New CPS/DCYF Cases - Filed or Decided

New Cases - Filed or Decided:
Browse all files this Folder

AFRA

In Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463 (October 7, 2011) the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that having probable cause to remove a child is not enough to do an emergency removal; there must also be exigent circumstances, otherwise the case must be brought to a judge for a pre-removal order. This is a constitutional due process ruling so should be good in every jurisdiction. This was done as a warning shot to agency workers who do removals first and then seek to have petitions filed after the fact--the 7th Circuit granted qualified immunity in the specific case because the law wasn't yet clearly established, but it declared that from now on the law is clear on this point. We were remanded to the federal trial court on the coerced safely plan claims and the withholding of the child after the State's Attorney refused to file a petition.

So a federal civil rights suit on a removal after return could be considered where there is no exigency.

In In re A.B., the Supreme Court of Washington held that a parent has a constitutional due process right not to have the State terminate his or her relationship with a natural child "absent a finding of current parental unfitness." In re A.B., 232 P.3d 1104, 1113 (Wash. 2010) ("The first question here is whether a parent has a due process right not to have the State terminate his or her relationship with a natural child in the absence of an express or implied finding that he or she, at the time of trial, is currently unfit to parent the child. According to the United States Supreme Court, this court, and our Court of Appeals, the answer is yes.").

In In re Alonza D., Jr. & Shaydon S., the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, "the record does not reflect through evidentiary support . . . how a continued parental relationship would have caused a detriment to the children, and the trial judge made no findings to that effect." In re Alonza D., Jr. & Shaydon S., A.2d 536, 551 (Md. Ct. App. 2010). Moreover, the Court said that, "[b]ecause the record [was] silent in this regard, and because parental rights are among those deemed fundamental, we cannot say that exceptional circumstances warranted the termination of Mr. D.'s parental rights." Id. at 551-552 (emphasis added). To come to this conclusion, the Court relied on the "majority view" of its "sister states," which said that:

Because of the presumption that natural parents are fit to raise their children and/or because natural parents have a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children, or both, there must first be a finding that the natural parents are unfit, or extraordinary circumstance detrimental to the welfare of the child must first be determined to exist, before the "best interests of the child" test may be applied when private third-parties dispute custody with natural parents. Id. at 547 (quoting McDermott v. Dougherty, 869 A.2d 751 (Md. Ct. App. 2005)).

Read More:

DHS monitors' records to be kept secret

DHS monitors' records to be kept secret | Tulsa World:

Keeping progress reports and documents a secret is a provision included in a settlement approved by Oklahoma Department of Human Services officials and the plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit.

Read more

Indian family protection law central to emotional custody battle

Indian family protection law central to emotional custody battle - CNN.com:

(CNN) -- For the first few moments of her life, Veronica was with her birth mother.

I'm sure there will be many more adopted children taken from their adoptive parent's because they have Native American blood before this is over. I'm sure there will also be MANY adopted children taken from the adoptive parent's due to fraud and illegal adoptions, culminated by CPS/DCYF and the Family Court's. It doesn't matter how long the child has been with the adoptive parent's where fraud is concerned. The children MUST be returned! If the Law was followed to begin with, children wouldn't be taken from adoptive families!

Powerful video Can't explain it just watch

Memoirs of a Baby Stealer with Mary Callahan

CPS/DCYF Nationwide Lawsuit

On 1/5/2012 6:31 PM, Gail Head wrote:

I recently received this information through a group of which I am a
member. I contacted the people involved or heading this and I am
convinced it IS for real. They have corresponded by email and called
and spoken to me by phone and given me a lot more details about it and
in which it included a very in-depth phone interview with a LOT of
questions being asked and information provided by me to them.

I have been asked to be a coordinator for Texas as well as to help put
other qualifying cases in touch with them as well. This is going
"National" with suits being filed both State and Federal.

I am going to copy and paste the "requirements" below for you that
will help determine whether or not your case is candidate for
inclusion in the suits that are being filed. IF you and your case
meets the criteria and qualifies, PLEASE CONTACT ME ASAP so that I can
help you in this process.

Here is the qualifying criteria:

One of our panel member attorneys has a lawsuit against child services,
this lawsuit is a very complicated one. The types of clients the law
firm is accepting have four primary factors.

1. The parents have no serious criminal record.
2. Child services took a child or children without just cause; this
means that the home environment was stable and *no one* in the home
was abusing or neglecting the child.
3. The parent of the child that was being taken by child services was
NOT offered a trial. A trial is before a judge and in many cases a
social worker takes the stand and testifies against the parent(s)
ability to care for their own child. A trial can often be confused
with a hearing which is NOT a trial.
4. A child from a healthy home was wrongfully placed into foster care
or put , in foster care the child was harmed in some way ie.
Emotionally, physically sexually or mentally.

Do you meet all four requirements? If so, please write us back or call
us. If you do not meet all the minimum requirements for our lawsuit, we
regret that our panel of attorneys will not offer you representation and
will not be able to provide any legal services to you. However, you may
want to contact your local non-profit bar association, pro-bono service
or other sources you may know to find a lawyer. *
If you meet the requirements with perhaps the exception of the trial,
which was carried out illegally, fraudulently, or there were BOTH your
respective State and Federal STATUTES clearly violated, you may still
be considered, but that will be determined by the attorneys handling
the suit. However, the other criteria requirements must be met. If
you think this applies to you, Let me hear from you.

Email Me at ghead2007@gmail.com

Thanks,

Gail

Austin Knightly-Before and After NH DCYF