Robin’s Story, and also for Matthew, Laura, and Christopher|Rockwall/Dallas, Texas


Sixteen Years Without Children and Life to Go

Robin Karr’s Story, and also for Laura, Matthew, and brother, Christopher Karr, who will not be silenced, that you shall come home to your Real Mommy who Refuses and Refused Offer of Silence–No Con tract, Judges!

Robin Karr.Rockwall.TX.Judge Cynthia Kent.any relation to federal impeached judge Samuel Kent who my sons paternal aunt was law clerk for.Supervised_Visit_Police_Station.242215910_std

Robin Karr with Baby Laura and Matthew Duckworth near Rockwall, Texas (near Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas)

Robin Carr.Rockwall.Tx.family court fraud and abuse.me-matthew-and-laura-2004-150x150

JUSTICE.WALL OF SHAME.NJCOURTCORRUPTION.DEREK SYPHRETT

 

JUDGE CYNTHIA KENT.SMITH COUNTY TX.TYLER.KIDNAPPER OF ROBIN KARR'S CHILDREN NEAR ROCKWALL TX SIXTEEN YEARS NO CONTACT

 Judge Cynthia (Stevens) Kent, ret., 114th court

Tyler, Texas

(SMITH COUNTY)

 Judge Sue Pirtle,

 NOT PICTURED FOR FEAR OR COWARDICE LEST S/HE, TOO, SHALL BE JUDGED BY GOD ALMIGHTY

Former Judge Sitting by Assignment (Visiting Judge)

State of Texas

January 2000 – Present (15 years 4 months)State of Texas (Region I)

Family, Civil, Criminal

DID WE HAVE THE SAME JUDGE, OR

JUST THE SAME FRAUDULENT FAMILY COURT R.I.C.O.

COURT CON?

 

The haunting melody of the nostalgic voice of the untimely, tragically gone, but not forgotten songstress, Karen Carpenter’s recording of “Yesterday Once More” is the soundtrack for the paralyzing feeling that what all of us mommies  who are still  reading  so strongly knew we were surely “imagining,” but could not be, the rote rehearsal style routine practice and patterned protocol and procedure suborned and commissions pre-packaged, pre-priced, pre-screened, pre-determined outcomes, the levels funding based kidnappings of our sweet little healthy, happy, adoptable children by the family courts in Texas, below:

Judge Cynthia Kent Grants Custody to an Abuser

 

January 5, 2000
Judge Cynthia Kent
c/o Elaine Holmes

RE: Cause No. 1-98-435 (382nd District Court, Rockwall County, Texas)
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDWARD NEIL DUCKWORTH AND
ROBIN LEE DUCKWORTH AND THE INTEREST OF MATTHEW NAKAI
DUCKWORTH AND LAURA DANIELLE DUCKWORTH MINOR CHILDREN

Dear Judge Kent,

I am the co-founder of Children And Loving Parents (CALP)-a chartered non-profit organization located near Rockwall Texas. I am writing in an effort, to appeal to your knowledge, your wisdom, your faith, and your conscious. I am writing on behalf of Robin Duckworth, however, I am not writing at her request. This letter serves two purposes:

1) To serve as evidence in the Duckworth file that CALP is very concerned about the integrity of both the judicial system’s actions and the actions of CASA and CPS in Robin’s case, and;

2) to bring to surface a few facts that you may have never known at the time you rendered your verdict.

We believe that the Duckworth case has been filled with trickery, deceit, mockery, and cruelty -none of which are desirable attributes for our legal and judicial systems.

I am sure that you agree. Unfortunately, the one’s who have suffered are the innocent children and their grieving mother.

We attended many of the hearings regarding this case, including the last part of the final hearing that you presided over. I couldn’t help but notice your references to family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children.

Without a doubt, CALP agrees with you- if the parent is a safe and good influence upon the children. Yet, we are perplexed and saddened at the many successful attempts to thwart Robin Duckworth’s good intentions.

Even worse, we are upset that he court system has not recognized these ‘tricks’ used by Ed Duckworth and his attorney to intentionally make Robin’s life miserable.

My question is this. What would you do as a mother to protect your children if you thought they were living in an unstable and unsafe environment?

Even a stubborn, proud, ‘never ask for help’ man would humble himself to ask every available person for help – again and again. You and I probably wouldn’t do this for ourselves, but we would for our children. Isn’t this exactly what Robin has done? Is this so wrong?

At what point did Robin act so inappropriate that she deserved to have her children kept from her. Did she break the law? No. (She was put in jail for crying and not leaving the courtroom when Judge Pirtle and Trish Verde refused to advise her as to when she could have her next visitation. Is this really ‘irrational’ when a mother hasn’t seen or held her children in a very long time?

By the way, why was she arrested for criminal trespass when there were still many other people in the courthouse? Why weren’t the other people that were present arrested for trespassing?)

Does Robin have a history of running away with the children? No. Does she have a history of hurting the children? No. Does she have a history of disobeying the courts? No. (Ed’s attorney stated that Robin had told the Kentucky court that she would not abide by the visitation decree from her first marriage. She may or may not have said that .. but, what did she do? She abided by the visitation decree very well. She even notified, in writing, the Kentucky court within 2 weeks of when she moved to Houston. We are in possession of that letter. Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle did not allow that letter to be submitted into evidence.)

Now let’s compare the history of Ed and Robin. Robin graduated high school and college with honors. Ed barely passed high school. After almost 6 years in college he dropped out with a GP A below 2.0. Who held a job and supported the family?

Robin did. She worked at Dillard’s and excelled as a departmental manager. Ed failed to hold a job, including one stint as a car salesman. When they moved to Kentucky, Robin continued working at another clothing store. Ed attempted a gig as a local police officer, however he quit when faced with being tired for shooting and killing a chained dog.

While living in Kentucky Ed filed for divorce. In his affidavit to the court Ed stated Robin should be named the fit and proper caretaker of the children! He never alleged Robin of being unfit in any way as a mother.

However, wanting to salvage their marriage, Robin replied to the court that she did not believe their marriage to be beyond repair. (Wouldn’t anyone that takes their vows before God in a serious manner do all they could to save the marriage? Robin did – Ed didn’t.) Just think if Robin had given up as easily as Ed had, she would be the managing conservator of Matthew and Laura at this time.

Instead, Ed, his attorney, and the Texas judicial system have raked Robin over the coals and treated her like a criminally insane parent. Robin has always been the reliable provider for the children, yet she has been punished and ridiculed for her faith.

The reason: Supposedly she said something to Ed on a tape that was later played to Melody East, an unlicensed social worker with CASA. Melody East then recommended to Judge Pirtle that Robin have only supervised visitation because she expressed ‘alarming’ religious beliefs and had made ‘alarming’ remarks.

One such remark was, “I hope God takes your lives if you continue to harm the children.” How did this statement start ridiculous allegations that Robin might harm her children?

Personally, I also wish that God would remove all child abusers from the earth. Does this make me a danger to children? No. It doesn’t make Robin a danger to her children either.

Also, Melody East never completed the social study. She never interviewed Robin’s mother or Robin’s other references. Incredulously Melody never spoke to the number one witness Christopher Karr. Christopher is Robin’s son from her first marriage.

Christopher witnessed Earnest Duckworth’s (Ed’s father) verbal, mental and physical abuse first hand. In fact, Christopher had written several letters to friends about the abuse well before Robin moved out of the Duckworth house.

Wouldn’t these letters be undeniable evidence that abuse was taking place? Wouldn’t Christopher’s testimony have been the most important evidence in this case?

Yet, Melody East never spoke to Christopher or Robin’s other witnesses. In addition, Judge Pirtle would not allow Christopher’s letters into evidence.

Even mare appalling- Robin’s witnesses were never allowed to testify. All of her witnesses came to trial on Feb. 26, 1999. Robin had at least 4 witnesses including her mother, one cousin, Christopher, and a close friend from Houston who had known Robin and Ed when they lived there. Robin’s witnesses traveled a combined distance of almost 3000 miles.

Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle made no offer to let Robin’s witnesses testify since they had come such a great distance. Instead, Judge Pirtle allowed Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenburg, to ask questions (stall for time) to Melody East, Tish Verde, and others. Judge Pirtle knew that Robin could not afford to fly her witnesses down a second time.

We believe that Judge Pirtle knowingly and purposefully hindered Robin’s right to a fair trial by not giving her witnesses the opportunity to testify. Judge Pirtle even scheduled the second half of the trial nearly two weeks away, instead of the following Monday, insuring that Robin’s witnesses would not testify.

In addition, sanctions were imposed against Robin and her attorney for filing a supposedly ‘frivolous’ report to CPS and requesting a Protective Order concerning abuse that Robin felt had occurred at the hands of Ed’s father. (Perhaps, Judge Kent, you were not knowledgeable of all the facts when you sanctioned Robin. That is what we hope.)

Doesn’t state law require that a person must report confirmed or suspected abuse to a child?

Mr. Duckworth’s attorney tried to make Robin look like a liar, because she didn’t report the abuse at the time it happened. Instead, he stated that she was now conveniently making it up since there was a battle for the children. How absurd!

The facts show that Robin and Ed were living in the home of Mr. Duckworth at that believe they can protect their children until they can develop an escape plan away from the abuse. Once again, the facts show that Robin moved back to Kentucky shortly after the abuse.

Doesn’t the fact that every time Robin saw her children with substantial bruises (I have pictures.) and reoccurring sickness during each visitation also give cause for concern, suspicion and reporting?

Doesn’t the fact that the two children have been to the doctor and/or hospital 31 times in 10 months give rise to concern and suspicion? Doesn’t the fact that she witnessed abuse while living with Ed’s parents cause concern?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher, Robin’s oldest son, wrote letters concerning the abuse to friends before the court case started (I have copies) give cause for concern and suspicion?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher also signed an affidavit confirming the abuse give cause for concern and suspicion?

Betty Hable, director of the Ombudsman’s office, has even confirmed that CPS has concerns that the paternal grandfather was physically abusive toward Matthew.

We are very troubled that you fined and penalized Robin for reporting suspected abuse when she was faced with disobeying the law if she didn’t report her suspicions! We are even more upset with the fact that Robin is reprimanded from making any other allegations of suspected or confirmed abuse. I ask, is this justice?

How could this happen? How did Robin get fined for doing what is right? I know we all make mistakes. I’m willing to admit that I do. I hope that you too are willing to admit that you made a mistake in your judgements against Robin. I hope even more that you will do all you can in your judicial authority to correct this wrong and make it right. Robin is not an insane mother making improper allegations. She is a protective, caring, loving mother that wants to see her children in a safe, nurturing environment. Once again I ask. what would you do .. not as a judge – but as a Christian and a mother?

Now Robin faces yet another obstacle – meeting the demands of a visitation decree that is both confusing and extremely burdensome. In your judgement you stated that you believed Robin had a medical problem that required medication. Then, being sure of your evaluation, you based the decree upon Robin seeing a psychiatrist and taking the medicine that they would prescribe her. But what was to happen when Robin’s nationally acclaimed psychiatrist did not find Robin to be in need of medication- but only finds her to be severely depressed due to missing her children (a natural response for a concerned, loving mother)?

In addition, you required Robin to line up a psychiatrist within a month. Finding a psychologist is relatively easy but a psychiatrist can take months! (My wife and I have been searching for a psychiatrist to evaluate our daughter’s ADHD. The shortest waiting list we found was 5 months!)

It took Robin a month to line up her psychiatrist. ‘This automatically made her miss the first date (July 1) you had based her visitation rights upon.

However, since acquiring a psychiatrist she has tried to do everything stated concerning her psychiatric evaluations.

However, Ed’s attorney has written a letter stating that they will seek to have her thrown in jail for not following the order. In addition. Robin has not been able to afford trips to Texas to see her children.

She has another son that she must take care of. His father has not been paying child support, which makes things even more difficult for Robin. With the psychiatrist and expenses she has been forced to rely only upon phone calls to stay in her children’s lives.

But this has been made even more difficult due to the fact that Ed will not answer the phone and has turned off his answering machine – all in an effort to distance Robin’s children from her.

However, through all of this, Robin saved enough money to buy birthday and Christmas gifts and a plane ticket to Dallas during November. Once again, Robin did everything she thought she was supposed to do according to the visitation decree.

She sent letters to Ed and the District Clerk. by Nov. 1, 1999, concerning her psychiatric evaluation(s) so that she could see her children on Nov. 13·14.

She sent all letters certified mail. She took 4 days off work to come to Rockwall to see her children, even though Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenberg, threatened to get a bench warrant for her arrest if she came to Rockwall.

Despite all this, she still came to see her babies. If that’s not true love I don’t know what is. Upon arriving in Rockwall, Robin gave my wife and I a notarized statement to act as the competent adults to pick up the children -just as stated in the decree. We felt this would
definitely be better for the children since it would avoid any possible conflicts between Ed and Robin. Upon arriving at Ed’s house, Ed absolutely refused to hand over the children.

Ed then ran back into his house and called the police. When the police arrived Ed fabricated a lie and told the officers that he had spoken to Robin’s psychiatrist the day before and that her psychiatrist was sending a second letter forbidding Robin to see the children! We then asked the officers to ask Ed if he would allow Robin to see the children for a supervised visitation the next day.

The officers told my wife and I that Ed made it clear to them that he would never let Robin see the children again no matter what! The officers then advised us that we needed to keep a good paper trail of what had occurred. We were then told that Robin needed to go to the police station and file “Interference with Child Custody”, which is what she did.

Robin was never allowed to see her babies. Can you believe she has never been allowed to celebrate either of Laura’s birthdays? She has never celebrated Christmas with her either.

How discouraged would this make you feel as a mother? Yet, Robin somehow finds the courage and desire to hang in there. Robin loves and misses her children deeply.
Now Robin’s good intentions are once again being turned against her. Charles Schuerenberg has written Robin to threaten her again. He is using the visitation decree that he wrote, against her.

He stated that he intends to have her thrown in jail. I believe this is revenge for Robin filing “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. What Ed did was wrong and downright mean!

Robin came 1200 miles to see her children, hold them, love them, and give them gifts.
Your honor, please listen to your heart on this matter. Robin is really doing her best. If shemoves here from Kentucky, her older son can’t see his dad. Either way, she gets slammed.

So she does her best. You even stated in your final words of the hearing that the order periods of possession would “be subject to very definitely financial ability.”

This tells me that you were trying to recognize Robin’s peril in paying for psychiatric sessions, making expensive trips to Texas, taking off from work, and juggling all the issues.

We are asking that you reconsider your order. We don’t believe that you ever meant to say Robin could not see her children in November if she didn’t get every psychiatric report completed in July.

It seems to us that you were saying Robin’s visitations were to be based upon her complying with her psychiatrist’s orders then submitting that compliancy letter from the psychiatrist before she attempted visitation.

If your order were interpreted in any other way then Robin’s inability to see a psychiatrist by July 1, 1999 would prohibit her from ever seeing her children again.

I do not believe that you is what you intended. However, Ed’s attorney is trying to have Robin thrown in jail based upon his manipulation of the visitation decree.

Robin had no choice but to file “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. His actions as dictated by Texas state law are a criminal act, not a civil act.

Therefore, Robin had aresponsibility to file a report even though she did not obtain leave of court to do so. Robin’s report to the Rockwall police was not merely a ‘complaint’ but was a witness’ statement to a felony crime. The police made the choice to ask the D.A. ‘s office to bring charges against Ed.

We hope and pray that you will see things the same and not allow your instinct as a mother, a Christian, and a parent, to be clouded by your judicial experience in today’s corrupt society.

Sincerely,
Derek S.
Co-Founder and V.P.

Read also, http://janiemcqueen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Judgee-Pirtle-Wanted-for-Kidnapping.pdf

1.     Click on the link below to read mother and author, Robin Karr’s provocative case supported by strong evidence against, generally, but not limited to, “‘state’ of Texas,” and also on behalf of all maternally deprived mothers and children, being natural (wo)man and individuals,

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com

2.     Click on the link below to read Kentucky Senator Virgil Moore’s scathing letter against and addressed to, among other public officials, “state” and local Texas and social services and county officials on behalf of parents Doug and Kathie Harliss and their “business or commercial assets,”

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Kentuky_State_Senator_Letter_about_Texas_Taking_Children.250130237.pdf\

Mothers Without Custody World

Laura Turns Sweet 16

 

 

Robin Karr.precious Laura found.on facebook

Robin Karr’s Baby Laura, Sixteen Years Later, Found Picture on Facebook.com

Dear Laura, will you ever know how much your real Mommy, Robin Karr, loved, adored, and missed you every second of every minute of every day and painful, agonizing, most likely sleepless nights?  How could you?

Dear Robin, will you ever know what your little girl felt or the pain she felt without you?

How could she?

I I pray and hope with all ;my heart and real mommy of little Julian’s soul that you, Laura have come home to Mommy, whatever age.

From one to another mother whose child bought and sold  just shall surely find them out.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN


RE-POSTED/RE-BLOGGED AS DEPICTED BELOW,

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN

Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

The below-referenced chart lists over 75 family court cases in Connecticut where children’s safety and well being has been jeopardized by unethical and even illegal activities of court professionals who routinely target, extort and exploit Connecticut
mothers.  In many of these cases, where mothers reported a father’s violent crimes against her family, the mother eventually lost custody to the wealthier father when he — the real perpetrator — accused her of alienation.  Violent fathers almost always won sole or joint custody of victims, and in some cases these fathers even went on to become mass murderers.  Insurance companies and the State are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals who are routinely rewarded handsomely for submitting false claims that misdiagnose fit and loving mothers and their children with mental disorders they do not have; they are also providing diagnosis and treatment plans that are considered illegitimate by the AMA and APA.  Meanwhile, the same professionals justify their billing by deliberately recommending to judges the placement of children in the care of violent fathers, even rapists, and by shielding these offenders from criminal prosecution that might otherwise keep children safe.  The effect is that the whole family becomes damaged and in need of treatment, and are subsequently required to obtain ongoing court affiliated medical and legal professional services.

Some of these cases were outlined in the May 2012 Conscious Being Alliance story A Life Sentence.  The summary of cases spans the past 20 years, with older and newer cases, and where many cases

were drawn out over a decade, or more.

CT COURT CASES HISTORIES & SUMMARIES:

Click link here:
CT Cases Spreadsheet (2-28-2013).xlsx

PHOTO:
MAX LIBERTI.  (See: LIBERTI V. LIBERTI summary.)

 

MAx-Liberti-Photo.jpg

Written by: keith harmon snow

Categories: ,

 

16 Comments

melissa harris | January 29, 2013 2:57 PM

This has happened to me I would like to be part of this also where do I file complaints against lawyers n family service division I reported to the mediators supervision but nothing . So I want to file above the court .my case was in Hartford ct. Thank u for your time sincerely Melissa Harris 860-977-3941 cell or home 860-206-9208 Donna yanofsky I give full permission to talk to her on my behalf

adrienne mcglone | February 12, 2013 5:31 PM

• Give a gift of your signature as support in the battle to stop the corruption in probate and family courts that harm and destory our children and families. Join the Petition Signature-A-Thon.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ma-help-get-child-home
http://www.alexissneedshelp.blogspot.com/

Amy Andersen | February 14, 2013 1:39 PM

Exactly this happened to me also!! I lost custody of my daughter to my abusive ex husband for one reason ONLY,, HE IS VERY WEALTHY! I never so much as received a parking ticket. What happened to my daughter and I was COMPLETELY ILLEGAL IN EVERY WAY! I want very much to be part of this, but I do not know where to start or who to contact. Melissa, I would like to speak with you also if you are willing. Maby we can share information because we both are going through the same nightmare! Please call me and let me know what I can do and where I can start.
Respectfully,
Amy Andersen (203) 269-6114

Jodi Baker | February 24, 2013 4:33 PM

The same situation happened to me. I am looking to make changes in the CT family court system especially New Haven County.

Kendra | April 26, 2013 7:33 PM

Below is a proposed class action lawsuit we can file at 95 Washington Street. Melissa, do you want to take the lead?

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
————————————————————-x VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JANE DOE 1- XXX
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-

Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson,
Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo;
Atty. Noah Eisenhandler, Jane Does 1-IV and
John Does I-IV.
Defendants
—————————————————————x
SIRS:
The Plaintiffs complaining of the Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson; Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo; Atty. Noah Eisenhandler; Jane Does 1-IV and John Does I-IV (hereinafter “Defendants”), sets forth and alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Plaintiffs are normal, healthy parents who have endured abnormal and unfathomable circumstances in child custody proceedings.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional suffering on Plaintiffs and defamed Plaintiffs for the benefit of increasing conflict in child custody disputes for financial gain and/or job security.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL SUFFERING

3. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges the allegations listed in paragraphs “1” through “2” as though more fully alleged herein.
4. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants emotionally abused Plaintiffs via heinous conduct beyond the standards of civilized decency.
5. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants advocated and endorsed the use of domestic abuse and domestic discipline in child custody proceedings.
6. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants aided and abetted fathers in feigning allegations to place plaintiffs under supervised visitation or otherwise reduce their access to children, alleging “mental illness”, “emotional abuse” or “parental alienation”.
7. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs.
8. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants blatantly disregarded the rules, manipulated information, falsified evidence, harassed and bullied Plaintiffs.
9. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants financial, emotional and legal abuse of Plaintiffs was intentional, deliberate and/or reckless.
10. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants used the fruits of their abuse to claim that Plaintiffs were “erratic, unstable and unpredictable”.
11. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants endorsed the wealthier parent as primary parents to keep their revenue steam coming via fathers contesting custody of children against stay at home mothers.
12. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional damages and loss of custody of their children in monetary amounts in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT

13. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “12” as though more fully set forth herein.
14. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants increased conflict in custody disputes for the benefit of their professional fees, job security and/or revenue stream.
15. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants were unjustly enriched by receiving professional fees, income or expenses on account of their improper conduct.
16. That prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants Dr. Howard Krieger and Dr. Sidney Horowitz were sanctioned for committing insurance fraud against Aetna Insurance.
17. Plaintiffs seek restitution of attorney fees and expert fees incurred as a result of defendants’ unjust enrichment, which is in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IN DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

18. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “17” as though more fully set forth herein.
19. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants published false statements about Plaintiffs.
20. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants’ false statements lowered the characters of Plaintiffs in the eyes of others.
21. That at all relevant time prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs in an attempt to substantiate their false statements.
22. That Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional harm on Plaintiffs by facing them with an abusive ex-husband, fear of their children being harmed or removed and a bombardment of medico-legal allegations to substantiate their allegations of “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” behaviors.
23. That Plaintiffs’ were damaged by Defendants’ false statements and intentional infliction of emotional suffering in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION IN DISCRIMINATION

24. Plaintiffs repeat reiterate and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “23” as though more fully set forth herein.
25. That Plaintiffs have been discriminated against on account of being stay at home mothers prior to the commencement of litigation. Defendants sided with the parent who had the most money to purchase their children.
26. That Plaintiffs sustained damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts on account of this unlawful socio-economic discrimination.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter an award:
(a) Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendants from intentionally inflicting emotional suffering, discriminating against and defaming the characters of Plaintiffs;
(b) Awarding Plaintiffs’ damages in excess of twenty (20) million dollars;
(c) Awarding Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expert fees involved in pressing this action;
(d) Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Yours etc

________________________________

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
being duly sworn, deposes and says: We are the plaintiffs in the within action; We have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters stated therein to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters we believe them to be true.

__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sworn to before me on this
day of April 2013

Notary Public, State of Connecticut

___________________

T. Moore | April 27, 2013 10:05 AM

My case is still pending … I’m ready to keep up the battle and win the war … it’s been years and I refuse to just walk away – I’ve been w/one of the above Dr. during “Special Masters” …

kendra | April 27, 2013 11:47 AM

Attorneys with a strategy which involves inflicting emotional and financial pain on mothers to make them “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” should be reported to the Grievance Committee so that they are disbarred for a violation of Rule 8.4 (4) for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The precedence their strategy sets is that a man is encouraged to abuse the mother of his children so that the attorneys can keep their revenue stream going despite the impact this has on mothers and resultantly on their children. Grievance forms can be found here:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/gc006.pdf

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:01 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:02 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:03 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Colleen Kerwick | June 1, 2013 3:52 PM

Here is a link to my Confessions of a Stepford Wife blog. Feel free to check into my path as I find the silver lining from my journey through the Connecticut Court System. Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger so I’m hoping that this will be a happy story of transformation and growth.

Sara Burns | June 28, 2013 8:00 PM

I have a significant background in Business Communications and PR and would like to contribute my files for case … amazing how many people can abuse the system for years with a documented list of offenses and still be able to misuse the system to their private advances.

Concerned Mother | August 23, 2013 9:41 PM

A person is guilty under 2011 Connecticut Code Title 53 Crimes Chapter 939
Sec. 53-21 (3) if they “permanently transfer the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration”… such person “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court”. Has anyone asked the DA to issue a warrant for the arrest of some members of the custody business?

Ron | July 19, 2014 11:38 AM

Keith, This is information which is tragically in sync with what I’ve read from other researchers regarding pedophilia rings and subsequent cover-ups occurring WORLDWIDE. Have you read Dave McGowan’s work entitled “Pedophocracy”? It’s not surprising one bit to learn that the courts are involved in the corruption as are politicans—ETC. I am reminded also of the late Ted Gunderson, former FBI agent who became Aware, shall we say–are you aware of his investigations regarding child abuse? What is bad, evil in society is vigorously protected and encouraged by the System.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.;
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember Personal Info?
Comments:
Captcha:

Donate to this Project

Search

GIVING PRAISE AND THANKS TO GOD FOR ANSWERING ONE REAL DADDY’S PRAYERS IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS!


GIVING PRAISE AND THANKS TO GOD FOR ANSWERING ONE REAL DADDY’S PRAYERS IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS!

jOHN'S BOY

WOW! LOOK AT THE SMILE ON THIS BEAUTIFUL LITTLE GIRL. THIS PICTURE TELLS THE STORY OF A HAPPY ENDING FOR MR. JOHN AND SHEMITRA HILL AND HIS TWO ADORABLE CHILDREN IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS AFTER ONE STRANGE DETOUR THROUGH DELIVERANCE IN HOUSTON, TEXAS (HARRIS COUNTY) FAMILY COURT IN THE 246TH WITH “THERAPIST” FELECIA POWELL-WILLIAMS AND A PLAYING/PAYING CREW, ON KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

THIS FAMILY IS CERTAINLY BLESSED.  PRAISE THE LORD!  HALLELUJAH!  GOD IS GOOD!

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-department-of-justice-change-the-laws-regarding-family-law-and-for-a-judge-lawyers-cps-and-police-officers-that-assist-with-covering-up-sexual-abuse-and-injury-to-a-child-in-the-state-of-texas

John Hill’s faith the the Lord and his willingness and actions that put His Word into his daily work (and even as a trusted worker for the United States Postal Service) have restored me not less than once over the last couple of interminable years without my son (pursuant to a  kidnapping or “wrongful, unreasonable ‘removal'” perpetrated for profit, prejudice, and retaliation by a band of rogue criminals working under the “color of the authority of law” for “state of Texas” in both Brazoria and Harris Counties, Texas.  John similarly endured, but he never, ever, ever wavered in his faith or his constant witnessing and testifying the Word of the Lord.  He never blamed God, but always insisted on more prayers, harder work, more faith, and fasting with the prayer.  John and his faithful new bride, and I may be misspelling he/r name, so please forgive me, but, Shemitra, testified and Stood by John and supported him in his darkest moments which he never let anyone else feel as dark.   John always wanted to praise and give glory to God and to not detract from that with the petty woes of this “valley of tears” the the Holy Bible in fact DOES promise us as opposed to the “rose garden”  to which so many feel “entitled,” especially in the current times.  I can remember John saying to me in dark hours in my struggle with the same forces working against families, children, and especially unwed mothers and young mothers with young, adoptable children, many of whom have vindictive ex-partners recruited by an all-too-willing profiteering/privateering joint public-private “non-for-profit” “state and local government,” or, “COG” (regional Council of Government), to be glad.  Why did he tell me to be glad?  “Because everything is happening just like it is supposed to and must happen.”  This is proof that His promises are real.  Thank you for your unwavering faith and encouragement, Mr. Hill.  God bless your beautiful family and children.  Your faithfulness and loyalty is of a rare breed indeed that is just not found in many corners of the earth.  I haven’t seen it yet in anyone who has not gone through what we have been refined through.

How did the Lord help John accomplish the Herculean task of enforcing his equal parental rights?  We give thanks that the Lord showed Mr. Hill a way in the form of a loan and an apparently highly effective Harris County, Houston, Texas (and surrounding areas to include North Houston) board-certified family law attorney, Gary Polland.

Now, we rejoice and continue to pray for over one hundred thousand mothers and children and a few fathers who missed the current or the custody-switching scam a la the Texas Office of the Attorner General for the Office of Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement and New Day Services “Responsible Fatherhood” for those with criminal records and “Healthy Marriage Initiative.”   That is certainly not to imply that these institutions are not -preferable or meritorious, but rather than blatant gender discrimination of an invidious animus, and also of the socio-economic and marital “color” are inflicting enormous harm and injury in the glorification and false worship of grants, “trauma-informed, levels based, outcomes” which encourage questionable court appointments and unholy alliances and conflicts of interests among service contractors and providers trusted by public servants who have been “trusted,” irresponsibly, with the highest and most noble of causes–our children.  These fiduciaries have breached their con tract with the parents and children of Texas to the degree they continue to so operate without disclosing fully and fairly and duly compensating the real private property owners gifted by GOD ALMIGHTY.

So happy for you, John!  The children look happier and healthier than anyone could ask for.  And they are even mowing the lawn and performing chores!  All Glory goes to God.  A win for one of us is a win for all of us!  “Today is a day in which the Lord hath made, therefore we shall rejoice and be glad in it (Psalms 117:24, The Holy Bible).”

Further, For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly.…(Psalms 84:10, The Holy Bible).

Many believe firmly, and this real mommy agrees, that the Word of the Lord alone, and only the Holy Scripture, can and shall save us in the time of Evil.  It is time to do our homework and start memorizing.  This part is literal, in my opinion and based in real life observations.  For there can only be one master of “illusion.”  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore “I AM.”  I believe.

The scourge and details below:

Petitioning Governor Rick Perry and 5 others

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

john hill the woodlands, TX

 

I have been fighting for full custody of my children in the 246th court in Houston, TX with Judge York presiding, due to my ex-wife, Dana Rochelle Edwards, allowing our children who are ages 7 and 6 now to be molested since 2009.

My children were out crying about being sexually abused in their mother and maternal grandmother’s home, majority of the weekends that I was able to pick them up they were always complaining about being sexually and physically abused, which as a father I didn’t know what to do or how to handle this, I took them to the hospital and called CPS, but CPS wouldn’t come out, they would wait until the children were back in the custody of my ex-wife and talk to the children or call my ex-wife and ask her did it happen and she would say that the children are lying and making things up or I was making up it because I didn’t want to pay child support, and CPS would close the case and do nothing. So SANE  (sexual assault nurse exam) cases were performed on the children, but not every time they went to the hospital.

Deadre Jones, my ex-wife’s mother, stated to CPS that I was the only person making these accusations about my children being abused, but it is clearly documented that my ex-wife and her knew about the abuse prior to me even knowing, as well as Jones going to the hospital with ex-wife for complaints of abuse. It is also documented in CPS reports that she was also taking my children to the “suspected person” as well.

Jones was in court and every CPS meeting with my ex-wife playing the innocent grandmother role, knowing all that time what was happening behind closed doors at her house as well as my ex-wife house, and didn’t come forward with the truth. Judge York appointed Bobbie Young as amicus attorney in December 2011 to see if she could help my ex-wife and I resolve our issues and do what was best for the children. Young is also a RN.

 

Young met with me at my home, she spoke to my fiancée, who is currently a RN concerning the sexual abuse, outcries and behavior of my children, Young admitted to her that she knew that the molestation was going on; she had recently visited the home of my ex-wife.

‘My mother, who is a retired school teacher, also spoke with Young concerning the sexual abuse, outcries, and behavior of my children; she admitted again that she was aware of the abuse. Young filed a motion for my ex-wife and I to have a psychological evaluation through Dr. Victoria Sloan, I did not trust Young because as soon as we went to court she was another person and siding with my ex-wife, so we verbally agreed with my prior attorney Bruce Buskirk that I could find my own person to perform the psychological evaluation. And I did, Young brings me back into court  as well as the psychotherapist, Dr, McDaniel, after speaking with him and he told her that nothing was wrong with me psychologically, she told Judge York that he wasn’t qualified to performpsychological evaluation, and it needed it to performed by a licensed psychologist, Judge York approved her request.

In January 2012, Judge York, Young, and Angelina Gooden, my ex-wife’s attorney who is also an amicus for the 246th court, heard medical testimony from Harris County police officer  (Sgt. William Lilly, appointed by Harris County Sheriff, Adrian Garcia, supervisor to Lilly, Ruben Diaz) who read the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam)  nurse report from Memorial Hermann in the Woodlands, Tx, stating that my son told the SANE nurse that “the person at his mother’s home put their penis in his mouth and urinated,” my daughter stated that “the person put their mouth, fingers, toys, and penis into her vagina.”

Judge York stated that he believed that this has been going on, but he didn’t order to remove the children from their mother’s home, he just stated that he wanted to hear more testimony from the medical staff at Memorial Hermann, which Memorial Hermann’s lawyer kept filing quash motions to prevent their staff from coming into court testifying about the statements that my children made concerning sexual abuse happening to them at their mother’s home, which Judge York approved, but he kept contradicting himself saying he wanted every medical personnel that the children made outcries to about  in his court to testify.

My ex-wife continued to violate court orders and Judge York wouldn’t even hold her in contempt, he would just say stop doing that. Young kept bringing me back into court for psychological evaluations which was done by a board certified psychologist that gives insight on the news in Houston, I gave her his information, signed a release form for her to talk to him, but she never contacted him, she kept saying I didn’t get to talk to him prior to Mr. Hill seeing him, which was never in her original order.

I filed a grievance on her because she wouldn’t stop, she is extremely biased, kept telling me she was going to make sure she takes my rights taken away, and kept defending my ex-wife, while saying that the molestation didn’t happen that it was all speculation, I provided Young with the medical documents showing my children describing to medical professionals about the sexual abuse that was happening to them in their mother’s home, Young also had access to CPS reports as well. I even told her that my fiancée and I was threatened by the CPS police that if we file another CPS report then something will happen to us. We filed a complaint with internal affairs against the police officer after contacting the Mayor of Houston, Parker.

In April 2012, I picked my children up and my daughter had burns going up her legs and my son had cigarette burns on his knee, which their mother nor maternal grandmother told me when I picked them on Friday evening, I didn’t find out until Saturday morning when I was putting them on their night clothes because they fell asleep on the way home, which is what they typically do when I do get them and sleep until 11am or 12 pm on Saturday, which my mother or fiancée is watching them while I am at work.

Well, my mom took my children to the hospital just to make sure that the burns on my daughter’s leg was not infected and needed to be treated, my daughter had a old burn on upper thigh which she wouldn’t tell anyone how she got that burn, but the lower leg burn happened because she fell on a barbeque pit top, my son also verbalized to the doctor, that their cousin Reggie (Reginald Moffett), who is a grown man, burned him with cigarettes on his leg and his mom just got mad but left them at his house anyway and went to work.

The doctor asked if there was a history of abuse and my mom and I told her as well as my daughter started showing her vagina, so she sent my daughter via ambulance to Texas Children Hospital  in the Medical Center, I verbalized to the doctor that I didn’t want a SANE case done because the 246th court, Young, and Gooden would try to take my rights away because they said that I was “emotionally abusing my children due to the SANE cases, ” the doctor said that the court can deal with her, and my daughter was going to Texas Children’s Hospital that night.

CPS was called, but they said they couldn’t come out until Sunday, which they never did, they called my ex-wife instead and she said that she wasn’t present but that she fell on a barbeque pit top and didn’t say anything about the older burn on her thigh.

My previous attorney Allecia Pottinger was notified and contacted Young to come to the hospital, Young spoke with the medical staff and I and they also verbalized that I didn’t want the SANE case, but there was suspicion of abuse so a SANE case would be done that night, Young agreed and stayed at the hospital until midnight. Young used the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) case that she approved of and had my rights taken away, CPS was made managing conservator over my children, Pottinger told me that my children would be placed in a family member’s home until they can figure out what is going on, which I gave them my sister’s information who is also an attorney and her husband is a FBI agent, but that didn’t happen CPS placed the children right back into my ex-wife’s custody immediately after court and Reggie Moffett’s).

I was ordered to do another psychological evaluation as well as “psychiatric evaluation,” which they had no valid explanation for another evaluation, which would have been my 3rd and 4th evaluation in less than 6 months.

Young and Gooden were allowed to use my cancer medical records, which was obtained illegally through my ex-wife, she was never given any permission to obtain my medical records, while I was going through cancer in 2006, I was diagnosed with mild depression, I lost my home, I didn’t have insurance, my ex-wife couldn’t keep a job, and lack of family support, they were able to use that to say that I had an undiagnosed “mental disorder,” which was unbelievable. My ex-wife NEVER did her psychological evaluation that Young ordered for Dr. Sloan and Judge York approved, Gooden and Young verbalized that she had walked out of her evaluation and didn’t complete it.

So, then I was on supervised visitation for taking my children to the hospital for them out crying about being sexually abused, this is ridiculous. ‘

So, during that time I obtained CPS reports, my ex-wife’s story about the abuse kept changing with every CPS case worker, she knew about it, she didn’t know it, the children were lying, and I was molesting my children. My children actually out cried to CPS case workers about the abuse happening in their mother’s home and maternal grandmother’s home, CPS still didn’t do anything. CPS talked to the SANE nurse, she said there is “absolutely no way a child could make up a story as detailed as this.”

Young and Gooden would consistently bring me in and out court to take away rights of seeing my children, once Judge York approved of what they were doing; they walked out of court laughing. I was on supervised visitation through CPS at their office my ex-wife was still taking my daughter to the doctor for concerns of abuse, trying place the blame on me, my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while I was on supervised visitation.

In August 2012, my ex-wife, her two (2) cousins ( Margaret Moffett and Niosha Sampson), and her aunt (Sheryl Thomas Gainous )went to CPS making a report that they had walked into the room my son was performing play sex on his cousins (which are their children), now all of these children are less than 10, they asked them what they were doing, then they asked my children who taught them that, my children supposedly said that I taught them that, I would touch their private parts while they were taking a bath, they asked my children how did it feel when I touched them, my children supposedly said at first it felt tingly but then we liked it because we thought it was game, and we would have sex with each other in front of our dad and we would like it, Dana became shocked to hear this and blamed herself for the abuse, saying she could have asked more questions, I mean these are professional people, no one found it bizarre that all these people would come in on the same day while I was on supervised visitation, and make up a crazy story as this, I was questioned through CPS about this outrageous accusation and Young, Gooden, CPS, my ex-wife, and her family walked out of court laughing. Judge York didn’t do anything about this, he did order for us to see the same psychologist for anotherevaluation,” which we did, the psychologist said that I was angry and just needed to work with CPS and the court to get my children on the other hand she said that my ex-wife said she had an 11th grade education but she more than likely had the education of a 7th grader, she had psychological issues and needed to see a doctor to properly diagnose her as well as see a psychiatrist to placed on medication, and she needed repeated psychological evaluation for the next 2 years to see where she is at, Young never brought this into court, matter of fact Young and Gooden wouldn’t even release the information to my prior attorney Hilary Unger for months, discoveries kept being filed, but only portions of the discoveries were being followed.

Dana and my son during a therapy session with Powell-Williams, it is documented what really happened with the “play sex”. Per Powell-Williams, it is documented that my son stated that he was being bullied by his older cousin into playing sex.

Dana never stated the story her cousins and aunt made up about the whole “play sex” situation when she became shocked  while she was in therapy with my son. This was not brought to the attention of  the court, that Dana went in with her cousins and aunt to make those false accusations against me, which CPS was aware because they had Powell-Williams documentation. After showing HCSO and the DA documentation, they stated that they couldn’t charge them with making false CPS reports because CPS should have filed charges against them once they received documentation that Dana’s story had changed about the “play sex” three weeks later.

Dana also openly admits to CPS that she has to sleep in our daughter’s room at night to make sure our son doesn’t come in and bother her at night. Now, what kind of mother portrays her own son of doing this to his sister instead of taking accountability for her own actions, which something should have clicked in someone’s head to see that she is definitely hiding something. The suspects have never been properly investigated because they call Dana prior to coming to her home and she denies the suspects saying that is the name of my altered ego, which is ridiculous. 

(or, in Author of this blog’s  son’s case–what kind of a father alleges the same about himself to a five year old little boy?)-America, we have a problem!  Wake-up Houston!

Judge York ordered Dr. Felecia Powell-Williams, who is a psychotherapist that the children were seeing but not on the approved family plan through CPS that he signed off on to see me with my children so that I can get off of the supervised visitation because CPS wanted off the case after I sent them medical documentation showing my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while under their care and my ex-wife was still taking them to doctor for concerns of abuse while I was on supervised visitation, CPS also blocked me from getting the medical records so I had to file a complaint against ABC pediatric clinic with OCR, which is how I was able to obtain part of my children’s medical records and continue to see the bias and unfairness in this entire case.

Powell-Williams wouldn’t follow the court order, came into court because Young and Gooden filed a motion they wanted to increase my child support because my ex-wife doesn’t like to work and wanted to keep me on supervised visitation and give my ex-wife full custody and Young wanted to prevent me from testifying to anything she has said to me.

Because a few weeks earlier she admitted again to Hilary Unger, my previous attorney and myself that she was aware of the molestation going on in the mother’s home, but she couldn’t prove it through the SANE cases and she would get me off of supervised visitation, but she was consistently defending and covering my ex-wife at the same time.

Powell-Williams said that I was “delusional” because I called her and told her that she was basically doing like everyone else in the case covering for my ex-wife and she is just like CPS, and Judge York ordered her to see me with my children and if she wasn’t aware of the order than she needs to contact CPS to get the order so she can do it, then she says under oath she cannot make a decision concerning my psychological state after only seeing me 2 times for less than 30 minutes. Powell-Williams was also provided with all my children and my psychological evaluation, CPS notes, and medical records, so she can be fully aware of everything concerning this case.

Judge Hays, the associate judge in York’s 246th court in Harris County in Houston, ordered me to continue to be on supervised visitation and go to mediation and denied Young’s motion, the bias just continued and they were unable to provide me with a valid explanation for continuing to be on supervised visitation.

Powell-Williams was upset because I wasn’t going to personally pay her. I informed her I did not hire her and that therapy sessions that she is providing for my children is between CPS and herself, and she needs to contact them for payment arrangements.

Mellonie Baldwin, Achor Counseling, was the counselor that CPS ordered for my ex-wife and I to go to for individual and parental counseling. I had been going there for several weeks and Baldwin comes into my session and asks me for my ex-wife’s contact information because according to her my ex-wife had not come to any counseling sessions.

I informed her that she needs to contact CPS to get her contact information. I was told that I was finished with my counseling sessions and my ex-wife has not attended any sessions and they can’t make her come to the sessions.

So, my counselor signed off on my counseling sessionsThree (3)  months later Baldwin calls me the night before court and tells me that I have 6 more sessions, I told her no I do not my counselor signed off and said that I was done, I was already seeing a Christian psychologist for counseling prior to coming to Achor Counseling and I was presently seeing her. Achor Counseling was supposed to call her and make sure that they were not interfering with her therapy sessions with me, which they failed to do.

She became irate on the phone and I told her she needs to talk to my counselor, Mr. Smith and he signed- off on me, and she nor CPS can change the order at the last minute to accomodate whatever it is that they are trying to do, and I was not going to do any more sessions at Achor Counseling and that is  the end of that.

I also informed her that I had recorded my counseling sessions because I did not trust Achor Counseling because they were connected with CPS.

Baldwin hangs up the phone in my face, but calls back later saying that she found the missing sheet of paper, and she will call CPS to clear up this matter immediately.

February 2013, after CPS pulls off the case, I receive all of their files, in there is Achor Counseling records, my ex-wife had been seeing Baldwin the entire time that I was going there, and she e-mailed CPS and told them I was “rude to her and she didn’t want to see me anymore for counseling and that she is going to write on my final evaluation that I need to stop “lying on my ex-wife.”

They had all of the medical records and CPS records, so everything that I was saying about my ex-wife lying and covering- up the molestation of our children was in black and white. I was seeing Mr. Smith so I don’t know why she would even write anything on my final evaluation, which continued to show how people were openly and willing to cover up the molestation of my children.

Hilary set up a mediation meeting, even she said that mediation wouldn’t work, I told her I didn’t want to go to mediation that my ex-wife would continue to violate court orders and nothing would be done to her.

The mediation was basically in favor of my ex-wife on everything, I was going to be”subjected” to another psychological evaluation and continue to be supervised visitation through SAFE which  I would have to pay for, I told her I didn’t want to sign it, I called my fiancée and talk to her about it, Hilary gets on the phone and tells her the same thing she tells me, that even if I go to trial and the jury finds favor in me, Judge York stills has the last say, he is pro-women and he would never give me custody of my children, he would look at the SANE cases and base his decision solely on that, he would increase my child support to $1,800 dollars, so I need to go ahead and sign because he will order it anyway and I should be like every other man in Texas take my standard visitation and go on with my life, so I kept going back and forth not wanting to sign it and she kept saying I have no choice its only for a few weeks, I am still unable to see my children til this day as well as my ex-wife continues to violate the phone order, they cannot find a psychologist or counselor who even wants to touch this case, because after I send them paperwork proving what I am saying is true and the bias and the injustice that I have been going through in this court, they don’t want to touch it.

My sister who is an attorney contacted Hilary asking her why did she make me sign that mediation order, Hilary tried to say that I wanted to, but my sister said I talked to him right before he went into your office for the mediation meeting, he talked my mom, and his fiancée as well, he verbalized that this was waste of time and he didn’t want to sign it and needed to go back to work, she started saying I am the worst client she ever had because I don’t know how to control my emotions, which this court is unfair, biased, and continues to do everything that is wrong during this case, so I have every right to be upset this court is playing with my children’s lives as well as mine.

Houston attorney Hilary Unger was aware that court-appointed amicus attorney Bobbie Young was retaliating; she even called the ethics board with the State Bar of Texas on her and said that if she sides with my ex-wife during the trial then she would file on her, but we never went to trial because of this mediation.

And, of course. Judge York denies the appeal, said that this case makes him nauseous, he says he doesn’t make decisions its on the amicus, laughs and looks at me and say, “Mr. Hill sorry I couldn’t help you.”

But my children reside in a home where there was attempted murder on my ex-wife, by her family member, who shot into their home while she had the children.

CPS supervisors came to court and said that they are aware of the court violations but unaware that my ex-wife was taking my children to the doctor while in their custody, but I have e-mails showing that they knew about it, they even sent the e-mails to Hilary, but they were allowed to continue to lie in court.

There are also police reports showing that  my ex-wife tried to pull the children out of the car while I was driving off and chased me on the interstate and the police would be called out every time I would go to pick them up, but none of this matters to the 246th, Judge York believes children should be with their mother, no matter what.

I have hired 4 attorneys and spent almost $80,000 dollars (that was in 2013), lost memories of my children growing- up, and lost my home, I am worse off now than when I started this fight. After my attorneys talk with Young and Gooden, they pull off the case every time, they say this case is crazy.

Judge York ordered phone conversations while I was on supervised visitation on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:30 pm, she violated the order over 40 times, Judge Jim York never did anything, my ex-wife, Dana,  continues to violate the court orders, I am still unable to talk to talk to my children on several Thursdays and haven’t seen them since July 2013.

I no longer can see my children through SAFE because they don’t want to be involved after sent them information pertaining to this case, ask them for documentation for every time my ex-wife violated the SAFE, and a receipt of payments to SAFE

SAFE manager got upset and said that I didn’t pay for the person supervising the visits one time out of the several times I did feed her. Judge York will never make CPS, Dana or Young and Gooden accountable for lying in court, because they have went beyond measures to keep the molestation of my children and my ex-wife knowing about it out of court.

Attorney Hilary Unger then pulled out of my case as soon as we get out of court and after my appeal was denied, and tells me find another attorney to appeal Judge York’s decision as well as the mediation, I contacted over 20 attorneys and all of them say wait until Judge York is off the bench in November 2013, but what about my children’s safety, does that not matter, what about the fact she continues to violate orders and her lawyers (Gooden and Young) cover her. \

They also told me that I didn’t have a chance because I was going up against two amicus attorneys (court-appointed) in Judge York’s court (246th, Harris County, TX) and he will rule for whatever they want every time, which is not right and highly biased.

My ex-wife was found guilty of assaulting me and took a plea deal, which shows she is a pathological liar and is unable to control her actions. She lied under oath several times about things pertaining to this case and it can be proven.

I had to see a Christian psychologist for several months to help me deal with anger issues concerning this case, she was NEVER pulled into court to combat all the people that Gooden and Young brought in.

She helped me to deal with this issue as God would have me to and that’s by continuing to pray and stand on His word, even though it is hard at times. I know that the God I serve is a God of justice and evil shall never prevail against good.

Nobody besides myself and the police officer who read the SANE nurse’s report was ever able to testify concerning the children’s outcries and witnessed inappropriate behavior and conversation with other children.

Attorney Hilary Unger, one of my attorneys, brought up the red bumps near my daughter’s vagina that she showed my mother and the case worker during a supervised visitation, the case worker comes in court and says that it looks like mosquito bites, it was January 2013, the weather was cold, so in order for my daughter to have mosquito bites near her vagina she would have to be in a bathing suit, standing near water, and her mother is watching her getting attacked by mosquitoes and why doesn’t my son have it as well, but that was allowed to go on in the 246th court.

 

I went to the DA for Harris County in order for them to pick-up of assault case against my ex-wife instead of keeping it in the JP courts, which video-taped at my children’s school and the principal was an eye witness.

I wanted Harris County DA to pick up the case because Elijah Gooden was my ex-wife’s attorney and used what was happening in family court against me and the JP DA was going to give her a slap on the wrist.

She previously pleaded not guilty to the assault and said that I hit her, and once the video was seen it showed that she assaulted me.

Prior JP DA was going to give her serious charges, but Gooden said that he wanted to reschedule because he wanted to bring a witness of the assault which was her cousin, Niosha, who has a criminal record of stealing and using Dana’s ID.

They had previously re-scheduled the assault case over 5 times prior to that.  I showed the Harris County DA evidence of my ex-wife allowing our two children to be molested since 2009, and the cops seem not to be investigating the situation thoroughly, she looked at the evidence and shook her head.

She stated I have a lot of evidence against my ex-wife, but Harris County seems to not be able to find the perpetrators. She didn’t say anything else about picking- up the case and trying to find the perpetrators.

I really need to help to overturn Judge York’s decision and every action of my previous of attorneys, Gooden, and Young. The 246th court, CPS, the attorneys, and Harris County Police Department, had a lot of evidence, and chose to cover it up as well making threatening phone calls to my fiancée and myself.

How many children lives will be allowed to be ruined because of the actions and decisions of these people, how many parents who are trying to protect their children, will be humiliated and persecuted because they are for what’s right.

When will the laws change and there be equality for both parents, just because you gave birth to a child does not make you a mother. I am for being with right the parent whether it is mother or father.

My children have a false pretense of what the law is about, they told me “dad we told them what happened and now we can’t come home, and this will never end, family laws in Texas” what does a parent do when you can’t protect your children because of the s and Texas doesn’t have any laws holding people accountable for covering sexual and physical abuse to a child/children.

I am thankful for what i have sown into my children, and that is they continue to trust and believe in God and they continue to pray and ask God to let them come home, which helps build my faith that God will put the right people in place to make sure that no one else has to go through what my family and I have been through.

I am just asking for people to take a stand for what is right and lets make a change, instill in our children morals and values, and protect our future generation from bias of the justice department.

Thank you for taking time to read my letter, I pray that this petition gets to the Supreme Court of Texas and the family law will be changed for the safety of children.

 

 

 

 

 

SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) cases:

PJ

MH – 1/8/2011- John

MH- 1/21/2012- John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010- Dana

 

A.J.H

MH – 1/8/2011 -John

MH – 6/19/2011-John

MH – 8/14/2011 – John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010 – Dana

TCH- 4/29/2012- I refused because I knew Young would retaliate the doctor at St. Luke’s in the Woodlands said that the courts can take of the fact that she ordered a SANE case with her

 

I have posted my story on the internet and multiple parents have contacted me because they are going through the same thing involving some of the same people that was involved in my case. I have completed my counseling session, and still these people find a way for me not be able to see my children.

 

 

God Bless,

 

John Hill

 

Letter to

Governor Rick Perry

NAACP

Supreme Court of Texas

and 3 others

United States Department of Justice

Representative Al Green

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

Updates

  1. 11 months ago
  2. 500 supporters
  3. 2 years ago
  4. john hill started this petition

Petition Closed

505 supporters

495 needed to reach 1,000

United States Department of Justice: Change the laws regarding family law and for…

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand,

Family Court Extortion – Sunny Kelley Story


Family Court Injustice

There are perhaps hundreds of parents like Sunny who have been bankrupted through the CT courts, essentially extorted out of a relationship with their children. Recently, journalist Keith Harmon Snow posted on his website a story listing over 70 cases involving mothers who were never found to be dangerous or unfit, but none the less lost custody after their children reported they were physically or sexually assaulted by their fathers. Mothers who continued to seek legal protection or medical treatment for the children’s injuries were ordered to pay supervised visitation centers to see their children. “

 Bethany, Connecticut: True story of how Sunny Kelley lost custody of her son, Max, after reporting physical and sexual abuse (with documentation, medical evidence and statements from Max to validate her claims). Family Court awarded sole custody to the abuser, and placed Sunny in supervised visitation. Sunny was bankrupted by the high cost of family court proceedings, and…

View original post 148 more words

EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER FOR “WHISTLE BLOWER” KIDS DEMANDED OF MINISTRY OF JUSTICE


#MoJ We demand an Immediate Emergency Protection Order for the #WhistleblowerKids

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police| CORRUPT TX BILL


IF No Fault Divorce, then No Fault Childhood, Right.  WRONG!

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

Image result for PICS OF KIDS GOING TO JAIL

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL LAWS AGAIN? 

SO MUCH FOR UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON GETTING THE NEW SCHOOL UNIFORM CONTRACTS

NEW RULERS SAY NO MORE SPANKINGS IN SCHOOL . . .  NO MORE CHOICE OF POPS BY THE PRINCIPAL IN LIEU OF AFTER-SCHOOL DETENTION . . . THAT THE STUDENTS SHOULD BE TELLING PARENTS AND TEACHERS WHAT TO DO AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, . . . TO “CATCH(MENT ZONE”) THEM WHEN THEIR GUARD IS DOWN???   I CALL THIS THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE FOR THE NEW NAZIS! 

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

On the bright side, THOUGH, maybe it will actually get them reading, so they better learn it while they still can! 

Click on the link below, or otherwise cut and paste or enter manually into the browser to read more about the surreal life, from Texas below:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-teachers-diagnose-psychological-issues-children-report-police/

From the reporters who were actually allowed to inform the “public trust” about the public servant in Pharr, Texas (Hidalgo County) who allegedly raped a teenage girl multiple times while three police officer co-workers watched and “protected,”

Source:  The Free Thought Project, New Bill Would Have Teachers Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children and Report them to Police, Jay Syrmopoulos March 24, 2015

WHEN IN DOUBT, SOUND IT OUT; WHEN IN DOUBT, READ (T/READ)!

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-teachers-diagnose-psychological-issues-children-report-police/#88vuAAYXTFSiWlku.99 (where “diagnosis” sounds like dia/g/og/gnossus/gnostic + “dia”/day/dei/deity/god/goddess/de/di/of)

AGE- END- A  21–SUSTAIN ABLE (JOB) GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROFESSIONS–LAW, SOCIAL WORKERS, GOVERNMENT AND CONTRACTED SERVICES, POLICE OFFICERS, AGE- N -CIES, “TEAC HER (HE/R PLACE WITH CHILD)” WARDENS, GRANT WRITERS GALORE–THE RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX IS FINALLY SOLVED! 

PROTECTIVE MOTHERS AND FATHERS, THIS IS WHY THEY CAN’T PULL CRIMINAL “RESPONSIBLE” FATHERS, FOSTER CARERS, AND CPS WORKERS OUT OF JAIL FAST ENOUGH TO CONVERT CUSTODY TO THE “RESPONSIBLE” PARENT, WITHOUT FAIL, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND POLICY, AND TO GET THEM HITCHED TO A WICKED STEPMOMMY OR STEPFATHER WHO COULD NEVER REALLY LOVE YOUR CHILD THE WAY YOU DO, THUS, RESULTING IN THE MAJORITY OF CHILD FATALITIES BEING FROM STEPPARENTS WHO WILL SURELY KEEP THESE KIDS IN THE SYSTEM–CHAIN/GENERATIONAL STYLE-GANG UNTIL THE AGE OF MAJORITY (21, AS IN, AGENDA 21) FOREVER CONFINED AND MADE TO BE “SUBJECTED” TO THE “DIGITAL PLANTATION,” AN ENDLESS CYCLE TO KEEP THE PROFESSIONS IN BUSINESS (AND THEIR TWO MILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL SUMMER DEPOSIT BRIBES FROM THE FARMER’S CLAIMS IN THE 1980’S THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO  HE THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (33) PLUS THOUSAND CLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE IN THE MIDWEST THAT ALLEGEDLY, AS REPORTED ANYHOW, IN AS MUCH AS IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE (OR FALSE)!

THIS IS WHY INSIDERS AND AGENTS HAVE TRIED TO REASSURE SOME OF US, MUCH TO OUR BEWILDERMENT OF COURSE, THAT IF WE LOST CUSTODY IN THESE VERY SIMILAR, PATTERNED MIRROR CASES BEING ALL THE SAME IN ALL DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE US AND OTHER ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES NOTORIOUS FOR THE SS, WE WERE DEFINITELY TARGETED AS THE GOOD PARENT WHO THE BAR AND PROFESSIONS HAVE THEORIZED WOULD, AND THOSE WHO HAD IT CERTAINLY DID,  SPEND EVERY LAST DIME THEY BEGGED, BORROWED, AND EARNED, GOING INTO DEBT TO THE ATTORNERS (ATTORNEY MEANS ONE WHO “TURNS OVER PROPERTY,” I BELIEVE WHICH DERIVES FROM THE MIDDLE ENGLISH FORM OF THE WORD) TRYING TO RESCUE THEIR MATERNALLY  DE-PRIVED/FUTURE DE-PRAVED) PRIVATE PROPERTY SOMETIMES REFERRED TO BY THE “STATE” AS “CHILD” FROM THE ALLEGED ABUSER OR ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSER (AS THE “PLAY THERAPISTS” LI-CENSED BY CPS FOR “STATE OF TEXAS,” MARCIA KLEINMAN STYLE, BUT NOT THE MOTHER THEY TRAIN JUDGES, POLICE, AND COURT-APPOINTED/”PONTIFICATED”/ROMAN PONTIFF TO THE POPE,  ATTORNEYS AND GUARD-IANS AND “MENTAL HEAL-TH/E/VALUATORS-UNQUALI-FIED(FEED/FIEFDOM/SERFDOM) TO THE (WO)MAN, JAN SMITH, WHOREPORTS/PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN THE INVENTOR OF WHAT WE HAVE COME TO KNOW AS THE MODERN CPS “RISK ASSESSMENT” “LEVELS” TREATMENT INDICATORS FOR SIX INSTEAD OF THREE MONTH DI-VERS-ION/ARY TREATMENT PRO-G-RAMS (THINK PROGESTERONE AND MYTHOLOGICAL EGYPTIAN GOD “RAM/SES” OR ARIES IN THE ZODIAC SYSTEM) THOUGH JAN SMITH LOST HE/R GRAND(LODGE)CHILD(PRONOUN-CED CELTIC LIKE KILLED/CHI/CHE/LIFE FORCE)TO T/HE SAM (I AM) SY-STEM DE-SIGN UNDER  PRESSURE F-OM HE/R CPS SUPERVISER TO KEEP T/E PA-RENTS INT/HE MOSTLY SUB-STANCE/STANDING UNDER THE BAR ABUSE SE-R/VICESOR CRIM-IN-AL CON/VICT/IONS NOT NE-CESS-ARILY DE-NOTING THAT ONE IS NOT NECESSARILY A CRIMINAL, BUT IS ONE RATHER WHO INDICATORS FOR LEVELS FUNDING INDICATES CAN BE LEGALLY LEVERAGED FOR FEDERAL STATE BLOCK GRANT “HELPING”/”PROTECTING”/RE-HABBING/RE-INTEGRATING INTO THE WORKFORCE AND FATHER HOOD AND MARRIAGE  (MAKING THEM SUBJECT FOREVER TO THE STATE FAMILY COURTS AND STATE BAR CON THROUGH LICENSE, OR, “LICENTIOUSNESS”/MORAL, CRIMINAL, AND SEXUAL DEPRAVITY OF ORIGINAL SIN, IF NOT N-TO-P” IN S O(W)MAN-Y  O F/OUR CA-SES THAT T/HE $20,000 DE-RIV/ATIVE  ANN-U(ANUS OF THE OTHER HEART) THE $2,000,000,000 F-ARME/RS’ (ARME MEANS FREE/ARMY/LIBERATORS) CLAIMS FROM THE 80’S THAT FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURES ON 330,000  FARM CLAIMS WE-RE/WON BACK BY A GROUP OF ARMY GENERALS AND THE SON OF A FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FARMER WHO STARTED THIS ENTIRE CLAIM WORTH OVER EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS THAT THE FEDERAL US GOVERNMENT SAID THEY WOULD PAY OUT, BUT FOR THE THREE US CHIEF JUSTICES IN CHARGE OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, AS ALLEGED IN WELL-DOCUMENTED SEVEN YEARS WORTH OF RESEARCH BY A (WO)MAN WHOSE WORK I, Julian’s real mommy, took the liberty of posting on this b-log–“NESARA Law” hid away in Switzerland, the UK, and the Netherlands, I believe so that they could use it to bribe 533 of 535 members of the then Senate, as reported with a $200,000,000 bribe to usher in the agenda of the United Nations, “New World Order,” and overthrow the Federal, US Constitution and Bill of Rights who some  Benevolent “FOUR OR FIVE ‘VISIONARIES'” HAVE , AS REPORTED, BEEN TRYING TO RE-STORE SINCE the 1950’s.  Otherwise I think there is more truth than not, at least at first glance, though author trusts no one truly of this physical versus spiritual, heavenly  whorld/would/horus/the all-seeing eye or inner wisdom derived from the awakening physical, but not spiritual “death” when one experiences the descent of the pineal and pituitary glands from the back of the brain near the cerebellum, perhaps (I have to double-check on that one).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N2c_UOIsLMQ

IF No Fault Divorce, then No Fault Childhood, Right.  WRONG!

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

Image result for PICS OF KIDS GOING TO JAIL

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL LAWS AGAIN? 

SO MUCH FOR UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON GETTING THE NEW SCHOOL UNIFORM CONTRACTS

NEW RULERS SAY NO MORE SPANKINGS IN SCHOOL . . .  NO MORE CHOICE OF POPS BY THE PRINCIPAL IN LIEU OF AFTER-SCHOOL DETENTION . . . THAT THE STUDENTS SHOULD BE TELLING PARENTS AND TEACHERS WHAT TO DO AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, . . . TO “CATCH(MENT ZONE”) THEM WHEN THEIR GUARD IS DOWN???   I CALL THIS THE NEW TWILIGHT ZONE FOR THE NEW NAZIS! 

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

BILL SPONSORED BY TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, JASON VILLALBAS (R-DALLAS)

On the bright side, THOUGH, maybe it will actually get them reading, so they better learn it while they still can! 

Click on the link below, or otherwise cut and paste or enter manually into the browser to read more about the surreal life, from Texas below:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bill-teachers-diagnose-psychological-issues-children-report-police/

From the reporters who were actually allowed to inform the “public trust” about the public servant in Pharr, Texas (Hidalgo County/South Texas region close to the border) who allegedly raped a teenage girl multiple times while three police officer co-workers watched and “protected,”

Source:  The Free Thought Project, New Bill Would Have Teachers Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children and Report them to Police, Jay Syrmopoulos March 24, 2015

Read more at:

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand,

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD LEGISLATION BY SANTORUM|ALL SINGLE MOTHERS NEED TO READ AND STUDY THIS AND STAY OUT OF COURT AND AWAY FROM CPS AND POLICE


[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S. 2830 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 714
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2830

   To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to promote 
 healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2004

Mr. Santorum (for himself and Mr. Bayh) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                           September 23, 2004

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
   To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to promote 
 healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Marriages and Responsible 
Fatherhood Act of 2004''.

         TITLE I--HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

SEC. 101. PROMOTION OF FAMILY FORMATION AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE.

    (a) TANF State Plans.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                            ``(vii) Encourage equitable treatment of 
                        healthy 2-parent married families under the 
                        program referred to in clause (i).''.
    (b) Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants; Repeal of Bonus for 
Reduction of Illegitimacy Ratio.--Section 403(a)(2) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Healthy marriage promotion grants.--
                    ``(A) Authority.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall 
                        award competitive grants to States, 
                        territories, and Indian tribes and tribal 
                        organizations for not more than 50 percent of 
                        the cost of developing and implementing 
                        innovative programs to promote and support 
                        healthy 2-parent married families.
                            ``(ii) Use of other tanf funds.--A State or 
                        Indian tribe with an approved tribal family 
                        assistance plan may use funds provided under 
                        other grants made under this part for all or 
                        part of the expenditures incurred for the 
                        remainder of the costs described in clause (i). 
                        In the case of a State, any such funds expended 
                        shall not be considered qualified State 
                        expenditures for purposes of section 409(a)(7).
                    ``(B) Healthy marriage promotion activities.--Funds 
                provided under subparagraph (A) and corresponding State 
                matching funds shall be used to support any of the 
                following programs or activities:
                            ``(i) Public advertising campaigns on the 
                        value of marriage and the skills needed to 
                        increase marital stability and health.
                            ``(ii) Education in high schools on the 
                        value of marriage, relationship skills, and 
                        budgeting.
                            ``(iii) Marriage education, marriage 
                        skills, and relationship skills programs that 
                        may include case management for, and referrals 
                        to, programs for parenting skills, financial 
                        management, conflict resolution, and job and 
                        career advancement, for non-married pregnant 
                        women, non-married expectant fathers, and non-
                        married recent parents.
                            ``(iv) Pre-marital education and marriage 
                        skills training for engaged couples and for 
                        couples or individuals interested in marriage.
                            ``(v) Marriage enhancement and marriage 
                        skills training programs for married couples.
                            ``(vi) Divorce reduction programs that 
                        teach relationship skills.
                            ``(vii) Marriage mentoring programs which 
                        use married couples as role models and mentors.
                            ``(viii) Programs to reduce the 
                        disincentives to marriage in means-tested aid 
                        programs, if offered in conjunction with any 
                        activity described in this subparagraph.
                            ``(ix) Training for individuals who will 
                        conduct any of the programs or activities 
                        described in clauses (i) through (viii).
                    ``(C) Voluntary participation.--Participation in 
                programs or activities described in any of clauses 
                (iii) through (vii) of subparagraph (B) shall be 
                voluntary.
                    ``(D) General rules governing use of funds.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The rules of section 
                        404, other than subsection (b) of that section, 
                        shall not apply to a grant made under this 
                        paragraph.
                            ``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in 
                        this part or part C shall be construed as 
                        prohibiting a State from using funds made 
                        available under a grant awarded under this 
                        paragraph to award a subgrant or contract to a 
                        fatherhood promotion organization to carry out 
                        programs or activities described in 
                        subparagraph (B).
                    ``(E) Requirements for receipt of funds.--A State, 
                territory, or Indian tribe or tribal organization may 
                not be awarded a grant under this paragraph unless the 
                State, territory, Indian tribe or tribal organization, 
                as a condition of receiving funds under such a grant--
                            ``(i) consults with experts in domestic 
                        violence or with relevant community domestic 
                        violence coalitions in developing such programs 
                        or activities; and
                            ``(ii) describes in the application for a 
                        grant under this paragraph--
                                    ``(I) how the programs or 
                                activities proposed to be conducted 
                                will address, as appropriate, issues of 
                                domestic violence; and
                                    ``(II) what the State, territory, 
                                or Indian tribe or tribal organization, 
                                will do, to the extent relevant, to 
                                ensure that participation in such 
                                programs or activities is voluntary, 
                                and to inform potential participants 
                                that their involvement is voluntary.
                    ``(F) Appropriation.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the 
                        Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
                        appropriated, there are appropriated for each 
                        of fiscal years 2005 through 2006, $100,000,000 
                        for grants under this paragraph.
                            ``(ii) Extended availability of funds.--
                                    ``(I) In general.--Funds 
                                appropriated under clause (i) for each 
                                of fiscal years 2005 through 2006 shall 
                                remain available to the Secretary until 
                                expended.
                                    ``(II) Authority for grant 
                                recipients.--A State, territory, or 
                                Indian tribe or tribal organization may 
                                use funds made available under a grant 
                                awarded under this paragraph without 
                                fiscal year limitation pursuant to the 
                                terms of the grant.''.
    (c) Counting of Spending on Non-Eligible Families To Prevent and 
Reduce Incidence of Out-of-Wedlock Births, Encourage Formation and 
Maintenance of Healthy 2-Parent Married Families, or Encourage 
Responsible Fatherhood.--Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                                    ``(V) Counting of spending on non-
                                eligible families to prevent and reduce 
                                incidence of out-of-wedlock births, 
                                encourage formation and maintenance of 
                                healthy 2-parent married families, or 
                                encourage responsible fatherhood.--
                                Subject to subclauses (II) and (III), 
                                the term `qualified State expenditures' 
                                includes the total expenditures by the 
                                State during the fiscal year under all 
                                State programs for a purpose described 
                                in paragraph (3) or (4) of section 
                                401(a).''.
    (d) Purposes.--Section 401(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 601(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``two-parent families'' and 
inserting ``healthy 2-parent married families, and encourage 
responsible fatherhood''.

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

    (a) Responsible Fatherhood Program.--
            (1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
                    (A) Nearly 24,000,000 children in the United 
                States, or 34 percent of all such children, live apart 
                from their biological father.
                    (B) Sixty percent of couples who divorce have at 
                least 1 child.
                    (C) The number of children living with only a 
                mother increased from just over 5,000,000 in 1960 to 
                17,000,000 in 1999, and between 1981 and 1991 the 
                percentage of children living with only 1 parent 
                increased from 19 percent to 25 percent.
                    (D) Forty percent of children who live in 
                households without a father have not seen their father 
                in at least 1 year and 50 percent of such children have 
                never visited their father's home.
                    (E) The most important factor in a child's 
                upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a 
                loving, healthy, supportive environment.
                    (F) Children who live without contact with their 
                biological father are, in comparison to children who 
                have such contact--
                            (i) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;
                            (ii) more likely to bring weapons and drugs 
                        into the classroom;
                            (iii) twice as likely to commit crime;
                            (iv) twice as likely to drop out of school;
                            (v) more likely to commit suicide;
                            (vi) more than twice as likely to abuse 
                        alcohol or drugs; and
                            (vii) more likely to become pregnant as 
                        teenagers.
                    (G) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who 
                grew up without fathers.
                    (H) Between 20 and 30 percent of families in 
                poverty are headed by women who have suffered domestic 
                violence during the past year, and between 40 and 60 
                percent of women with children receiving welfare were 
                abused sometime during their life.
                    (I) Responsible fatherhood includes active 
                participation in financial support and child care, as 
                well as the formation and maintenance of a positive, 
                healthy, and nonviolent relationship between father and 
                child and a cooperative relationship between parents.
                    (J) States should be encouraged to implement 
                programs that provide support for responsible 
                fatherhood, promote marriage, and increase the 
                incidence of marriage, and should not be restricted 
                from implementing such programs.
                    (K) Fatherhood programs should promote and provide 
                support services for--
                            (i) loving and healthy relationships 
                        between parents and children; and
                            (ii) cooperative parenting.
                    (L) There is a social need to reconnect children 
                and fathers.
                    (M) The promotion of responsible fatherhood and 
                encouragement of healthy 2-parent married families 
                should not--
                            (i) denigrate the standing or parenting 
                        efforts of single mothers or other caregivers;
                            (ii) lessen the protection of children from 
                        abusive parents; or
                            (iii) compromise the safety or health of 
                        the custodial parent;
                but should increase the chance that children will have 
                2 caring parents to help them grow up healthy and 
                secure.
                    (N) The promotion of responsible fatherhood must 
                always recognize and promote the values of nonviolence.
                    (O) For the future of the United States and the 
                future of our children, Congress, States, and local 
                communities should assist parents to become more 
                actively involved in their children's lives.
                    (P) Child support is an important means by which a 
                parent can take financial responsibility for a child 
                and emotional support is an important means by which a 
                parent can take social responsibility for a child.
            (2) Fatherhood program.--Title I of the Personal 
        Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
        (Public Law 104-193) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:

``SEC. 117. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

    ``(a) In General.--Title IV (42 U.S.C. 601-679b) is amended by 
inserting after part B the following:

               ```PART C--RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM

 ```SEC. 441. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS.

    ```(a) Grants to States To Conduct Demonstration Programs.--
            ```(1) Authority to award grants.--
                    ```(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award 
                grants to up to 20 eligible States to conduct 
                demonstration programs to carry out the purposes 
                described in paragraph (2).
                    ```(B) Eligible state.--For purposes of this 
                subsection, an eligible State is a State that submits 
                to the Secretary the following:
                            ```(i) Application.--An application for a 
                        grant under this subsection, at such time, in 
                        such manner, and containing such information as 
                        the Secretary may require.
                            ```(ii) State plan.--A State plan that 
                        includes the following:
                                    ```(I) Project description.--A 
                                description of the programs or 
                                activities the State will fund under 
                                the grant, including a good faith 
                                estimate of the number and 
                                characteristics of clients to be served 
                                under such projects and how the State 
                                intends to achieve at least 2 of the 
                                purposes described in paragraph (2).
                                    ```(II) Coordination efforts.--A 
                                description of how the State will 
                                coordinate and cooperate with State and 
                                local entities responsible for carrying 
                                out other programs that relate to the 
                                purposes intended to be achieved under 
                                the demonstration program, including as 
                                appropriate, entities responsible for 
                                carrying out jobs programs and programs 
                                serving children and families.
                                    ```(III) Records, reports, and 
                                audits.--An agreement to maintain such 
                                records, submit such reports, and 
                                cooperate with such reviews and audits 
                                as the Secretary finds necessary for 
                                purposes of oversight of the 
                                demonstration program.
                            ```(iii) Certifications.--The following 
                        certifications from the chief executive officer 
                        of the State:
                                    ```(I) A certification that the 
                                State will use funds provided under the 
                                grant to promote at least 2 of the 
                                purposes described in paragraph (2).
                                    ```(II) A certification that the 
                                State will return any unused funds 
to the Secretary in accordance with the reconciliation process under 
paragraph (5).
                                    ```(III) A certification that the 
                                funds provided under the grant will be 
                                used for programs and activities that 
                                target low-income participants and that 
                                not less than 50 percent of the 
                                participants in each program or 
                                activity funded under the grant shall 
                                be--
                                            ```(aa) parents of a child 
                                        who is, or within the past 24 
                                        months has been, a recipient of 
                                        assistance or services under a 
                                        State program funded under part 
                                        A, D, or E of this title, title 
                                        XIX, or the Food Stamp Act of 
                                        1977; or
                                            ```(bb) parents, including 
                                        an expectant parent or a 
                                        married parent, whose income 
                                        (after adjustment for court-
                                        ordered child support paid or 
                                        received) does not exceed 150 
                                        percent of the poverty line.
                                    ```(IV) A certification that the 
                                State has or will comply with the 
                                requirements of paragraph (4).
                                    ```(V) A certification that funds 
                                provided to a State under this 
                                subsection shall not be used to 
                                supplement or supplant other Federal, 
                                State, or local funds that are used to 
                                support programs or activities that are 
                                related to the purposes described in 
                                paragraph (2).
                    ```(C) Preferences and factors of consideration.--
                In awarding grants under this subsection, the Secretary 
                shall take into consideration the following:
                            ```(i) Diversity of entities used to 
                        conduct programs and activities.--The Secretary 
                        shall, to the extent practicable, achieve a 
                        balance among the eligible States awarded 
                        grants under this subsection with respect to 
                        the size, urban or rural location, and 
                        employment of differing or unique methods of 
                        the entities that the eligible States intend to 
                        use to conduct the programs and activities 
                        funded under the grants.
                            ```(ii) Priority for certain states.--The 
                        Secretary shall give priority to awarding 
                        grants to eligible States that have--
                                    ```(I) demonstrated progress in 
                                achieving at least 1 of the purposes 
                                described in paragraph (2) through 
                                previous State initiatives; or
                                    ```(II) demonstrated need with 
                                respect to reducing the incidence of 
                                out-of-wedlock births or absent fathers 
                                in the State.
            ```(2) Purposes.--The purposes described in this paragraph 
        are the following:
                    ```(A) Promoting responsible fatherhood through 
                marriage promotion.--To promote marriage or sustain 
                marriage through activities such as counseling, 
                mentoring, disseminating information about the benefits 
                of marriage and 2-parent involvement for children, 
                enhancing relationship skills, education regarding how 
                to control aggressive behavior, disseminating 
                information on the causes of domestic violence and 
                child abuse, marriage preparation programs, premarital 
                counseling, marital inventories, skills-based marriage 
                education, financial planning seminars, including 
                improving a family's ability to effectively manage 
                family business affairs by means such as education, 
                counseling, or mentoring on matters related to family 
                finances, including household management, budgeting, 
                banking, and handling of financial transactions and 
                home maintenance, and divorce education and reduction 
                programs, including mediation and counseling.
                    ```(B) Promoting responsible fatherhood through 
                parenting promotion.--To promote responsible parenting 
                through activities such as counseling, mentoring, and 
                mediation, disseminating information about good 
                parenting practices, skills-based parenting education, 
                encouraging child support payments, and other methods.
                    ```(C) Promoting responsible fatherhood through 
                fostering economic stability of fathers.--To foster 
                economic stability by helping fathers improve their 
                economic status by providing activities such as work 
                first services, job search, job training, subsidized 
                employment, job retention, job enhancement, and 
                encouraging education, including career-advancing 
                education, dissemination of employment materials, 
                coordination with existing employment services such as 
                welfare-to-work programs, referrals to local employment 
                training initiatives, and other methods.
            ```(3) Restriction on use of funds.--No funds provided 
        under this subsection may be used for costs attributable to 
        court proceedings regarding matters of child visitation or 
        custody, or for legislative advocacy.
            ```(4) Requirements for receipt of funds.--A State may not 
        be awarded a grant under this section unless the State, as a 
        condition of receiving funds under such a grant--
                    ```(A) consults with experts in domestic violence 
                or with relevant community domestic violence coalitions 
                in developing such programs or activities; and
                    ```(B) describes in the application for a grant 
                under this section--
                            ```(i) how the programs or activities 
                        proposed to be conducted will address, 
as appropriate, issues of domestic violence; and
                            ```(ii) what the State will do, to the 
                        extent relevant, to ensure that participation 
                        in such programs or activities is voluntary, 
                        and to inform potential participants that their 
                        involvement is voluntary.
            ```(5) Reconciliation process.--
                    ```(A) 3-year availability of amounts allotted.--
                Each eligible State that receives a grant under this 
                subsection for a fiscal year shall return to the 
                Secretary any unused portion of the grant for such 
                fiscal year not later than the last day of the second 
                succeeding fiscal year, together with any earnings on 
                such unused portion.
                    ```(B) Procedure for redistribution.--The Secretary 
                shall establish an appropriate procedure for 
                redistributing to eligible States that have expended 
                the entire amount of a grant made under this subsection 
                for a fiscal year any amount that is returned to the 
                Secretary by eligible States under subparagraph (A).
            ```(6) Amount of grants.--
                    ```(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), 
                the amount of each grant awarded under this subsection 
                shall be an amount sufficient to implement the State 
                plan submitted under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
                    ```(B) Minimum amounts.--No eligible State shall--
                            ```(i) in the case of the District of 
                        Columbia or a State other than the Commonwealth 
                        of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
                        Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
                        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
                        receive a grant for a fiscal year in an amount 
                        that is less than $1,000,000; and
                            ```(ii) in the case of the Commonwealth of 
                        Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 
                        Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
                        the Northern Mariana Islands, receive a grant 
                        for a fiscal year in an amount that is less 
                        than $500,000.
            ```(7) Definition of state.--In this subsection, the term 
        ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States 
        Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
        the Northern Mariana Islands.
            ```(8) Authorization of appropriations.--Out of any money 
        in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
        appropriated, there are appropriated $45,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 2005 through 2006 for purposes of making grants to 
        eligible States under this subsection.
    ```(b) Grants to Eligible Entities To Conduct Demonstration 
Programs.--
            ```(1) Authority to award grants.--
                    ```(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award 
                grants to eligible entities to conduct demonstration 
                programs to carry out the purposes described in 
                subsection (a)(2).
                    ```(B) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this 
                subsection, an eligible entity is a local government, 
                local public agency, community-based or nonprofit 
                organization, or private entity, including any 
                charitable or faith-based organization, or an Indian 
                tribe (as defined in section 419(4)), that submits to 
                the Secretary the following:
                            ```(i) Application.--An application for a 
                        grant under this subsection, at such time, in 
                        such manner, and containing such information as 
                        the Secretary may require.
                            ```(ii) Project description.--A description 
                        of the programs or activities the entity 
                        intends to carry out with funds provided under 
                        the grant, including a good faith estimate of 
                        the number and characteristics of clients to be 
                        served under such programs or activities and 
                        how the entity intends to achieve at least 2 of 
                        the purposes described in subsection (a)(2).
                            ```(iii) Coordination efforts.--A 
                        description of how the entity will coordinate 
                        and cooperate with State and local entities 
                        responsible for carrying out other programs 
                        that relate to the purposes intended to be 
                        achieved under the demonstration program, 
                        including as appropriate, entities responsible 
                        for carrying out jobs programs and programs 
                        serving children and families.
                            ```(iv) Records, reports, and audits.--An 
                        agreement to maintain such records, submit such 
                        reports, and cooperate with such reviews and 
                        audits as the Secretary finds necessary for 
                        purposes of oversight of the demonstration 
                        program.
                            ```(v) Certifications.--The following 
                        certifications:
                                    ```(I) A certification that the 
                                entity will use funds provided under 
                                the grant to promote at least 2 of the 
                                purposes described in subsection 
                                (a)(2).
                                    ```(II) A certification that the 
                                entity will return any unused funds to 
                                the Secretary in accordance with the 
                                reconciliation process under paragraph 
                                (3).
                                    ```(III) A certification that the 
                                funds provided under the grant will be 
                                used for programs and activities that 
                                target low-income participants and that 
                                not less than 50 percent of the 
                                participants in each program or 
                                activity funded under the grant shall 
                                be--
                                            ```(aa) parents of a child 
                                        who is, or within the past 
24 months has been, a recipient of assistance or services under a State 
program funded under part A, D, or E of this title, title XIX, or the 
Food Stamp Act of 1977; or
                                            ```(bb) parents, including 
                                        an expectant parent or a 
                                        married parent, whose income 
                                        (after adjustment for court-
                                        ordered child support paid or 
                                        received) does not exceed 150 
                                        percent of the poverty line.
                                    ```(IV) A certification that the 
                                entity has or will comply with the 
                                requirements of paragraph (3).
                                    ```(V) A certification that funds 
                                provided to an entity under this 
                                subsection shall not be used to 
                                supplement or supplant other Federal, 
                                State, or local funds provided to the 
                                entity that are used to support 
                                programs or activities that are related 
                                to the purposes described in subsection 
                                (a)(2).
                    ```(C) Preferences and factors of consideration.--
                In awarding grants under this subsection, the Secretary 
                shall, to the extent practicable, achieve a balance 
                among the eligible entities awarded grants under this 
                subsection with respect to the size, urban or rural 
                location, and employment of differing or unique methods 
                of the entities.
            ```(2) Restriction on use of funds.--No funds provided 
        under this subsection may be used for costs attributable to 
        court proceedings regarding matters of child visitation or 
        custody, or for legislative advocacy.
            ```(3) Requirements for use of funds.--The Secretary may 
        not award a grant under this subsection to an eligible entity 
        unless the entity, as a condition of receiving funds under such 
        a grant--
                    ```(A) consults with experts in domestic violence 
                or with relevant community domestic violence coalitions 
                in developing the programs or activities to be 
                conducted with such funds awarded under the grant; and
                    ```(B) describes in the application for a grant 
                under this section--
                            ```(i) how the programs or activities 
                        proposed to be conducted will address, as 
                        appropriate, issues of domestic violence; and
                            ```(ii) what the entity will do, to the 
                        extent relevant, to ensure that participation 
                        in such programs or activities is voluntary, 
                        and to inform potential participants that their 
                        involvement is voluntary.
            ```(4) Reconciliation process.--
                    ```(A) 3-year availability of amounts allotted.--
                Each eligible entity that receives a grant under this 
                subsection for a fiscal year shall return to the 
                Secretary any unused portion of the grant for such 
                fiscal year not later than the last day of the second 
                succeeding fiscal year, together with any earnings on 
                such unused portion.
                    ```(B) Procedure for redistribution.--The Secretary 
                shall establish an appropriate procedure for 
                redistributing to eligible entities that have expended 
                the entire amount of a grant made under this subsection 
                for a fiscal year any amount that is returned to the 
                Secretary by eligible entities under subparagraph (A).
            ```(5) Authorization of appropriations.--Out of any money 
        in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
        appropriated, there are appropriated $30,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 2005 through 2006 for purposes of making grants to 
        eligible entities under this subsection.

```SEC. 442. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 
              PROGRAMS.

    ```(a) Media Campaign National Clearinghouse for Responsible 
Fatherhood.--
            ```(1) In general.--From any funds appropriated under 
        subsection (c), the Secretary shall contract with a nationally 
        recognized, nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization 
        described in subsection (b) to--
                    ```(A) develop, promote, and distribute to 
                interested States, local governments, public agencies, 
                and private entities a media campaign that encourages 
                the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of 
                any child, with a priority for programs that 
                specifically address the issue of responsible 
                fatherhood; and
                    ```(B) develop a national clearinghouse to assist 
                States and communities in efforts to promote and 
                support marriage and responsible fatherhood by 
                collecting, evaluating, and making available (through 
                the Internet and by other means) to other States 
                information regarding the media campaigns established 
                under section 443.
            ```(2) Coordination with domestic violence programs.--The 
        Secretary shall ensure that the nationally recognized nonprofit 
        fatherhood promotion organization with a contract under 
        paragraph (1) coordinates the media campaign developed under 
        subparagraph (A) of such paragraph and the national 
        clearinghouse developed under subparagraph (B) of such 
        paragraph with national, State, or local domestic violence 
        programs.
    ```(b) Nationally Recognized, Nonprofit Fatherhood Promotion 
Organization Described.--The nationally recognized, nonprofit 
fatherhood promotion organization described in this subsection is an 
organization that has at least 4 years of experience in--
            ```(1) designing and disseminating a national public 
        education campaign, as evidenced by the production and 
        successful placement of television, radio, and print public 
service announcements that promote the importance of responsible 
fatherhood, a track record of service to Spanish-speaking populations 
and historically underserved or minority populations, the capacity to 
fulfill requests for information and a proven history of fulfilling 
such requests, and a mechanism through which the public can request 
additional information about the campaign; and
            ```(2) providing consultation and training to community-
        based organizations interested in implementing fatherhood 
        outreach, support, or skill development programs with an 
        emphasis on promoting married fatherhood as the ideal.
    ```(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2006 to 
carry out this section.

```SEC. 443. BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES TO ENCOURAGE MEDIA CAMPAIGNS.

    ```(a) Definitions.--In this section:
            ```(1) Broadcast advertisement.--The term ``broadcast 
        advertisement'' means a communication intended to be aired by a 
        television or radio broadcast station, including a 
        communication intended to be transmitted through a cable 
        channel.
            ```(2) Child at risk.--The term ``child at risk'' means 
        each young child whose family income does not exceed the 
        poverty line.
            ```(3) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 673(2) of the Community 
        Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any 
        revision required by such section, that is applicable to a 
        family of the size involved.
            ```(4) Printed or other advertisement.--The term ``printed 
        or other advertisement'' includes any communication intended to 
        be distributed through a newspaper, magazine, outdoor 
        advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general 
        public advertising, but does not include any broadcast 
        advertisement.
            ```(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 
        States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
        and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
            ```(6) Young child.--The term ``young child'' means an 
        individual under age 5.
    ```(b) State Certifications.--Not later than October 1 of each of 
fiscal year for which a State desires to receive an allotment under 
this section, the chief executive officer of the State shall submit to 
the Secretary a certification that the State shall--
            ```(1) use such funds to promote the formation and 
        maintenance of healthy 2-parent married families, strengthen 
        fragile families, and promote responsible fatherhood through 
        media campaigns conducted in accordance with the requirements 
        of subsection (d);
            ```(2) return any unused funds to the Secretary in 
        accordance with the reconciliation process under subsection 
        (e); and
            ```(3) comply with the reporting requirements under 
        subsection (f).
    ```(c) Payments to States.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
2006, the Secretary shall pay to each State that submits a 
certification under subsection (b), from any funds appropriated under 
subsection (i), for the fiscal year an amount equal to the amount of 
the allotment determined for the fiscal year under subsection (g).
    ```(d) Establishment of Media Campaigns.--Each State receiving an 
allotment under this section for a fiscal year shall use the allotment 
to conduct media campaigns as follows:
            ```(1) Conduct of media campaigns.--
                    ```(A) Radio and television media campaigns.--
                            ```(i) Production of broadcast 
                        advertisements.--At the option of the State, to 
                        produce broadcast advertisements that promote 
                        the formation and maintenance of healthy 2-
                        parent married families, strengthen fragile 
                        families, and promote responsible fatherhood.
                            ```(ii) Airtime challenge program.--At the 
                        option of the State, to establish an airtime 
                        challenge program under which the State may 
                        spend amounts allotted under this section to 
                        purchase time from a broadcast station to air a 
                        broadcast advertisement produced under clause 
                        (i), but only if the State obtains an amount of 
                        time of the same class and during a comparable 
                        period to air the advertisement using non-
                        Federal contributions.
                    ```(B) Other media campaigns.--At the option of the 
                State, to conduct a media campaign that consists of the 
                production and distribution of printed or other 
                advertisements that promote the formation and 
                maintenance of healthy 2-parent married families, 
                strengthen fragile families, and promote responsible 
                fatherhood.
            ```(2) Administration of media campaigns.--A State may 
        administer media campaigns funded under this section directly 
        or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with 
        public agencies, local governments, or private entities, 
        including charitable and faith-based organizations.
            ```(3) Consultation with domestic violence assistance 
        centers.--In developing broadcast and printed advertisements to 
        be used in the media campaigns conducted under paragraph (1), 
        the State or other entity administering the campaign shall 
        consult with representatives of State and local domestic 
        violence centers.
            ```(4) Non-federal contributions.--In this section, the 
        term ``non-Federal contributions'' includes contributions by 
        the State and by public and private entities. Such 
        contributions may be in cash or in kind. Such term does not 
        include any amounts provided by the Federal Government, or 
        services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by 
        the Federal Government, or any amount expended by a State 
        before October 1, 2004.
    ```(e) Reconciliation Process.--
            ```(1) 3-year availability of amounts allotted.--Each State 
        that receives an allotment under this section shall return to 
        the Secretary any unused portion of the amount allotted to a 
        State for a fiscal year not later than the last day of the 
        second succeeding fiscal year together with any earnings on 
        such unused portion.
            ```(2) Procedure for redistribution of unused allotments.--
        The Secretary shall establish an appropriate procedure for 
        redistributing to States that have expended the entire amount 
        allotted under this section any amount that is--
                    ```(A) returned to the Secretary by States under 
                paragraph (1); or
                    ```(B) not allotted to a State under this section 
                because the State did not submit a certification under 
                subsection (b) by October 1 of a fiscal year.
    ```(f) Reporting Requirements.--
            ```(1) Monitoring and evaluation.--Each State receiving an 
        allotment under this section for a fiscal year shall monitor 
and evaluate the media campaigns conducted using funds made available 
under this section in such manner as the Secretary, in consultation 
with the States, determines appropriate.
            ```(2) Annual reports.--Not less frequently than annually, 
        each State receiving an allotment under this section for a 
        fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary reports on the media 
        campaigns conducted using funds made available under this 
        section at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
        information as the Secretary may require.
    ```(g) Amount of Allotments.--
            ```(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of 
        the amount appropriated for the purpose of making allotments 
        under this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot 
        to each State that submits a certification under subsection (b) 
        for the fiscal year an amount equal to the sum of--
                    ```(A) the amount that bears the same ratio to 50 
                percent of such funds as the number of young children 
                in the State (as determined by the Secretary based on 
                the most current reliable data available) bears to the 
                number of such children in all States; and
                    ```(B) the amount that bears the same ratio to 50 
                percent of such funds as the number of children at risk 
                in the State (as determined by the Secretary based on 
                the most current reliable data available) bears to the 
                number of such children in all States.
            ```(2) Minimum allotments.--No allotment for a fiscal year 
        under this section shall be less than--
                    ```(A) in the case of the District of Columbia or a 
                State other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
                United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
                the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 1 
                percent of the amount appropriated for the fiscal year 
                under subsection (i); and
                    ```(B) in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto 
                Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
                Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
                Islands, 0.5 percent of such amount.
            ```(3) Pro rata reductions.--The Secretary shall make such 
        pro rata reductions to the allotments determined under this 
        subsection as are necessary to comply with the requirements of 
        paragraph (2).
    ```(h) Evaluation.--
            ```(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
        evaluation of the impact of the media campaigns funded under 
        this section.
            ```(2) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the 
        Secretary shall report to Congress the results of the 
        evaluation under paragraph (1).
            ```(3) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated under 
        subsection (i) for fiscal year 2005, $1,000,000 of such amount 
        shall be transferred and made available for purposes of 
        conducting the evaluation required under this subsection, and 
        shall remain available until expended.
    ```(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2006 for 
purposes of making allotments to States under this section.'.
    ``(b) Inapplicability of Effective Date Provisions.--Section 116 
shall not apply to the amendment made by subsection (a) of this 
section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--Section 2 of such Act is amended in the 
table of contents by inserting after the item relating to section 116 
the following new item:

``Sec. 117. Responsible fatherhood program.''.

SEC. 103. RESEARCH, EVALUATIONS, AND NATIONAL STUDIES.

    Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) Funding for Research, Demonstrations, and Technical 
Assistance.--
            ``(1) Appropriation.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury 
                of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there 
                are appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2005 through 2006, which shall remain available to the 
                Secretary until expended.
                    ``(B) Use of funds.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Funds appropriated under 
                        subparagraph (A) shall be used for the purpose 
                        of--
                                    ``(I) conducting or supporting 
                                research and demonstration projects by 
                                public or private entities; or
                                    ``(II) providing technical 
                                assistance in connection with a purpose 
                                of the program funded under this part, 
                                as described in section 401(a), to 
                                States, Indian tribal organizations, 
                                sub-State entities, and such other 
                                entities as the Secretary may specify.
                            ``(ii) Requirement.--Not less than 80 
                        percent of the funds appropriated under 
                        subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year shall be 
                        expended for the purpose of conducting or 
                        supporting research and demonstration projects, 
                        or for providing technical assistance, in 
                        connection with activities described in section 
                        403(a)(2)(B). Funds appropriated under 
                        subparagraph (A) and expended in accordance 
                        with this clause shall be in addition to any 
                        other funds made available under this part for 
                        activities described in section 403(a)(2)(B).
            ``(2) Secretary's authority.--The Secretary may conduct 
        activities authorized by this subsection directly or through 
        grants, contracts, or interagency agreements with public or 
        private entities.
            ``(3) Requirement for use of funds.--The Secretary shall 
        not pay any funds appropriated under paragraph (1)(A) to an 
        entity for the purpose of conducting or supporting research and 
demonstration projects involving activities described in section 
403(a)(2)(B) unless the entity complies with the requirements of 
section 403(a)(2)(E).''.

SEC. 104. RESCISSION OF HIGH PERFORMANCE BONUS AND BONUS TO REWARD 
              DECREASE IN ILLEGITIMACY RATIO.

    (a) Rescission.--With respect to the amounts appropriated under 
paragraphs (2)(D) and (4)(F) of section 403(a) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)), the amounts remaining available for obligation 
for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2004 are rescinded.
    (b) Budget Scoring.--Notwithstanding section 257(b)(2) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
907(b)(2)), the baseline shall assume that no bonus grants shall be 
made under section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
603(a)(2)) (relating to bonuses to reward decreases in the illegitimacy 
ratio) or under section 403(a)(4) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) 
(relating to high performance bonuses) after fiscal year 2004.
    (c) Application of Budget Savings.--Budget savings resulting from 
the application of subsections (a) and (b) shall be applied to offset 
the costs of making healthy marriage promotion grants under section 
403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (as amended by section 101(b) of 
this Act), funding research, demonstrations, and technical assistance 
under section 413(k) of the Social Security Act (as added by section 
103 of this Act), and carrying out the responsible fatherhood program 
under part C of title IV of the Social Security Act (as added by 
section 102(a)(2) of this Act).

            TITLE II--EXTENSION OF TANF AND RELATED PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES 
              BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005.

    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV of the 
Social Security Act, other than the activities authorized by sections 
403(a)(2) and 413(k) of such Act (as amended by sections 101(b) and 
103, respectively, of this Act), and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925 
of such Act, shall continue through March 31, 2005, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) 
of such Act, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 
not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made 
pursuant to this authority through the second quarter of fiscal year 
2005 at the level provided for such activities through the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2002. Activities authorized by sections 
403(a)(2) and 413(k) of the Social Security Act (as so amended), and by 
part C of title IV of such Act (as added by section 102(a)(2) of this 
Act)), shall continue through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006 in 
accordance with the amendments made by sections 101(b), 102(a)(2), and 
103, respectively, of this Act.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2004'' and inserting ``March 31, 2005''.

SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF CHILD 
              WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH 
              SEPTEMBER 30, 2004.

    Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social 
Security Act shall continue through March 31, 2005, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2002, and out of any money in the Treasury 
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and 
payments may be made pursuant to this authority through the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities 
through the second quarter of fiscal year 2002.




                                                       Calendar No. 714

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2830

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to promote 
 healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 23, 2004

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar