criminal background checks on ALL of its employees, including its executives. Corrupt officials interferred with at least one investigation(s), and a call is made for reopening those investigations.