What's next for baby boy left at city hospital?

What's next for baby boy left at city hospital? | SeacoastOnline.com:

Under New Hampshire's safe haven law, the hospital or other entity caring for the child must notify law enforcement and Department of Health and Human Services officials of the situation within 24 hours.


PORTSMOUTH — A newborn baby boy who was left at Portsmouth Regional Hospital over the weekend remained there Tuesday, hospital spokeswoman Nancy Notis said.
Read More:


Note:The Safe Haven Law is a good thing, but when DCYF get's involved, that's a whole different story.

Maggie Bishop, director of the state Division for Children, Youth & Families, said she could not comment on the specifics of the local case.

"Our role is to provide for the safety of a child in question," she said.

When the baby is released from the hospital, Bishop said, he will most likely be released to the state. Bishop said the state's job in the process is to provide for the baby, while at the same time try to locate his birth parents to help establish future legal guardianship.

"If we were able to find a parent, we would try to work with them to make a long-term legal situation (regarding guardianship)," Bishop said. "If we can't find them, then the baby would go into foster care."
These are the word's of a woman who can NOT be trusted.

Bishop said DCYF will look for the baby's parents for six months before the baby is made available for adoption.

Yes indeed, DCYF will look for the parent's to bring charges against them, making sure any children they have in the future are removed. Guardianship is a crock of bull. NH DCYF very seldom, if ever allows Guardianship. Every child they take into their possession, is placed in foster care and then adopted. That's how they make their money. Guardianship in NH? What's that? There's no money to be made in Guardianship.

“PREDICTIVE NEGLECT” CASES BASED ON PARENT’S MENTAL HEALTH

“PREDICTIVE NEGLECT” CASES BASED ON PARENT’S MENTAL HEALTH:

Location:
CHILD ABUSE; MENTAL HEALTH;
Scope:
Connecticut laws/regulations; Court Cases;

February 15, 2012		2012-R-0103
“PREDICTIVE NEGLECT” CASES BASED ON PARENT'S MENTAL HEALTH
By: Hendrik deBoer, Research Fellow Mark Randall, Research Fellow

You asked for information on child neglect cases where Connecticut courts affirmed the use of the “predictive neglect” doctrine and removed a child from a parent's custody based on that parent's mental illness.
SUMMARY
By law, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) can remove children from their parents' custody and move to terminate parental rights if it believes the children have been neglected. Predictive neglect is a common-law doctrine that the state's child welfare system uses to determine whether neglect has occurred on the basis of conditions that are “injurious to the child's well-being.” Under this doctrine, the child has not been harmed; rather, there is an allegation that the child could be harmed in the future. DCF has regularly relied on the predictive neglect doctrine to both (1) remove children from their parents' custody and (2) terminate parental rights.
DCF policy establishes factors that could constitute predictive neglect. Although the policy does not include a parent's unstable mental health as one such factor, DCF has routinely pointed to such as grounds for removing children from their parents' custody. Likewise, the courts have regularly affirmed these cases and have upheld DCF's removal. In these cases, the courts have insisted that the parties petitioning for removal meet a burden of proof threshold.
CHILD NEGLECT
Definition
The law provides that “[a] child or youth may be found 'neglected' who (A) has been abandoned, (B) is being denied proper care and attention, physically educationally, emotionally or morally, (C) is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child or youth, or (D) has been abused” (CGS § 46b-120(8))
Process
The law allows DCF, among others, to file a neglect petition with the local Superior Court alleging that a child or youth is “neglected.” Often, this filing is accompanied with a Motion for Order of Temporary Custody (OTC). In these cases, if the court determines, based on affidavits provided by DCF, that there is “reasonable cause to believe that (1) the child or youth is suffering from serious physical illness or serious physical injury or is in immediate physical danger from the child's or youth's surroundings, and (2) that as a result of said conditions, the child's or youth's safety is endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary to ensure the child's or youth's safety,” the court may issue an ex parte order of temporary custody, placing the child or youth with DCF. In emergency cases, DCF also has the power to initiate a 96-hour administrative hold, allowing the department to immediately take custody of a child or youth without court approval. Following this, the agency must go to court as soon as possible to move for an OTC.
Whether the neglect petition is filed on its own or as part of an OTC, parents are entitled to a neglect trial, a full trial to determine whether the child or youth is “neglected” under state law. DCF has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in these trials. The court considers any evidence pertinent to the child or youth's living situation and the parent or parents' ability to care for the child or youth. A finding by the court that the child or youth is “neglected” may result in an order of protective supervision, the commitment of the child or youth, a transfer of custody or, in severe cases, termination of parental rights (CGS § 46b-129).
Predictive Neglect
DCF may allege that has a child has been “neglected” based on one or more of the law's four criteria. It is under the third criteria, that the child or youth is “being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances of associations injurious to his or her well-being”, that DCF has invoked, and the courts have recognized, the doctrine of “predictive neglect.”
While state law does not establish the doctrine, the DCF Policy Manual attempts to clarify which situations may qualify as “conditions injurious to the child's well-being” for the purpose of alleging predictive neglect. These include when the child:
1. has witnessed repeated episodes of domestic violence,
2. lives in a home where drug trafficking takes place,
3. is repeatedly exposed to alcohol or substance abuse,
4. is exposed to inappropriate sexual conduct by adult caretakers,
5. is left with inappropriate caretakers,
6. has siblings who have been neglected or abused and the conditions leading to that neglect or abuse have not abated, or
7. is a newborn whose parents are unable to provide adequate care (DCF Policy Manual § 46-3-10)
The courts have ruled that predictive neglect exists when a child is in danger of being harmed in the future, even if no harm has presently occurred. The Connecticut Appellate Court has stated that Connecticut's statutes “clearly and explicitly recognize the state's authority to act before harm occurs to protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected and not just children whose welfare has been affected. The [person filing the neglect petition] need not show, but simply allege, that there is a potential for harm to occur” (In re Michael D., 58 Conn. App. 119, 123-24 (2000)). Courts also have ruled that under the doctrine, a child can be considered neglected without ever having been under the custody of a parent (In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn. App. 819, 829 (2005)).
Superior court decisions involving the doctrine of predictive neglect are numerous and have attempted to answer the question as to the “bare minimum of findings” that would be essential to meeting the preponderance of evidence threshold. In the case cited above, the court stated that “[o]ne generalization that emerges from [predictive neglect cases] is that when a parent cohabits with a sexual predator and exposes her children to him, the likelihood is high that a neglect allegation will be sustained. Similarly, a parent who has demonstrated neglectful behavior towards older children will likely raise sufficient alarm to warrant concern about the wellbeing of a newborn. Lastly, chronic abuse of a child, or chronic inability to meet minimal expectations of parenting skills, will sustain a finding that prospective harm to the child of such a parent is predictable” (In re Olivia O., 2007 WL 4239785 (Conn. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2007) (internal citations omitted)).
Mental Illness
Although the DCF Policy Manual's list of examples of predictive neglect does not include mental illness, Connecticut courts have consistently considered a parent's mental health as a factor in neglect petitions. For example, a Connecticut trial court has stated that “even chronic mental illness is not alone a ground to support a neglect adjudication. If, however, that proof is successfully coupled with evidence of the impact such illness has or might have upon the child, a finding of predictive neglect can be justly made” (In re Olivia O., 2007 WL 3261395 (Conn. Super. Ct., Aug. 13, 2007) (internal citations omitted)). In reviewing neglect petitions on this basis, Connecticut trial courts have often quoted a predictive neglect case in which the court stated that “[c]ourts have long been supportive of neglect adjudications which are, in effect, based on the prediction that the parent would neglect the child based on the parent's prior conduct or mental illness and the danger such conduct would present to a child left in her care” (In re Eric A., 1999 WL 1328085 (Conn. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 1999)).
Case law. We found 74 cases in which a Connecticut court considered whether a child or children had been neglected based on the predictive neglect doctrine. This is not an exhaustive list. In 68 of these cases, the court found the child or children to be neglected. We identified 36 cases in which the court specifically cited a parent's or both parents' mental health as a factor in the court's conclusion that the child would be in danger of neglect if allowed to continue living with the parent. In 15 of the 36 cases, the finding of neglect was coupled with a termination of parental rights. Many of these cases involved a child who had been removed from the custody of their parent or parents immediately after birth.
One Connecticut Appellate Court decision provides a thorough analysis of adjudicating a newborn child under the theory of predictive neglect based on a parent's mental health. There, the court adjudicated predictive neglect based upon evidence of the mother having obsessive thoughts of harming herself since she was seven years old. Also, after her child was born and the mother was still in the hospital, the mother reported to the staff that she had obsessive thoughts about hurting herself and the baby. The mother was also diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder, and regularly saw a psychiatrist, who had prescribed for her antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. The record also disclosed that the father had suicidal thoughts himself. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to find the child neglected on the theory of predictive neglect (In re T.K., 105 Conn. App. 502, 509, (2008)).
In comparison, a trial court case represents a circumstance where a child was not found neglected under predictive neglect even though the mother (1) suffered a sudden, but debilitating, psychiatric breakdown and (2) over a span of about two months, spent a total of several weeks in the hospital. Following the breakdown, DCF brought its petition contending that mother's condition was such that she could not provide care for her daughter. DCF asserted that the child was, therefore, predictably susceptible to harm and required the state to intervene on her behalf. The court determined that there was no suggestion that mother brought her condition upon herself by anything she did, or that she could have anticipated or avoided it. Also, aside from this period of acute crisis, there was no indication that the mother was otherwise deficient in any respect as a parent. The case came down to the question of whether Olivia was in present jeopardy during the mother's incapacitation, or in potential jeopardy on account of the lack of an appropriate plan for her protection during that crisis. Unable to affirm these contentions, the court refused to find the child to be neglected (In re Olivia O., 2007 WL 4239785 (Conn. Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2007)).
HD/MR:ro

Open Family Courts For Accountability AND Transparency

Between CPS/DCYF and the Family Court's, parents and families don't have a chance at winning abuse and neglect cases against them. Not without Open Family Courts. Accountability and transparency in the Family Courts just doesn't happen. Holding these hearings behind closed door's does NOT protect the children by any means. The only ones they protect are the lying CPS/DCYF workers. The workers who believe they are "above the law", because essentially, they are. Their motives are never questioned by the Judges, proof of wrongdoing is unheard of, and evidence of innocence is inadmissible. False Report's, proven false reports and  "hearsay' is all it takes to remove a child from their home.

Ex-Parte hearings are held behind closed doors between the bias Judge and his cohort CPS/DCYF workers, never contacting the parents or family members they are about shaft. Parents and family members who are never allowed to speak up for themselves before their children are stolen by the state. Never allowed to admit evidence proving the CPS/DCYF worker is nothing but a liar. The Family Court Judges only rely on what CPS/DCYF has to say. Nothing else matters, because just like CPS/DCYF, the Family Courts are NEVER held accountable because everything they do is behind closed doors and everyone they screw over is afraid to fight back and let their horror stories be told. And the few that do fight back, do so because they want justice. Justice that can not and will not happen in "Secret" Courts.They're fighting because they were wronged. Because they were slandered and lied about without any proof given to the Court. Not that the Judges would read it any way. Why should they when they believe every word out of the lying worker's mouth's. Why would the Judge bother wasting his time reading facts in any of these cases when he clearly has no respect for the parents and families who walk into his courtroom. Every parent and family member caught in the CPS/DCYF web is considered guilty from the onset of each and every abuse and neglect case and their evidence proving innocence is never admissible in court.

Recent articles like the one below, show Open Court's in child abuse and neglect hearings are the only way to hold CPS/DCYF and the Family Courts accountable and transparent. No more hiding behind the law. No more hiding behind the black robes.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-28/news/31878518_1_child-welfare-open-hearings-dependency-hearings

Proponents say transparency leads to better decisions by putting a spotlight on judges, exposes the blunders of child welfare workers and gives the public a better understanding of how the system works.“Confidentiality has done more to protect the system than to protect the children in the system.’’ 

There are nearly twenty states who hold Open Family Courts and more to come. Hopefully, New Hampshire will be next. We must ALL work together to change the way CPS/DCYF and the Family Courts work. They are supposed to be working for the people. Not for the money to be made off of our innocent children. 

Please contact your State Legislators and express the need for Open Family Courts. Don't wait until your child or grandchild is put up on the CPS/DCYF Auction block!

Video: Planned Parenthood Encourages Woman to Get Sex-Selection Abortion

Video: Planned Parenthood Encourages Woman to Get Sex-Selection Abortion | LifeNews.com:

The investigative pro-life group Live Action, which has released videos exposing the abuses at the Planned Parenthood abortion business across the country, has released a new video today showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, Texas encouraging a woman to get a sex-selection abortion.

The video shows a Planned Parenthood staffer encouraging the woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is the first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” that Live Action tells LifeNews will be exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

Read More:

Model State Legislation Parental Due Process Act

California-National Foster Parent Coalition for Allegation Reform:

There is currently an effort in the State of California to have the model legislation (below) passed in an effort to ensure Parental Due Process in the Juvenile Dependency Courts. The model legislation was written by a team of attorneys at Pacific Justice Institute http://www.pacificjustice.org/ in Sacramento California.
Anyone wishing to get involved and/or support this legislation please contact Greg Smart at cpsvictim@gmail.com

A BILLTo protect the fundamental due process rights of a parent in proceedings to terminate parental rights.
 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This shall be cited as the “Parental Due Process Act.”

SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.(a) FINDINGS- the legislature finds that--

(1) Parental rights are so fundamental to the human condition so as to be deemed inalienable. Termination of parental rights equals or exceeds the detriment of criminal sanctions.
(2) The “liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more precious than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
(3) State and local family services, child protective agencies, and courts have not recognized the rights of parents as inalienable, and, as a result, have failed to provide fundamental due process rights in the investigation and legal proceedings to determine abuse, neglect, and the termination of parental rights.

(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to provide core fundamental due process rights to parents whose parental rights are subject to termination.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:

(1) “Hearing” means any judicial or administrative hearing;
(2) “law enforcement officer” means an employee, the duties of whose position are primarily the prevention, investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position, or serving as a probation or pretrial services officer;
(3) “agency” means any state or local government;
(4) “Duress” consists of:

a. Unlawful confinement of the person of the party, or of the husband or wife of such party, or of an ancestor, descendant, or adopted child of such party, husband, or wife;
b. Unlawful detention of the property of any such person; or,
c. Confinement of such person, lawful in form, but fraudulently obtained, or fraudulently made unjustly harassing or oppressive.

(5) “Actual fraud” consists of any of the following acts, committed by a party, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into an agreement or to rely upon it to his detriment:

a. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true;
b. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
c. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
d. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
e. Any other act fitted to deceive.

(6) “Undue influence” consists of:

a. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another,
or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such
confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair
advantage over him;
b. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or,
c. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.

(7) “Malice" means conduct that is intended by the person to cause injury or despicable conduct that is carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others;
(8) “Emergency” means exigent circumstances in which immediate action is required to prevent the imminent physical injury or death of a child.

SECTION 4. HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

(a) Upon the request of a parent, guardian or custodian, the right to have proceedings open to the public shall be guaranteed in the following circumstances:

(1) any hearing for the purpose of terminating parental rights;
(2) any hearing for the purpose of determining if a child is or has been deprived.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a judge may, upon consideration of written motion and papers filed in opposition, exclude the public if it is determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the safety of the child would be in jeopardy by a public hearing.

If the public is excluded from the hearing, the following people may attend the
closed hearing unless the judge finds it is not in the best interests of the child:

(i) the child's relatives;
(ii) the child's foster parents, if the child resides in foster care; and,
(iii) any person requested by the parent.

SECTION 5. TRIAL BY JURY
Upon the request of a parent, guardian or custodian, the right to a trial by jury shall be guaranteed in the following circumstances:

 (1) any hearing to terminate parental rights;
(2) any hearing to determine if a child is or has been deprived.

SECTION 6. RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL/MORAL/ETHNIC VALUES AND BELIEFS OF PARENTS
In placing the legal custody or guardianship of a child with an individual or a private agency, a court shall take into consideration the religious, cultural, moral and ethnic values of the child or of his/her parents, if such values are known or ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care.

SECTION 7. ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS
Except in the case of an emergency, any law enforcement officer, agent or employee for a state’s health and welfare department or child protective services, or mental health professional, who interviews a child for the purposes of investigation, shall electronically and/or digitally cause to be made an audio and visual recording of all questioning of, and interviews with, children. All recordings made pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made available to the parent, guardian or custodian of a child not later than ten days prior to any hearing to terminate parental rights or to determine if a child is or has been deprived.


SECTION 8. EVIDENCE IN FACT-FINDING HEARINGS

(a) Only evidence that is competent, material and relevant may be admitted in a
fact-finding hearing.
(b) Any determination at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing that
a respondent did an act or acts must be based on proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. For this purpose, an uncorroborated confession made
out of court by a respondent is not sufficient.

SECTION 9. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

(a) In that removal of a child from a home for even brief periods is an extreme hardship on families, upon the request of a parent, guardian or custodian, the right to a speedy trial shall be guaranteed in the following circumstances:

(1) any hearing to terminate parental rights;
(2) any hearing to determine if a child is or has been deprived.

(b) A hearing, as described in subsection a, shall be conducted within thirty days of any type of removal of a child. In the event that the thirtieth day falls on a legal holiday or other day when the court is not in session, the hearing shall be conducted prior to the thirtieth day. In no event shall a hearing be conducted beyond the thirtieth day after the removal of a child if the right to a speedy trial has been exercised.

SECTION 10. WAIVER OF RIGHTS
The rights of a parent or guardian as described in this Act cannot be waived, neither can parental rights be terminated, if said waiver is due to:

(1) mistake;
(2) fraud;
(3) undue influence; or
(4) duress.

SECTION 11. IMMUNITY

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, agents or employees of a health and welfare department or child protective services or law enforcement official authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings shall not extend to any of the following:

(1) Perjury;
(2) Fabrication of evidence;
(3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence;
(4) Obtaining testimony by duress, fraud, or undue influence.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any prosecutor, investigator, agent or employee of a state’s health and welfare department or child protective services who induces a parent to waive any of his or her rights under this Act by

(1) fraud;
(2) undue influence; or
(3) duress shall be subject to civil liability.

SECTION 12. DAMAGESIn the case of a determination by a court or jury of any violation of a parent’s rights under this Act, damages shall be presumed.

SECTION 13. ATTORNEYS FEES 
Subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c)) (concerning the award of attorney's and expert fees) shall apply to cases brought or defended under this Act.

SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected. 

OPEN COURT'S ARE A SUCCESS - EXPOSING CPS CORRUPTION

DMVC Productions = Results: OPEN COURT'S ARE A SUCCESS - EXPOSING CPS CORRUPTION:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-28/news/31878518_1_child-welfare-open-hearings-dependency-hearings 

Are foster kids helped, harmed by open hearings May 28, 2012|Kelli Kennedy, Associated Press 

Excerpts from the original article my quotes are italicized in response to what was not specified. 

"A California judge’s decision to open a county’s child welfare hearings earlier this year has energized a debate among advocates in other states about whether greater transparency helps or harms the young victims appearing in family court." ... nearly 20 states, including Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois, those hearings are usually open to the public" 

Usually, and open are two different things; if you want accountability usually needs to be ALWAYS because: 
"Proponents say transparency leads to better decisions by putting a spotlight on judges, exposes the blunders of child welfare workers and gives the public a better understanding of how the system works. ... “Confidentiality has done more to protect the system than to protect the children in the system,’’ said Michael Nash, chief presiding judge of Los Angeles County’s children’s court. He ruled in January that dependency hearings in his county will be open to the public unless there is proof the child will be harmed." 


Read More:

Abusive Social Worker » RoadKill Radio