IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 6, 2012 Session JANESSA R.K.B.E. and KYLE L.E.

http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/janessarkbeopn.pdf

This case involves three children, whom CPS placed into a Foster home and filed for the adoption of these children, illegally, in a court that did not have jurisdiction. The children were adopted by this couple while the Grandmother had Motion's pending in the Court that had jurisdiction. The CPS Worker stated the adoptive couple were relatives of the children, which they weren't.
How much more abuse must we be put through? When will CPS EVER be held accountable for their deceitful practices? More lies. When does it STOP!


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
March 6, 2012 Session
JANESSA R.K.B.E. and KYLE L.E.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County
No. 3-58-11 Hon. Wheeler Rosenbalm, Judge
No. E2011-01254-COA-R3-CV-FILED-APRIL 9, 2012
Petitioners petitioned the Trial Court to adopt three children. The Trial Court, upon hearing
the evidence, held that the adoptive parents had met all the legal requirements to adopt the
children and that it was in the best interest of the children for the petitioners to adopt them.
Following the adoption order, one of the children's grandmother filed a motion in the Trial
Courtseeking Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 relief. The Trial Court overruled the grandmother's motion
and the grandmother appealed to this Court.  We hold the grandmother was not a necessary
party at the proceedings, did not seek to intervene in the adoption proceedings, and was not
entitled to seek relief under the Rule 60 motion. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.
Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed.
HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. MICHAEL
SWINEY, J., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., joined.
Danny C. Garland, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ruth Cummins.
N. David Roberts, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Terry Christopher Epling and
Pamela Diane Epling.
OPINION
Petitioners, Terry and Pamela Epling, filed a Petition to AdoptJanessa K, Kyle B., and
Cheyanne N., in the Knox County Circuit Court on February 9, 2011. Petitioners averred thatthe Tennessee Department of Children’s Services had complete guardianship of the children
through a termination of parental rights, and had the right to place the children for adoption
and consent to the adoption. Petitioners stated that they were the foster parents of the
children, and the children were living with them and had been since June 11 , 2010.
Petitioners stated that there had been full compliance with the law regarding proper consent
to adoption and termination of parental rights, and that those documents would be filed by
the Department of Children's services as part of its home study/court report. Petitioners
concluded by asking the Court to be allowed to adopt the children and have their last names
formally changed to Epling.
The Court entered an Order of Reference directing that a home study be performed,
and on March 2, 2011, the Court entered a Final Order of Adoption, stating that all necessary
parties were before the Court, that DCS was acting in loco parentis for the children and had
joined in the cause for the purpose of giving consent to the adoption, and that no one else was
required to be notified. The Court found that everything necessary to proceed with the
adoption and parental termination had been completed as reflected in the home study, and
that the six-month waiting period could be waived because the children had been living with
petitioners for more than six months. The Court concluded that the petitioners were fit
persons to have the care and custody of the children, and that adoption was in the children’s
best interests, and thus granted the adoption.
On March 25, 2011, Ruth Cummins, who alleged that she was the paternal
grandmother of the child Janessa, filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Adoption pursuant
to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 “and any other applicable rule”. She alleged that Janessa’s biological
father passed away on April 7, 2008, and that her biological mother surrendered her parental
rights on November 3, 2010. Cummins alleged that DCS obtained custody of the children
on May 17, 2010, in the Knox County Juvenile Court, and that she filed a pro se petition
seeking custody in that court on May 25, 2010.
Cummins alleged that she later filed a motion seeking grandparent visitation on
November 23, 2010, in the Knox County Juvenile Court, and that her motion had been set
to be heard on March 7, 2011, along with her petition for custody, but the adoption was
granted before she had her hearing. Cummins sought to have the Final Order of Adoption set
aside, and asked for a hearing on her petitions.
The Eplings filed a Response, denying that Cummins had standing to challenge the
Final Order of Adoption because she was not a party to the proceedings, and that she had no
guardianship/custodial rights nor right to notice.
The Court held a hearing on April 29, 2011, and entered an Order Overruling the
-2-Motion to Set Aside Order of Adoption, and found that it could not grant any relief to
Cummins under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60, nor that it could grant her any relief under relevant
Tennessee statutory law.
Cummins appealed and presents these issues on appeal (no transcript was filed in the
record):
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in entering a Final Order of Adoption where
Cummins, who was a party in the Juvenile Court action, was not afforded
notice and an opportunity to participate?
2. Whether the Petition to Adopt is fatally flawed in that the father’s rights were
never terminated nor surrendered?
3. Whether the adoption should be set aside as DCS’ authority to place the
children for adoption was void as a matter of law?
On appeal, Cummins insists that she should have been given notice of the adoption
proceedings and an opportunity to participate. She also asserts that because the biological
father’s rights were never terminated nor surrendered, the Petition to Adopt is fatally flawed,
and DCS never had full authority to place the children for adoption.
Cummins admits that her son, the biological father of Janessa, died on April 7, 2008,
and that Janessa’s biological mother subsequently surrendered her parental rights. She
asserts, however, that the mother’s surrender was not sufficient to grant DCS the right to
consent to adoption of the children, because the father’s rights were never surrendered or
terminated. This argument is without merit, as parental rights obviously terminate upon a
parent’s death. In re CAF, 114 S.W.3d 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)(“An adoption petition
may be preceded by the death of parents, a termination of parental rights, or a surrender of
those rights.”) The adoption statute expressly states that, “death of the consenting parent or
termination of parental rights of such parent by a validly executed surrender or by court
action prior to the entry of the adoption order will make any requirements for the parental
consent contained herein unnecessary.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-117(g)(5).
The remaining issue is whether Cummins was entitled to notice and/or an opportunity
to participate in the adoption proceedings. The Eplings assert that she was not, and further,
have sought a ruling that her appeal should be dismissed because she was not a party to the
proceedings below.
Cummins counters that she had sought visitation and custody in the Knox County
-3-Juvenile Court, but the record is devoid of any allegation that she had been granted either.
In fact, she admits in her Motion that her petitions were pending and had never been heard.
Accordingly, she was not one of the listed persons entitled to participate in the adoption
proceedings pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-117, which states that only “the legal
parents, guardian of the person of the child or of an adult, the biological mother, and the
established father or putative father of the child must be made parties to the adoption
proceeding”. That provision goes on to state that “[o]ther biological or legal relatives of the
child or the adult are not necessary parties to the proceeding and shall not be entitled to
notice of the adoption proceedings unless they are legal guardians as defined in §36-1-102
or legal custodians of the person of the child or adult at the time the petition is filed.” Tenn.
Code Ann. §36-1-117(d)(1). In this case, Cummins was neither a legal guardian nor
custodian.
Finally, Cummins argues that she should have been given notice and an opportunity
to participate based on her status as grandparent. As this Court ruled in In re Adoption of
Taylor, 678 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984), biological grandparents are not entitled to
notice of adoption proceedings concerning a grandchild, and are not entitled to intervene as
a matter of right in those proceedings. However, Cummins further argues that if the
proceedings in Knox County Juvenile Court had been properly transferred to the Circuit
Court, as the statute requires, then she would have been a proper party to the adoption
proceedings. What the statute requires, however, is that “any proceedings that may be
pending seeking the custody or guardianship of the child or visitation with the child who is
in the physical custody of the petitioners on the date the petition is filed, . . . shall be
suspended pending the court’s orders in the adoption proceeding, and jurisdiction of all other
pending matters concerning the child . . . shall be transferred to and assumed by the adoption
court; provided, that until the adoption court enters any orders affecting the child’s custody
or guardianship as permitted by this part, all prior parental or guardian authority, prior court
orders regarding custody or guardianship, or statutory authority concerning the child’s status
shall remain in effect.” Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-116(f)(2). The statute further states that the
adoption court has “exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the child”. Tenn. Code
Ann. §36-1-116(f)(1).
As this Court has previously explained, adoptions are “governed by statutes which are
in derogation of the common law”, and must be strictly construed. In re Adoption of Taylor,
678 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). We are required to strictly construe the provisions
outlined above governing who is necessary to be a party to adoption proceedings and who
is entitled to notice. See Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-117. As a grandparent with no custodial
or guardianship rights, Cummins was not entitled to notice of the adoption proceedings, nor
-4-was she entitled to be made a party.
1
Moreover, Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 is designed to correct errors in judgments and is to be
utilized by a “party” or a “party’s legal representative”. Cummins was not a party to the
adoption proceedings and thus, the Trial Court correctly ruled that it could not grant her any
relief pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.
The Judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded, with the cost of
the appeal assessed to Ruth Cummins.
_________________________________
HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J.

NH Attorney General accuses House committee of harassing, intimidating DCYF

Attorney General accuses House committee of harassing, intimidating DCYF - NashuaTelegraph.com:

Poor Babies! How's it feel to be on the receiving end for a change?

CONCORD – Attorney General Michael Delaney accused a new House committee charged with hearing grievances against public officials with showing a “bias” and having a “chilling effect” on the state’s mission to protect children.

In a strongly-worded letter to House Speaker William O’Brien, R-Mont Vernon, Delaney said the committee repeatedly asked loaded questions and tried to badger those leading the Division of Children Youth and Families to defend the agency about sensitive and private cases.

N.H. Attorney general slams grievance panel

Attorney general slams grievance panel | New Hampshire NEWS06:

CONCORD – Attorney General Michael Delaney is criticizing a recently established legislative committee that he says is straining his agency's resources and jeopardizing the welfare of children.
In a letter sent Monday, Delaney outlines his concerns with the House Redress of Grievance Committee.
“Over the last year, I have observed, with increasing concern, the negative impact the Redress of Grievance Committee is having on the State's effort to protect the health and safety of New Hampshire's children,” Delaney writes.
The six-page letter is addressed to House Speaker William O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, with copies sent to Rep. Paul Ingbretson, R- Pike, the chair of the grievance committee, and Senate President Peter Bragdon, R-Milford.
The letter refers to efforts by the committee to have representatives of the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) appear and testify before the panel. Many of the grievances fielded by the committee pertain to child-custody cases.
READ MORE:


Time to be held accountable for ALL of their Deceitful practices!

CPS Commit's Perjury, Children are Still Taken

Why is it CPS/DCYF is NEVER prosecuted for perjury, but us peon's would be sent to jail? What makes them any better than the rest of us? Is it because they can predict the future? Is it because they walk on water and have the power of God? These are their proclamation's, NOT mine. They may really believe they're better than the rest of us, but in all reality they aren't even human!

Why do we have law's that state Hearsay is NOT admissible in Court, but indeed Hearsay is the reason most children are stolen from their families? Do the Family Court's need a wake-up call? Do they just sit back and let CPS/DCYF run their Court's, too lazy to look into new laws passed? Why are Judges NOT holding CPS/DCYF accountable for their perjury and deceitful practices? Why do we have law's if the "great and powerful" CPS/DCYF don't have to follow them?

I've already written several times about the DCYF Lawyer Kate McClure who relayed a PROVEN false report to Judge James Leary. Remember, she told Judge Leary the supposed abuse was happening in my home? Do you also remember I am in possession of the false report which doesn't state where the supposed abuse took place? Now how could Judge Leary LEGALLY deny my husband and I custody of our granddaughter without reading the false report? Without checking with the Assessment worker to see if it was true? It's quite obvious he read NOTHING! Nothing to substantiate the supposed abuse took place in my home! Nothing to substantiate any abuse to begin with. Already proven a false report by CPSW Tracy Roukie, who stated "Case Closed". Yet here we are, still denied our grandchildren due to a DCYF Lawyer's perjury and the Judge who did nothing about it! Two children, illegally stolen and illegally adopted!

Now another case of perjury by DCYF, not prosecuted of course and again NOT substantiated!
After two of my grandchildren were placed in my home, due to a PROVEN false report, okayed by Judge Kinghorn and then Judge Leary. Against the wishes of DCYF Lawyer Darrin Hood-Tucker, who pushed against placement in our home because my younger daughter who lived with us had an open case. Judge Leary didn't listen to her for once and stated the children would be fine there as long as she didn't babysit.

Darrin Tucker went Judge shopping, trying to find another Judge to overrule Judge Leary to remove the children from my home. It was stated by Darrin Tucker in the Motion to modify the court order that DCYF didn't want my daughter to have contact with her niece and nephew. It stated she was using illegal drug's in my home. That's odd, because her caseworker Kris Geno was having her drug tested daily. The only drug in her system was Methadone, from a legal Methadone Treatment clinic which they already knew she was in.

For some strange reason, Judge Leary himself signed the Motion to modify the court order. Not fifteen minutes later, two DCYF worker's and four Police Officer's were at my door, without a court order or warrant to take the two children. After being asked if they had either, DCYF said they did, but would not produce either one. I found out later, they had neither. The kids were dragged away, due to more DCYF perjury.

I'm sure there are plenty of parent's and family member's out their with their own horror stories of perjury committed by CPS/DCYF, not to mention their other deceitful practices in the kidnapping of their children and the Judges who coetoe to the whims of DCYF.  If any of you would like to share your horror stories, I would be ever so happy to post. After all, maybe, just maybe our government will start holding the beast accountable!

Two Little Boys - Child Protective Services - Nuclear Research performed on Children part 2

DMVC Productions: Two Little Boys - Child Protective Services - Nuclear Research performed on Children part 2:

Reference to post on 4/8/12; an anonymous source provided me with the name of one of the homes in Massachusetts doing Nuclear Research on Children.

It was done at the Walter E. Fernald State School, in Waltham Ma. a school that was and is still publicly funded; experiments conducted on Children by representatives of Boston's Harvard University and MIT funded in part by the "Quaker Oats Company"which resulted in http://tech.mit.edu/V117/N65/bfernald.65n.html a settlement of  1.85 million dollar's for "some" albeit not all the Children tested on; nor does it take into consideration that State Child Protection Service workers allowed children to be bribed and gave consent for the majority of residents to have the testing performed on them.

Cross reference the last article and it shows that the Department for Health and Human Services for which Child Services falls under was one additional U.S. Government office that was involved in promoting this testing in addition to the Department of Energy.  


Read More:

Vermont joins other New England states to develop a Sibling Bill of Rights for children and youth in state custody

Vermont joins other New England states to develop a Sibling Bill of Rights for children and youth in state custody:

Essex, VT— At the 2012 Youth Conference held today at Johnson State College, Department for Children and Families (DCF) Commissioner Dave Yacovone signed a Sibling Bill of Rights — formally recognizing the value of sibling relationships and reinforcing the department’s commitment to preserving these important connections for children and youth in state care. Commissioner Yacovone was joined by DCF Family Services Division Deputy Commissioner Cindy Walcott, Youth Development Committee Board President Nick Gee, State Youth Development Program Coordinator Katherine Boise, and Americorps VISTA member Quinn Lockwood who also signed the bill.


Read More:

High ranking expected in foster care problems

High ranking expected in foster care problems | Tulsa World:


 Read the child welfare improvement plan.

Don't be surprised if Oklahoma is No. 1 in the nation next year for abuse and neglect of children in foster care, state officials say.

Read more