LORI HANDRAHAN AND MILA’S CASE IN MAINE


RE-POSTING FROM BLOG BELOW . . .

bECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINUTE DETAILS THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DID OR DID NOT MISS ON PURPOSE THAT BEAR A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO DETAILS TO/ AT ACTUALLY OCCURRING AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND “COACHING” CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ALLEGED BY CHILD WHO IS NOW EIGHT YEARS OLD AND DENIED ALL CONTACT WITH LOVING MOTHER FOR THREE YEARS, THOUGH described as “Joni Saloom” did what all non-offending professionals demanded s/he do and believed he/r only child, private property sometimes described for profit by “state” absent (un)timely, sufficient notice, AS DID ALL OTHER PROFESSIONALS AS CONFESSED AND IN “OUTCOMES” BASE, . . . OF THEN (2012) FIVE YEAR OLD LITTLE BOY (MAY 2012) BY  CHERYL HARVICK, LESLY DAMIAN-MURRAY, KAREN COBLENTZ, OTHERS ON THEIR “TEAM” IN BRAZORIA COUNTY CPS FOR CHILD’S “FATHER,” MATTHEW JAMES WORRELL AND FAMILY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TOMBALL, TEXAS AND “PLAY THERAPIST,” KIMBERLY A. ABERNETHY (LICENSED BY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS”/”DFPS,” CPS DIVISION), PEARLAND POLICE OFFICER PAUL ELTON, AND HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT/COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT’S SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS APPOINTMENT AND (FORMER) SGT. WILLIAM LILLY, IN CONTRAVENTION OF US CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL LAW, AND INALIENABLE AND UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND LIBERTIES OF MOTHER  AND CHILD, described as “Joni Saloom,” WHOSE SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED AND TRAFFICKED PURSUANT TO, AMONG OTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED PURSUANT TO “COLOR OF AUTHORITY OF LAW” INDIVIDUAL CO-COMPLICITS FALSELY ALLEGE “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS,”  ” GETTING HIT OVER THE HEAD” (peppered with the same old “domestic violence” at falsely alleged to have allegedly said to “tell ‘Daddy’ . . . “chop off head” “coached,” but actually, by complicits, being individuals, and each of them:  cps, police officer, father, and play therapist individuals, and other suborned, “commissioned” individuals, specialists, “experts,” guardian ad litem, amicus attorneys, a multitude of special interest service providers for the various “states,” BAR members, essentially, against sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” and  also  in the case of Lori Handrahan, and also for he/r little daughter, he/r only “child,” Lori’s private property not yet, but to be restoreth.

 May Lori’s, he/r daughter’s, “Julian’s Real Mummy’s,” Julian . . . ” of Genealogy Saloom’s, waking nightmares END.  MAY the nightmares End, for all of s real mommies FORCED TO ENDURE THE ABUSE OF ROGUE TERRORISTS PERMITTED TO OPERATE BY COMPLICIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENTS, AND NOW, POLICE WILL BE CALLED “VENDORS” WITH CPS.  IN CASE THEY HAVEN’T REALIZED IT YET, THE “MENTAL HEALTH” TRICK IS A TRICK OLDER THAN TIME.  NOT BUYING IT!  IT IS CLEAR WHO THE DANGEROUS PSYCHOTICS REALLY ARE IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS AND AFFAIRS.  BUT THEN, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT AS A SOCIETY, AND WE STILL DO, DIDN’T WE?

We DO Not, and we shalt not forget  crimes against our children, crimes against real mommies, real beings with real feelings, hearts, memories, and consciousness, natural (wo)man, individual, the vessel on whose waters berthed/birthed little natural man, being living, corporeal body imbued with the live holy Spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, the “alpha and the omega” “the first and the last,” the “I AM.”

Yet, we are forced still here to endure it, and also in spite of the usual “suspected classes” and hacks(ers) contracted by . . . the usual “suspected classes” and defendants, and each of them, who, being subjected to Higher law and authority will always, naturally, loathe the undeniable pure and real truth that is the faith and the strength, the humble confidence that WINS the marathon.

Of the thousands of mothers who grieve for our children, “Julian’s Real Mummy,” described sometimes as “Joni Saloom” also prays that private property/”children and full and fair compensation available, but not “subjected” to semantic art) be restored also to:

sometimes described as,  ” Linda Marie Sacks (Ormond Beach, Florida;  Volusia County);  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki(Dakota County, Minnesota), Leah  Dannewitz (Carver County, Minnesota), Kimberly Sperling (Dakota County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice (Minnesota), “Emily Court” (Minnesota), Sharon and Bill Burns, the real parents of little Donnelly Keaton Burns who was wrongfully adopted without any cause, but for nothing more than the retaliation, the burning jealousy and pride of vindictive ex-wife  whose mother was a veteran, though retired social worker for corrupt Riverside County DPS for thirty years (Ontario, California; Riverside County; see active civil class complaint in the case of A.A. v. County of Riverside , 5:14-cv-2556, US Central District of California, Riverside division, filed 12/12/”2014″), Amy Charron (Houston, Texas; Harris County), Jennie Morton (Conroe, Athens, Dallas, Texas; Montgomery, Ellis, Dallas Counties, Texas–moves all forced after, but not before bizarre crimes by law enforcement and other ring members made the moves matter of survival for Jennie), apparently had a book published in 2013, Standing Strong, Trisha Schafer (Houston, Texas ; Harris County), reportedly the target of customary Texas style police and law enforcement judicial and worse interference, but way more than the usual, and interestingly lived right down the street from mine and my son’s former home, and also kidnapper’s current husband of his wife’s former husband, father of he/r three still get to live with their real mommy in the same home  with my real, natural son cps and guardian ad litem/court-appointed child’s attorney sinecure top campaign contributor every year as reported in the Texas Tribune and see Public Integrity Unit records,  Donna Everson conspired “stepparent adoption” so solicitously advertised and trending on all family law attorney sites, but supervised (un)”SAFE VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE CENTRE, INC.”/ (free stalking for fathers) unconstitutional rook jobs are not without guilt, lies, and, generally, criminal enterprise racketeering structure (Houston, Texas; Harris County),  Miriam Blank, earned a medical degree which Texas can never truly, or wrongfully and in customary retaliation so familiar to author of this post, take away from he/r like he/r five daughters, God-given gifts (Houston, Texas; Harris County and also Utah “suspected class” facility, on knowledge and belief), Robin Karr (Rockwall, Texas; Tyler, Texas; Dallas and Smith Counties, and also Kentucky State Police), more than sixteen years of “no contact with no reason), Andrea Lebow. another school teacher lost four year old little girl to registered sex offender father in Texas (Amarillo, Texas; Potter County), Michelle Murphy (Newnan, Georgia; Coweta County); Susan Skipp (a usual ideological “suspected class” “state”), Melissa Harris (a usual ideological “suspected class,” politically obsessed, or, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt, misguided (?) and i can’t figure out because so good at rehearsing neutral neutering for homogeneous “ambiguity” play, but Stands in truth and righteously battles (Ephesians 6:11, The Holy Bible, all verziones reales) intolerable acts like the Dickens (New Jersey), Brenda Battle Jordan, who i believe ran or said s/he was running for mayor at the time, and read about he/r help (now deceased) agent Gunderson’s and his partner’s research unveiled “The Damon 10,000 Screw,”The Fix is In” game in family court fraud (Detroit, Michigan), Dr. Cherie Safapou, another doctoral degreed mother to little son who begs to come home to his real mommy who the court, in spite of Dr. Safapou’s degree . . .in psychology, mislabeled it by proxy for wrongful, dishonest services profit, but not he/rs and certainly not little “I AM’s” (Marin County, California), mother, but with media coverage, Dr. Ruby Dillon, a dentist and real, natural mommy (Texas; California), Kathy Lee Scholpp (Massachusetts “State” Police; Rhode Island); Susan Farris, an investigative news writer(California), Connie Bedwell (Auburn, California; Placer County), Karen Anderson (Davis, California; Yolo County), as told directly to me by Deborah Connor (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas; Tarrant County), another real mommy who, pursuant to the same scheme in the late 1990’s, had he/r three week only baby girl who she was still feeding in the natural way and her other child ripped away, career as flight attendant also sabotaged by children’s father, bankrupted, rendered homeless but climbed he/r way back where a district attorney somewhere eventually helped he/r get her children back, but not the same (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas, Tarrant County; Salt Lake City, Utah; Billings, Montana, father lived in Honolulu, Hawaii), Rebecca McLaughlin, a Ph.D. earning mother(Rhode Island), Stacy Lynne, energy sector (Fort Collins, Colorado; Jefferson County), young mother who had the misfortune to get locked out of he/r home only to call the police for help who then called cps to kidnap called “remove” infant, Johneisha Kemper who did receive settlement by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for child “protection” via attorney Shawn McMillan (Los Angeles County, California) who also won jury award of $4.9 million dollars tolled to almost $10 million with lone star lodestar, taxes, and court costs due to stubborn cps refused to settle the case regarding real mommy, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick (Seal Beach California; County of San Diego), the same story as HERE, recently, the interestingly popular mother, Dr. Ruby Dillon, real mommy, natural mother (Tustin, California, Orange County),   Pamela Gaston (Portland, Oregon; Michigan), Angela/”Mad Angel” (Washington State), Theola Nealy (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), real,  being the natural mommy, who was raped, or, otherwise not “mentally disabled,” and also by he/r social worker, he, the same kidnapping cps father, . . . Nealy’s, mother’s, cps social worker, the judgment free father against whom the actual $1,000,000 judgment  plus rendered lies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Tammy Rief (California judge, though Tammy is from Georgia, but in Alabama), and we grieve for the loss of real mommies,’ Sandy Fonzo‘s (deceased) son, “victim” of former Judge Mark Ciavarella’s and Michael Conahan’s, and also others,’ scandalous, landmark case-making “Kids-for-Cash” court (Luzerne, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania), and also Karen Scott,  mother of Nathan Grieco, suicided by  “threat therapy, “jurisprudence,” at age sixteen (North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh; Westmoreland County; see also federal case decided in favor of parent’s rights against over zealous social services workers, Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Services, 103 F. 3d 1123 (3rd Cir., 1997), and also for the loss of real mommy, recent, 2015 suicide by social services and social workers stole Lacey Drier, mother of three children and step-child (Parma, Michigan), and i also grieve for real mommy who was forced to “suffer” the loss, the tragic social-worker inspired accidental death of little Logan Marr (Kennebac County, Maine).”

One who takes the time to read and have right to any opinion shall appropriately observe that the majority of all “similarly ‘deprived'” mothers have good educations and many also had good careers until lives destroyed and some even made homeless the direct result of such schemes and juvenile “games.

 Most Important Thank You and Hats Off to any and all Supporters (absent art, extortion, deception)of Real Mommys.  Your work is very important.  Thank you to author of the following article,  keith harmon snow, to Brett Redmayne Titley, who has followed-up on the Ruby Dillon case.  For your invaluable, thorough, and amazingly cogent and well-reasoned, thoughtful research, thank you also to the following individuals who have courageously acted and who Stand committed to doing their jobs the right way, the only way.  to the incredible and thorough research and sometimes costly experiences,  and writings of, among others forced to endure experiences that apparently produce desirable character, strength, and fortitude: Liz Richards of the Liz Library, Robin Sacks guest speaker, a lawyer, on Fox News affiliate in California, Gina Silva, investigative reporter of the same Fox affiliate in California, Kathleen Russell of Center for Judicial Excellence, Garland Waller, documentary filmmaker in Boston, Dr. Joyanna Silberg of the Leadership Council, Barry Goldstein, researcher, author, speaker, expert in family law matters who specializes in this “high conflict” niche, Dr. Judith Reisman, who has passionately shed light where dare not most all others within described sometimes as “Julian’s Real Mommy’s” present knowledge, and thank you also to the lone ranger gentlemen out there in Southern California and their new  colleague, superstar lawyers for families and children and their rights, and equally other non “suspect classes,” Shawn McMillan, Dean Browning-Webb a.k.a. “R.I.C.O. man,” Colbern Stuart, III (officially non-practicing, but nevertheless, like a lion), and right there with “Cole” at California Coalition for Families and Children (“CCFC”), a public benefit corporation, and Michelle’s baby in Minnesota, Family Innocence Project.  “What a long, strange trip it has been,” and we’re still on the ride, though, a few of us sadly far away from the tide, for, as former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer once spoke, . . .”some things are worth losing for.”  This real mommy adds, for all the right reasons.  For those who still have yet to be sufficiently humbled–educated “lowly wise”–or maybe for those were just not meant to get it, or yet . . . . right with ALMIGHTY GOD  and/or one another putting first orphans, widows, children, and those who cannot provide for themselves, the sick, the hungry, and the meek, the pure as a child at heart, this right way is the REAL definition to practice daily, “in good faith,” “for good cause shown,” “in furtherance of justice,” your u.S constitutional oath as officer of the honorable Federal US district,  “state,” county, civil, probate, and last, but first real “priority” on the calendar, family/dependency/juvenile, and especially ” (‘East Texas’) CPS cluster” courts.

Conscious Being Alliance

THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS


Posted on June 28, 2012 8:01 AM
Written by: keith harmon snow
Photography Credits: keith harmon snow
Article URL: http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rape-women-supporting-protective-mothers/


THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS
Social Media Increasingly Abets Harassment and Censors Truth

28 June 2012

keith harmon snow

After years of harassment and judicial abuse in the state of Maine, protective mother Lori Handrahan and her supporters face threats of rape and other verbal sexual abuse on social networking media.  Welcome to the new world disorder of social networking, where ethics are meaningless and anyone can get away with practically anything – unless it would seriously help make the world a better place, and then it can be flagged, reported or deleted (by invisible and unaccountable administrators) if it threatens someone’s violent or hateful interests or ‘offends’ the abusers.

Like other social networking media, Facebook appears to be unable to discriminate between abusive men and abusive men’s ‘rights’ organizations and those (mostly women) who are under attack by them. Instead of punishing the abusers and traffickers of children, the system appears more and more to sanction them and support trafficking of children, domestic violence and violence against women.  Want to file a serious compliant with Facebook? Good luck!

SIS Handrahan.jpg

Dr. Lori Handrahan

On May 22, 2012 the abusive and litigious Maine attorney Michael Waxman launched a Facebook post that by June 19th had evolved into a discussion where Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man who appears to love Michael Waxman, posted threats promising to rape and sodomize the several women engaged in a hostile exchange with Waxman for the defense of Lori Handrahan.

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents’ stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan’s efforts to Save Mila have resulted in a very high-profile case garnering national attention — thanks to the Internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.  Both mothers Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have not seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter Mila being raped by her husband, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers entrapped and abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan never technically lost custody of her daughter Mila.  “In June 2009 my daughter Mila came home with a shredded vagina and Igor [husband] was substantiated with raping her,” says Lori Handrahan.  “The courts did nothing.  Mila was 2 years old at the time.”

“The state of Maine has trafficked my child Mila,” Lori Handrahan told me, in January 2012, right before the court forced a gag order upon her and shut down her web site.

Dr. Lori Handrahan is a professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C.  Dr. Handrahan’s credentials are impeccable, with over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world.  She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in the New York Times. “Now that my child’s life is on the line I can’t get any news coverage at all.  Every single media outlet I’ve gotten interested has killed the story at the last minute.”

Lori and Mila’s case also involves corruption within the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including the illegal naturalization of Ukrainian and Russian nationals who have stolen Mila away from her loving mother.

While available to discuss her case in early January, Lori Handrahan was later served with a gag order, intimidated into silence out of fear for her daughter’s life, and possibly her own.  Sometime in late January or early February of this year, the web site created to help them — “Saving Mila” — went dead.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/spurwink-report-of-milas-sex-abuse-report-3

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/milas-picture-of-the-rock-poppa-and-michael-sniff0001?related=1

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-1-11760752?related=4

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-judge-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-2-11760751?related=5

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/trevor-letter-about-waxman0001?related=2

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-disqual-waxman-part-3-11760749?related=3

CHILD TRAFFICKING IN MAINE

Maine attorney Michael Waxman quite literally gets away with anything he likes in Maine. In the course of her nightmare to recover her child Mila from the alleged abusive father, Igor Malenko, protective mother Lori Handrahan confronted all levels of the system in Maine and was repeatedly stifled by Maine officials.

“I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are both now and have been committing civil contempt of court since May of 2011,” expert investigator Stephen Pickering wrote to Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson on February 1, 2012, after Waxman turned the court into a circus of inappropriate verbal and physical aggression on January 31.  While there was no order restricting Handrahan’s visitation with Mila, Waxman and Malenko had blocked all visitation for some time.

According to investigator Stephen Pickering, Waxman stood up and pointed his finger at the judge and raised his voice to the point that “some would describe this as yelling at the judge. Pickering further concluded that both Waxman and Malenko “committed criminal contempt of court on January 31, 2012, by their willful disregard of the judge’s ordering his courtroom as the judge was affirming his order.”

On February 1, 2012, Waxman sent an email to Judy Potter, Lori Handrahan’s attorney, stating: “And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this court has any power over ME in any fashion.”

Judge Jeffrey Moskoitz also behaved inappropriately on January 31, 2012, but Moskowitz has a long history of alleged collusion and corruption with attorney Michael Waxman. At the January 31 kangaroo court, Waxman threatened a lawsuit against District Attorney Stephanie Anderson and he filed the lawsuit in early February.  Five witnesses who were present provided affidavits testifying to what occurred in Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz’s court on January 31, 2012.

“The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court into confusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents he introduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one had the time to ever read them,” wrote witness Carrie Rockwell.  “He then harangued his client, Igor Malenko, for over an hour, thrusting at him pictures of Igor’s daughters’ anus and vagina, and reading allowed an email Waxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebook revealing his thought’s about what could be done to Mila’s vagina with a Coke bottle.  All this was done to prove what ten people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was a lie.”

One witness suggested that attorney Michael Waxman appeared to commit perjury, suborning perjury, falsifying evidence, and a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court.

Now Waxman has created a new Internet site to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters.  The site, called S.T.E.A.M. — Stopping the Explopitation, Abuse and Murder of our Children — is aligned with an assortment or other organizations, causes and petitions, but is inherently a front for Waxman’s destructive “father’s rights” agenda and self-protection.

STEAM WAXMAN HANDRAHAN .jpg

The S.T.E.A.M. web site is very sloppy.  As early as December 20111, Waxman revealed in casual web posts that a new web site was under design to replace the Facebook page called FOR THE LOVE OF MILA — another page created as a front to present Waxman’s disinformation.  The new S.T.E.A.M. web site was apparently launched in May 2012.

While Lori Handrahan — white, professional and highly accomplished mother — is offered as the primary column for “Featured Abusers for June 2012” (see below) the other abusers of the month are two African-American couples who allegedly killed their children.  Thus the architects of the site have provided two additional examples of violence against children that both fit the societal stereotype of black people as criminals. Contrary to media representations and Hollywood stereotypes about people of color, there are also high rates of domestic violence, rape and murder in white communities.  However, by placing Lori Handrahan next to these two black couples the hidden message is that Lori Handrahan is a violent criminal.

The two African-American alleged murder couples appear with Lori Handrahan on the HOME page.  This is just window dressing.  The web pages were hastily designed to provide a false sense of depth behind the front designed primarily to harass Lori Handrahan, and there are errors and inconsistencies in the web design beyond the HOME page.

For example, the menu at the top of the HOME page and most other pages has four clickable links: HELP – CONTACT US – CASES – HOME.  Deeper inside the web site are numerous “cases” of child abuse that are accessed by clicking on the CASES link in the HOME page menu.  However, as of 29 June 2012 the links for some cases don’t work at all (for example: “CASES PAGE 3”).  More importantly, several of the CASES links lead to pages where the menu at the top of the new page has only three clickable links: HANDRAHAN – HELP – CONTACT US.  This shows the clear intent of the web site.

Naturally, the HANDRAHAN link takes you straight to an extensive posting of disinformation exclusively about Lori Handrahan and this is the heart of the web site. The HANDRAHAN page offers an extensive post — unlike all other sections of the site — packed detail after detail of lies and half-truths fabricated by attorney Michael Waxman and his supporters.

Several of Lori Handrahan’s women supporters are also mentioned on the HANDRAHAN page, and these are some of the same women threatened with rape on the May 2012 Facebook thread.

ScreeHANDRAHAN PAGE STEAM -06-29 at 10.22.54 PM.jpg

“For the second straight month,” S.T.E.A.M.’s HANDRAHAN slam begins, “Lori Handrahan has been unanimously selected as the Child Abuser of the Month. Why?”

The answer is that the web site was created solely as a platform to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters, to further confuse the story and cover up the hard truth that Lori’s daughter Mila has allegedly been trafficked with the support of the state of Maine, the Department of Homeland Security and attorney Michael Waxman.

As reported on the Saving Mila Facebook page: Mila is being sexually abused, the abusive father received free lawyer services over several years and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation. Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for legal services for Mila’s father amounts to around $250,000. To cover up his trafficking of Mila, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori and his threats to have her committed and jailed.

FACEBOOK RAPE THREATS

“How about this cause and other bitches, take care of your own business and shut the FUCK up!” Jeff Pyle posted on the Waxman post on June 19.  A 1982 graduate of Weston High School (MA) who lives in Colorado, Jeff Pyle then sexually berated the women engaged in the discussion (see below) and threatened to “come back there” to find, rape and sodomize them. The post has now been deleted.

PYLE RAPE Handrahan Screen Shot small.jpg

Alerted on June 20 by one of the protective mothers who has been increasingly harassed by Michael Waxman, I responded:
Ladies, it’s not recommended to spend your time communicating with these ugly men.  As you can see, they are mean and nasty and try to compensate for their weakness by threatening women with sexual and other physical violence. Mr. Pyle – look me up, I can offer several solutions to your problems.”

On June 28, I received a notice from Facebook administration notifying me that I am under investigation for my post (now also removed).  There was no way to respond to the pop-up warning message that appeared when I first logged in to Facebook, and disappeared after, and it is impossible to figure out how to communicate with Facebook to challenge the flagging of my post and inform Facebook about their need to investigate Michael Waxman and the Handrahan case.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized sexism and support for domestic violence that arises due to online media’s attempts to be socially friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers.

Major social networking media — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+ and others — have, one way or another, helped to censor Lori and Mila’s story.  The organization Change.org — reputed to be a socially conscious networking entity — still carries a petition created by Michael Waxman the father’s lawyer in Maine, intended to further censor and punish Lori Handrahan.

Facebook makes it impossible to issue a detailed compliant about the hate speech and physical violence threatened by Michael Waxman’s supporter Jeff Pyle.  While the most threatening post by Pyle was removed from the long back-and-forth, the post that I made was also flagged and removed.  Appropriate action by Facebook would include exploring Michael Waxman’s threatening history and behavior toward Lori Handrahan.

It is the same with Change.org.  It seems they will allow a petition by anyone, for anything, no matter that these petition might be created by violent individuals and have violent motives, including harassment.

Media personality Jay Smooth, the host of New York’s longest running hip-hop radio show, WBAI’s Underground Railroad, recently created a video criticizing online sexism and online threats against women.  Smooth was motivated by the recent surge of bullying, abuse and harassment attacks against Anita Sarkeesian whose Feminist Frequency project launched a Kickstarter campaign that came under attack.

“Many abusive men are active online,” comments a chapter organizer for the National Organization for Women (NOW), “and they often jump at the chance to try to intimidate women (especially protective mothers or their supporters) by making vicious and crazy threats, such saying they plan to rape the women, kill them, or otherwise cause them some kind of bodily harm.”

“It’s shocking and very frightening to realize just how many sexist men there are out there — bloggers and vloggers like Anita Sarkeesian often receive hundreds of these types of terrorist threats, almost daily.”

ENDNOTE:

Looking at one of the “human rights” petitions on Change.org that is listed by STEAM as an example of appropriate child abuse groups or movements — We demand changes to child abuse laws and sentencing, we find that the charges called for are suspicious at best and destructive to women at worst.  Most of the petition’s ten points otherwise appear to be reasonable and important suggestions for legislative changes or legislative protocols.  However, note items 6), 9) and 10) on this petition:

6) If a parent has left an abusive partner courts have no right sending a child for anything more then a supervised visit.

Really? What is this petition point actually saying? Courts have no right sending a child back to a protective mother (who has left her abusive partner) for more than a supervised visit? Sounds like the judicial abuse and alleged sexual abuse cases of both Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and Lori Handrahan from Maine, whose children at present are living out a life sentence.

Let’s look at this Change.org “human rights” petition point number 9)

9) In the event a child is claimed to be kidnapped or missing remove the other children in the home immediately place them in foster care.

Really? Does this make sense? Or is it an attempt to criminalize parents — probably the mother will suffer more — for reporting that their child has been kidnapped? Also, there is the question of how removing the other children from the home relates to the typically destructive and often highly profit-driven state foster care systems.  Does this give too much power to the state, an especially scary prospect given the state ‘social services’ and federally funded (Department of Health and Human Services) black holes serving the destructive father’s rights groups in states all over the USA?

The Change.org petition point number 10) is even clearer:

10) If the mother or father are living not wed to someone who is not the childs father or mother and has a known history of violence and the child is harmed or killed the mother should face equal charges for putting her child in danger.

Really? According to everything we have learned about domestic violence and child abuse, it is most often the case that women and children are trapped in abusive relationships and abusive households and fear for their personal safety and their children’s safety on a day-to-day and sometimes minute to minute basis. Women trapped in domestic violence situations by violent fathers are living in constant terror and escape is often considered impossible.  Such facts need to be taken into account and explored during investigations of domestic violence and child abuse/death.

But note that it is “the mother” singled out in this petition point who “should face equal charges” for living not wed to someone who has a known history of violence. This makes no sense, unless it is situated within the aggressive and violent framework of the destructive so-called “father’s rights” movement.

This “human rights” petition is nothing but a movement to give lawyer’s and judges more power to abuse women, especially protective mothers, and their children, by placing them in foster care. (The petition is also written in terrible English.)

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.

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,

RISK IN “SAFE” SUPERVISED “VISITATION” NEEDS ASSESSED


Image result for pics of child safety

RISK IN “SAFE” SUPERVISED ‘VISITATION'” NEEDS ASSESSED

Mr. Edward/”Ted” Taupier posed an interesting and telling question to the local supervised “visitation” center or pogrom of another name in Connecticut.  What is your level of insurance coverage for pedophiles or alleged pedophiles or abusers by another name?  The answer yielded Mr. Taupier home supervised “visits” with his own private property sometimes mistaken deceptively by the “state” as “children” or “wards” “disabled” due to age as opposed to the court-“ordered” public pay-per-view access awarded by the local court system and d/b/a judge___________.  Author of Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America and our Children who Want to Come Home tells America to ask the critical question of whether or not US Constitutionally impermissible to “order” and charge individual property-owners sometimes called “parents” by a profiteering “state” and “non-for-profit” joint public-private installations (un)”SAFE” (free stalking) centers and counties to pay to see one’s own private property. . . an extension of he/r own physical, corporeal vessel, genetics, intelligence, creativity, mannerisms, affectations, emotions . . . in a glorified jail for families.  Not asking and answering this critical question makes the downward slope on which America has been pushed even more slippery.  In history, we have seen this before.  Many did not make it.

Granted, the director of the local “visitation” center refused to answer the question by hanging up on Mr. Taupier and trying to refer him to another program listed in the telephone book.  Undeniably, however, Mr. Taupier’s orders in Taupier v. Taupier clearly “stated” that he and his property were to attend that specific program_____________.

The Connecticut “SAFE” “visitation” and “access” funded, and “state” and locally by county or borough/district/area/township/city/town social reform movement to overthrow and infiltrate all American systems of government, values, education, belief systems, religion, and culture in fact did not have the state insurance to stake and sustain or to foster a healthy “community partnership” in Ted’s private property or “children” in spite of its colorful “collaborative” policy and procedure “Memorandum of Understanding” which is common among most if not all supervised “visitation” pogroms around the US.  Just pick up your local phonebook and find the “state” insurance government office relevant to your current situation and inquire as to competent levels of risky pedophile/social worker “suspected” class insurance. Then, make the call to the “SAFE” prison to which you and your property have been US unconstitutionally “ordered” for state/local/county/judicial discretion tributary joint public-private profit that benefited everyone except you and your property and in fact depreciated its value, tremendously.  Remember to wish everyone a have a nice day with a smile in your voice because you are expected to be happy and grateful for their terrorism.

Without fail, pogram or “program” supervisors, directors, managers, and executive directors will tell their “clients” and “victims” that they have nothing to do with the court or the decisions of the court, but do threaten jail or police when questioned about the rate of referrals or clientele called-in by local BAR members and judges or domestic relations and offices of child support enforcement offices termed “friend of the court” (though, according to former Michigan member Carol Rhodes), “enemy of the family.”  This statistic especially relates to the unprofessional conduct of Cherie Menzies, Marinelle Timmons, and Tamisha Laster of “SAFE” Victim’s Assistance, Centre, Inc. in Harris County, Texas in City of Houston with regard to the little boy they sold out, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, artfully in some locations discounted “J.J.W.” or “J.W.” where no jurisdiction lies, nor could have and without, among other things, any imaginable con cept of due process or equal protections of US Constitutional and natural, unalienable, and inalienable laws of two American US “citizens,” sovereign and elect in nature, spirit, and essence, living and corporeal, imbued with the spirit our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, Joni Saloom and he/r natural real private property deceptively kidnapped in collusion with other rogue criminals of whom they had been noticed under color of law for “state of Texas” on May 08, 2012 in City of Pearland, Brazoria County just outside of Houston (Harris County). It has been three years since Saloom and he/r only private property described as “Julian,” who is now eight years old, have had any meaningful communication as the parentally alienating, maternally depriving father, family and his wife continue to act as if they need supervised “visitation,” among other things, especially where false allegations of sexual abuse against himself he made or paid “play therapist” (licensed by CPS, who also runs “SAFE” visitation to keep an eye on their . . . “survivors” of the RICO family court con in Harris County in Houston, Texas) to otherwise manufacture, along with a couple other profitable lies.

In conclusion, “GET SMART,” and ask your local “SAFE” Victim’s Assistance Centre, Inc., as did Mr. Edward/”Ted” Taupier, “How is your level of pedophile protection insurance coverage TODAY.”

Fair Use and 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,

MILITANT MAN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS REVEL IN RAGE THAT BROUGHT DOWN GERMAN WINGS FLIGHT


Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue

As the news broke this morning that the Germanwings plane crash may have been a deliberate murder/suicide caused by the flight’s co-pilot, readers of the leading Men’s Rights website A Voice for Me…

Source: wehuntedthemammoth.com

View original post

Please Help Save Kendall (Short Video)


donnellyjustice

When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com

View original post

CALIFORNIA COALITION EXPANDS FAMILY COURT ATTACK TO EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS


California Coalition Expands Family Court Attack to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Briefing Filed Today

by ccfceditor

March 6, 2015–San Diego, CA and St. Paul, MN–California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC today announces strategic legal partnership with  attorney Michelle MacDonald, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, www.FamilyCourt.com, www.Facebook.com\FamilyCourt to strengthen the family law reform movement within federal courts in the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota family courts.  In a brief filed today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Ms. MacDonald—co-founder of Family Innocence, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully  (www.FamilyInnocence.com)—advances groundbreaking arguments with assistance of California Coalition.

“We’re honored to stand with Ms. MacDonald and FamilyCourt.com to engage the beast of Family Courts, and look forward to collaborating further in advancing the Grazzini-Rucki case through the federal courts” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/257912195/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true

The Grazzini-Rucki brief expands on the approach taken by California Coalition in its ongoing appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Excerpts from the brief prepared jointly by MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, Michelle MacDonald, California Coalition, and Colbern Stuart:

 

INTRODUCTION

If aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from
liability such lawless conduct as took place here
[1]
Nineteenth and twentieth century American judges have overstepped constitutional restriction to usurp powers reserved to the legislature and written for themselves an immunity far greater even than that of an English judge, or even a King, at common law.[2]  No court has ever denied that absolute immunity inflicts a “monstrous” injustice on wronged litigants, and taxes the credibility and integrity of judicial institutions.  Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2nd Cir. 1949); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 521 (1978).  It has been justified as a necessary evil to protect the “ardor” of judges and prosecutors.  Id.  While one might reasonably have concluded that our efforts to assure “justice is done”[3] would have been better-directed toward inculcating ardor through discipline and integrity than by “expanding” immunity, the issue is moot.
Unlike the 1871 era of federal procedure in which a judge could be forced to stand trial on mere “ascription” of culpable intent to an accused act,[4] the reasonable concern is today resolved at the pleading stage.  Modernly, like all litigants a judge is protected by procedural barriers provided in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) and Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) which protect against a mere “ascription” of malice.  These are bolstered by the plausibility test provided in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 thereafter.  The purposes of immunity—to protect efficient process—is today accomplished at the pleading stage.
A Judge’s invocation of the doctrine of judicial immunity to preserve judicial efficiency has effectively denied citizens remedy—a fundamentalright—for judicial injury.
Fundamental  rights such as of familial association are destroyed by the nod of a head. In error, Pierson and Sparkman have deprived scores of Americans remedy for criminalwrongdoingPierson and Sparkman’s despotism must end today.

 

The Outrages Committed Against the Grazzini-Rucki Family and Their Attorney

Ms. MacDonald represents Ms. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her children, who have been devastated by Minnesota family courts.  The lawsuit describes the outrages committed by Minnesota Family Court Judge David Knutson against the Grazzini-Rucki family and their attorney Ms. MacDonald.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s encounters with family courts began in 2011 when she sought and obtained a divorce, seeking orders of protection for her and her children.  Over the ensuing years, successive abusive rulings by the Minnesota Family Court rendered Grazzini-Rucki and her family homeless and bankrupt.

Judge Knutson’s illegal rulings included kicking the entire family out of their own home and separating the children from both parents, with no contact orders.  Last September, after a “listening session” conducted by Judge Knutson involving the Grazzini-Rucki children, two of Grazzini-Rucki’s children became so distressed that they fled from the homes into which they had been placed.  Teenagers Gianna and Samantha Rucki  have been missing since April 19, 2013. www.Missingkids.com.   In what can only be described as a bizarre absurdity, Judge Knutson insisted on conducting a “child custody “ trial after the children went missing.

Even more outrageous, after Ms. MacDonald advised Judge Knutson that the trial was improper, Judge Knutson caused Ms. MacDonald to be placed  in handcuffs shackled to a belt around her waist, sat in a wheel chair, and forced to finish trial to finish the “custody” trial without eyeglasses, pen, paper, or files.  While Ms. MacDonald was being arrested, courtroom bailiffs told Ms. Grazzini-Rucki that MacDonald would be retained in custody and would not be returning to the courtroom.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki therefore left the courthouse.  When MacDonald was returned to the courtroom in shackles, Grazzini-Rucki had already left—yet Judge Knutson insisted on completing the trial without Ms. Grazzini-Rucki.  The events were captures on security video.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson sought, and the district court granted, dismissal of all claims as barred by absolute judicial immunity, finding every act accused in the Amended Complaint to be a judicial act within Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction.  Order at 21.  The many non-judicial acts of which Judge Knutson was accused in the Amended Complaint—but not analyzed in the district court’s sweeping immunity holding—include:
  • Searching and seizing person and property of Grazzini-Rucki and her children without probable cause or a warrant, including that she abandon her children;
  • Circumventing the Minnesota Court Information system regarding various Dakota County matters involving the litigants;
  • Causing state court administrators to assign “all future hearings” in various matters involving Grazzini-Rucki to Judge Knutson;
  • Illegally usurping jurisdiction over several existing matters involving Grazzini-Rucki, including the State of Minnesota against David Rucki, and third parties, and making rulings in those matters without notice to Grazzini-Rucki;
  • Illegally ordering Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s children into “therapy”;
  • Illegally intercepting and sealing a recorded transcript Ms. Grazzini-Rucki was entitled to receive and view;
  • Ordering both parents to have no contact with their own children whatsoever;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to refrain from participation in her own family’s association activities;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to be separated from her children and have no contact with them at their schools, or through third parties;
  • Conducting a “listening” psychotherapy session between Judge Knutson, Dr. Gilbertson, and the Grazzini-Rucki’s children at which Judge Knutson was alleged to have coerced, intimidated, and threatened the Grazzini-Rucki children, contributing the children’s decision to run away from their home just days later;
  • Insisting that Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel try Grazzini-Rucki’s case while in handcuffs shackled to a waist belt, unable to rise from a wheelchair, without Grazzini-Rucki present, without Ms. MacDonald’s files, and without glasses, pen, or papers, seized by courtroom deputies;
  • Retaliating against Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel by the foregoing after Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel informed Judge Knutson that this action was pending against him, and ignoring the glaring conflict of interest.
Though this brief focuses primarily on the administrative assignment and “listening” therapy session, Appellant does not waive her assertion that none of the above functions, and those listed in the Amended Complaint warrant immunity.  The district court’s analysis of these many claims was skeletal yet sweeping, finding Judge Knutson immune for “actions taken in his capacity as a state court judge”, relying primarily on Stump v. Sparkman and Pierson v. Ray.  Order p. 32.  In response to Appellee Knutson’s Brief, and analyzed below, this broad “judicial capacity” scope and sweeping “analysis” was error.

 

 

Judges Bear the Burden of Proof on Immunity

Grazzini-Rucki asserted many of the challenges to judicial immunity as did California Coalition in its briefing before the Ninth Circuit.  California Coalition was pleased to join Grazzin-Rucki family in asserting those challenges in the Eight Circuit.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson Bears the Burden of Proving Immunity
Judge Knutson repeatedly asserts that Grazzini-Rucki “failed to raise” immunity issues in the district court.  See, e.g., Knutson Brf. p. 31, 34.  This is an improper attempt to shift onto plaintiff-appellant the burden of proving the affirmative defense of immunity, which rests solely with the party asserting it.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c)(1);  Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 498 (1991) (“An official seeking such immunity, however, must at the outset show that a “counterpart to the privilege he asserts” was recognized at common law in 1871, for “[w]here we have found that a tradition of absolute immunity did not exist as of 1871, we have refused to grant such immunity under § 1983.”).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that an official claiming an affirmative defense of immunity bears the burden to prove that 1871 common law immunized the function of each act accused in the complaint.  See, e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 339-340 (1986) (“Our initial inquiry is whether an official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a common-law counterpart to the privilege he asserts.”); The Court “has for that reason been quite sparing in recognizing absolute immunity for state actors.”  Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993).
 The “function” analysis considers only historical fact.  Malley at 342 (“We emphasize that our role is to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting § 1983, not to make a freewheeling policy choice, and that we are guided in interpreting Congress’ intent by the common-law tradition.”); Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984) (“Section 1983 immunities are ‘predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.’”).
Courts investigating the intent of the 1871 42nd Congress have examined accounts of 1871 social and legal systems from Nineteenth Century case law, legal treatises, and the congressional record.  The Supreme Court undertook this historical analysis most recently in Rehberg v. Paulk,, 132 S.Ct. 1497 (2012), examining nineteenth century cases to determine that the function accused—testimony of a grand jury witness—enjoyed immunity at common law.  Id. at 1503-07.[5]
An officer’s failure to prove up a common law analog is dispositive of the issue regardless of countervailing policy considerations. Rehberg at 1502-03 (“We do not simply make our own judgment about the need for immunity. We have made it clear that it is not our role ‘to make a freewheeling policy choice,’ and that we do not have a license to create immunities based solely on our view of sound policy.”).  Granting an immunity absent this historical analysis is error.  Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 249-50 (1974) (“These cases, in their present posture, present no occasion for a definitive exploration of the scope of immunity available to state executive officials.”). 
Neither the District Court Nor Judge Knutson Have Analyzed Historical Foundations for an Immunity of Accused Function
Judge Knutson proffered, and the district court undertook, no historical analysis of whether any of the two dozen functions accused in the Amended Complaint were functions that enjoyed judicial immunity at common law in 1871.  The district court’s sweeping Order proclaimed that Judge Knutson’s “case management, his signing of orders, the substance of his orders, and the trial proceeding” were all taken in a “judicial capacity.”  Order p 33.  The district court reached this conclusion finding only that (1) “Judge Knutson has not interacted with Plaintiff outside of his courtroom or his judicial chambers” and (2) “the underlying family law case was within [his] jurisdictional authority.  Order p. 33.  On these purported findings, the district court found Judge Knutson acted in a “judicial capacity” and was thus immune.  Id.
Analyzed below, this broad-brush “judicial capacity” scope and summary analysis fails to “affirmatively state” the defense, which was exclusively Judge Knutson’s burden.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c); Rehberg, supra.
The District Court Extended Immunity Based On Factors Not Relevant to Judicial Immunity
The district judge applied a “judicial capacity” scope of immunity that was far broader than that provided in controlling Supreme Court authority.  Immunity does not depend on the act or actor, but on the nature of the accused act.  Sparkman at 362.  Immunity may exist only if the accused act is both (1) “judicial in nature” and (2) within statutory subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  The first “Judicial in nature” factor in turn depends on (a) “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge,” and (b) “the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”  Id.  Not all official or authorized acts of a judge are “judicial acts”—judges also perform administrative, ministerial, or other types of acts that are not entitled to judicial immunity.  See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988) (firing court employees could be performed by administrator and thus not “judicial”).
The test to distinguish between “judicial” and other types of acts is to analyze whether the act can only be performed by a judge.  See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 340 (1879) (selection of jurors could be performed by administrator, thus not “judicial”); Forrester, supra; Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993) (court reporters “part of judicial function” yet not absolutely immune).  Absolute immunity is justified because judicial acts—and only judicial acts—are subject to standardized, scrutinized proceedings, restrained by principles of law, and are subject to appellate review.  Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 516 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 564 n. 4 (1967).  Because judicial acts are subject to such safeguards, the Supreme Court has justified relieving the actors from liability for civil money damages.  Id.

 

Administrative Behaviors of a Judge in Assigning Cases Are Not Immune

Judge Knutson also asserted that his administrative or ministerial behaviors in Family Court case assignments was an immune “judicial act” simply because he was a judge.  Grazzini-Rucki and California Coalition analyzed abundant law demonstrating that even though an administrative act is authorized or performed by a judge, the administrative act is not converted into a judicial act.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s Administrative Behavior in Assigning Himself to Certain Cases is Not Immune

The district court’s high-level “analysis” that Judge Knutson’s “case management” and “trial proceedings” extended immunity far beyond Sparkman’s scope of immunity to include behaviors which are clearly not judicial acts.  As one example, Judge Knutson’s “case management” behaviors in assigning all Grazzini-Rucki cases, including all future cases with third parties, and those with the State of Minnesota,  to himself is clearly an administrative act because it cannot be reviewed on appeal, is not subject to law, is conducted in private before parties are even aware of a judge, and may be performed by administrators as well as judges.
     The cases cited by Judge Knutson support Appellant’s conclusion.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986)[6] relied on Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th Cir. 1980) (extending absolute immunity for “jurisdictional authority to appoint and supervise court reporters.”).  In both cases the “jurisdictional authority” was a statutory grant of administrative authority—not jurisdiction.[7]  Parent v. New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516, 532 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) also drew authority from Matinez’s (moot) holding.  “The assignment of cases and issuance of consolidation orders are judicial functions normally performed by, and statutorily reserved to, Judge Lippman. See [statute] giving Chief Judge and Chief Administrator the authority to assign judges to judicial terms and parts. . . .”  Parent at 532 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Parent’s holding is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judicial act jurisprudence.  The fact that the “Chief Administrator” function happened to be performed by a judge does not convert the “administrator” function to a judicial one—nothing in the New York statute prohibits a non-judge from undertaking the role of “chief administrator”, meaning that, like juror selection, it is an act that may be performed by a non-judge, and thus not a judicial act.  See Ex Parte Virginia, supra.  A “Chief Administrator’s” assignment process is ministerial—the only “function” is to follow the assignment procedure.  Failure to abide the ministerial process is not an appealable event.  A judge or administrator is not applying law to facts.  The process is not highly scrutinized.  As such, Parent reached its holding on analysis inconstant with controlling Supreme Court authority, and is error.
Similarly, in Zahl v. Kosovsky, No. 08 CIV. 8308 LTS THK, 2011 WL 779784 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011) the district court considered a claim for immunity of a judge who allegedly “manipulated the assignment system to take control of Plaintiff’s case . . . .”   According to the district court in Zahl, the plaintiff “cite[ed] no relevant authority in support of his conclusory assertions that such actions vitiated Justice Diamond’s jurisdiction to handle his case, and the Court has found none.”  Id. at *9.  The Zahl plaintiff apparently failed to identify any of the abundant relevant authorities including Ex Parte Virginia, Forrester, and Antoine, supra, which provide means to distinguish non-appealable acts of administrators from appealable acts only judges may perform.  Moreover, like the district court and Judge Knutson, the Zahl court improperly placed the burden of proving immunity on the Plaintiff rather than the official.  Malley at 339.
Zahl also erroneously relied on language in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) instructing courts to construe subject matter jurisdiction (the second element of Sparkman’s two-element immunity test) broadly.  Zahl at *9. Sparkman’s instruction does not apply to the first “judicial act” element.  Sparkman at 362.  As above, the Supreme Court has been “quite sparing” in extending immunity under the judicial act element of the test.  Buckley at 269.  Zahl also focused analysis on failure to recuse when faced with motion identifying conflict of interest.  Id.  Ruling on a motion is an act which only a judge “normally” performs, and thus falls within Sparkman’s “judicial act” scope.
Bracci v. Becker, No. 1:11-CV-1473 MAD/RFT, 2013 WL 123810, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2013) aff’d, 568 F. App’x 13 (2d Cir. 2014) is derived from Martinez, Parent, and Zahl and is error for the same reasons.  Further, in Bracci the plaintiff’s accused Judge Mulvey’s (a “chief administrative judge”) failure to remove Judge Becker (the trial judge) form the case, making Bracci more of a recusal case.  Like Zahl, recusal requires ruling on a motion—a judicial act.
In both cases the courts found what they (incorrectly) identified as “jurisdiction” based on statutes authorizing judges—as well as non-judge administrators—to assign cases.  Statutory empowerment goes to Sparkman’s second “within the jurisdiction” element of the immunity test—but is insufficient to satisfy the first, “judicial act” element.  Sparkman, supra.[8]  Judge Knutson repeats the error.  Knutson Brf. at 29-30 (citations to Billingsley and Duty).
Judge Knutson’s reliance on Hardy v. Nw. Mem’l Hosp., No. 93 C 1348, 1993 WL 85750, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 1993) is misplaced.  Hardy erroneously analyzed judicial acts under the test for prosecutorial immunity.  Hardy cited Imbler v. Pachtman, applying the “intimately related with the judicial phase of the criminal process” standard.  Id. at *2.  Hardy failed to cite or analyze under judicial immunity precedents including Sparkman, Pierson, Bradley, or Randall.  Judges do not perform prosecutorial function, and thus the immunity of a judge is lost if she performs such functions.   Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F.2d 1229, 1236 (7th Cir. 1980) (finding judge performing functions of a prosecutor not entitled to either judicial or prosecutorial immunity).
Finally, none of the authority relied on by Judge Knutson analyzed the critical test—whether the function of assigning cases was a judicial act at 1871 common law.  Absent such analysis, the authority is error.  Rehberg, supra.

 

A Judge Working with a Psychologist in Child Custody Proceedings Is Not Performing a “Judicial Act” and is Thus Not Immune

Judge Knutson followed the modern trend of Family Court judges to wander far afield from traditional judicial functions—in his case performing what he called a “listening session” to “further” the children’s psychotherapy.  It was because of Judge Knutson’s harsh commands at the “listening session” that the Grazzini-Rucki children ran away.  California Coalition assisted Ms. MacDonald in formulating arguments that disproved Judge Knutson’s claim to immunity for working with a psychologist in the custody setting.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s “Listening” Psychotherapy Session with the Grazzini-Rucki Children is Not a Judicial Act

 Judge Knutson concedes he conducted a “listening session” with the five Grazzini-Rucki children “for the sole purpose” of facilitating psychotherapy of the children —complying with a “request from a court-appointed therapist for a structured family meeting.”[9]  During this psychotherapy session Judge Knutson harshly reprimanded and the children.  Days later two of them ran away from their home and have not been seen since.[10]
Following Rehberg, the district court should have analyzed whether the function of psychotherapy performed at the “listening session” was an immune function at 1871 common law.  Rehberg at 1503. The district court’s failure conduct this historical inquiry is error sufficient to reverse.  Scheuer at 249-50 (1974).
If the district court had conducted appropriate inquiry, it would find no tradition for psychotherapy function at 1871 common law.  Given that psychotherapy is a function developed in the twentieth century, and is only legally performed by licensed psychologists,[11] it would seem unlikely that Judge Knutson could identify an 1871 common law immunity for his psychotherapy behavior.
Other courts considering the question have found no immunity for psychologists (Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570, 577 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no “firmly rooted tradition” of immunity for functions performed by private psychiatrists employed by prison)).  See also Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The courts that have accorded absolute immunity to social workers appear to have overlooked the necessary historical inquiry; none has seriously considered whether social workers enjoyed absolute immunity for their official duties in 1871. If they did not, absolute immunity is unavailable to social workers under § 1983.  This all assumes, of course, that “social workers” (at least as we now understand the term) even existed in 1871. If that assumption is false, the argument for granting absolute immunity becomes (at least) more difficult to maintain.”).
Further, the history of psychologists in the divorce industry demonstrates such functions are late twentieth century innovations.  “Family Courts” are a creation of the 1970s after the 1966 California Report on the Governor’s Commission on the Family.  L. Friedman, Rights of Passage: Divorce Law in Historical Perspective 63 Or. L. Rev. 649, 667 (1984).  The function of “psychologist-as-judge” custody evaluator was unknown to a divorce courtroom until the mid-1990s “as the supply of psychologists continued to increase and stricter third-party payer regimens were imposed for mental health treatment (Gould, 2006). [C]ustody evaluation services generally are neither highly regulated nor institutionalized, but rather may be characterized as a cottage industry (Schepard, 2005).” Robert F. Kelly, Sarah H. Ramsey, Child Custody Evaluations: The Need for Systems-Level Outcome Assessments, 47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 286, 291 (2009).
Finally, it is unlikely that the district court could have identified any function of a family court—including “listening sessions,” “therapy”, “reconciliation,” custody evaluations, or otherwise—existed at 1871 common law because in 1871 no civil judicial tribunal possessed jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, or child custody.  “It is elementary that in the early history of jurisprudence in England the common law courts exercised no jurisdiction over divorce cases, jurisdiction in such matters resting entirely with the ecclesiastical courts of the realm.” Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239, 246 (1918).  See also Robert H. Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law and Contemp. Prob. 226, 234 (1975).

 

 Modern Family Court Jurisdiction Is Inferior; If It Has Immunity It is Extremely Narrow

 Knutson’s Brief speciously asserts that general jurisdiction includes jurisdiction over “family law matters.” [12]Family court jurisdiction is incontrovertibly inferior because it is specific.  Minn. Stat. 518.  Many courts recognize family courts as inferior tribunals.  Family Court “in a dissolution proceeding is a court of limited jurisdiction.”  King v. State Educ. Dep’t, 182 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.1999); People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Family Court not a “court of competent jurisdiction” for Rooker-Feldman analysis).
Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868) describes the limited scope of immunity for “inferior courts”: Judges exercising limited jurisdiction were immune for acts within the limited jurisdiction, and could be liable for civil damages for acts in excess of their jurisdiction, and for acts done “maliciously or corruptly.”  Randall at 531. [13]  While Judge Knuston bears the burden of demonstrating modern family court functions enjoyed any immunity at 1871 common law, in no case will he achieve an immunity scope greater than an 1871 inferior court; for judicial acts within their jurisdiction not done “maliciously or corruptly.”  Id.
Judge Knutson’s Assertion of Broad Immunity Lacks Authority
Judge Knutson asserts: “Acts and orders related to overseeing a family law case, including orders requiring therapy and efforts to facilitate it, are acts inherently judicial in nature.”  Knutson Brf. p. 35.  His authority does not support this proposition.
Judge Knutson cites Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1448 (8th Cir. 1987), abrogated by Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991).  Myers was the first case in this Circuit to consider the 1976 decision of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).  Imbler was the seminal Supreme Court case extending prosecutorial immunity under Section 1983 to acts of “the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State.”  Id. at 431 n. 33.  The Court recognized that its general description was broad, and could potentially encompass administrative acts as well as prosecutorial acts, yet declined to provide a more precise definition:  “At some point, and with respect to some decisions, the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court. Drawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions, but this case does not require us to anticipate them.”  Id.
Myers picked up where Imbler left off, analyzing several acts by Scott County Prosecuting Attorney R. Kathleen Morris which fell within Imbler’s broad range of potentially-immune acts.  Meyers at 1449.  Myers extended a generous scope of immunity to every function of Ms. Morris that plaintiffs accused, including “her role in the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and her handling of evidentiary material.”  Id.  These several functions included investigation, advising police, interviewing children, and advocacy for the state during the criminal proceeding.  Id. at 1446-1452.
Meyers’ limited immunity incorrectly, drawing a line between pre-charging and post-charging phases.  Today post-charging investigative, administrative, administrative, and enforcement functions are not immune.  See, e.g, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).  Myers correctly limited prosecutorial immunity to criminal proceedings.  Meyers at 1452.  Myers also recognized that absolute immunity would not extend to enforcement or investigative functions in “approv[ing] or direct[ing] the removal of children from their homes upon the arrest of one or both parents.”  Id. at n. 11.[14]
Judge Knutson claim Myers immunizes “family law judges to work with experts to determine the care provided to children in custody and applying judicial immunity to that work.”  Knutson Brf. at 35.  This is incorrect.  Myers involved a criminal prosecution, not “family law judges.”  Myers at 1452 .  Myers did not involve Minnesota laws regarding “best interests,” nor a judge or psychologist determining “best interests”—but criminal prosecution.  Moreover, Myers expressly recognized that investigative functions such as the “listening session” in which Dr. Gilbertson and Judge Knutson “the session was held for the sole purpose of facilitating therapy…” are not prosecutorial. [15] Myers did not extend immunity to psychotherapy.
Judge Knutson finally claims—citing no authority—that “sealing the transcript of the session” was a judicial act.  The record indicates the opposite—that Judge Knutson was not undertaking the listening session pursuant to any order.  Having no relationship to any judicial act, the transcript—and its sealing—cannot be converted into one.

 

 The District Court’s “Judicial Capacity” Scope Relied on Elements Not Relevant To Judicial Immunity

The district judge’s sweeping analysis of the dozens of acts accused focused on a single fact that Judge Knutsen interacted with Grazinni-Rucki inside of his courtroom.  Order at 33.  Judge Knutson repeats the error.  Knutson Brf. p. 31.
The location of an accused act is not relevant to Sparkman’s two-factor test, which focusses on function regardless of location.  For example, Sparkman favorably cited Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1974), which held that physically evicting a litigant from a courtroom is not an act “of a judicial nature.”  Sparkman at 370, fn. 10.  Justice White also cited a Sixth Circuit decision, Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1970), holding that a county judge who had a plaintiff “forcibly removed” from a “fiscal court” and jailed was not immune.  Id.  See also Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848, 857 (5th Cir. 1981) (child support enforcement proceeding inside of courtroom and chambers not immune); Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991) (physical assault outside of courtroom held immune).  Location of the act was one of the four-factor “debris” elements from McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1972) which Justice White “cast aside” in distilling Sparkman’s “cogent two-part test.”  Harper at 857.[16]

 

 The District Court’s Reliance on Pierson v. Ray and Stump v. Sparkman Was Error

 Section 1983 Does Not Require Proof of Malicious or Corrupt Intent
The district court cited the seminal judicial immunity case, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), in connection with its holding that Judge Knutson is immune even if he acted “maliciously or corruptly.”  Order at 33.  Appellant did not—and need not—assert that Judge Knutson acted “maliciously or corruptly.”  Appellant asserts merely that he acted to deprive of constitutional rights.   Section 1983 does not require an allegation of specific intent, including malice or corruption, but only general intent to perform the act causing the deprivation of a constitutional right.  Monell at 685; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 232 (1970).  Malice and corruption were relevant in defeating common law immunities for common law torts.  Section 1983 was enacted to supplement common law tort liability—it turns on a “strict liability” standard, requiring no proof of intent.  IdSee also n. 22, infra (comment of Representative David A. Clark).
Pierson and Sparkman Erroneously Extended Common Law Immunity to Civil Rights Liability
 Pierson and Sparkman stand in error for exceeding the judicial power vested in United States courts under Article III of the United States Constitution.  In deciding Pierson and Sparkman, the Supreme Court construed Section 1983 to find an immunity which is not present on—and entirely inconsistent with—the face of the strict liability statute.   Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-94 (1978)  Yet Section 1983 is not a subject for statutory interpretation; clearer language has likely never emerged from Congress.  Id.; see also Monroe at 185-191.
Instead of examining the unambiguous statute, Chief Justice Warren in Pierson instructs us to examine congressional intent, which Chief Justice Warren claims does not indicate an intent to abrogate the common law immunities of a judge.  “The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities . . . .  The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established [as the speech and debate privilege], and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine.”  Pierson at 554-555 (1967).
The “presumption” is as worthy as any speculation.  It overlooks the most obvious evidence of congressional intent—the unambiguous language of the statute itself.  Moreover, actual analysis of the congressional record, and history of judicial immunity reveals Chief Justice Warren’s presumption is simply wrong.
Pierson Incorrectly Analyzed Legislative Privilege Rather Than Judicial Immunity
In Pierson Chief Justice Warren “presumed” that “the immunity of judges” was “equally well established” as the legislative privilege.  Remarkably, in presuming, he failed to conduct analysis of the common law of judicial immunity—citing only to Bradley’s (post-Civil Rights Act) holding and Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports, Exchequer, 220.[17]   Pierson at 554.  Despite having on hand the meticulous historical analysis of nineteenth century common law and the 42nd Congress’ legislative intent provided by Justice Douglas in 1961’s Monroe v. Pape decision, Chief Justice Warren’s 1967 opinion ignored it.
Dissenting, Justice Douglas—the author of Monroe—did draw from his prior historical analysis of common law and the congressional record to the Civil Rights Act, reaching a forceful conclusion: “The Court’s ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions.”  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting).  Similar rich analyses and enlivened opinions are evident in Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-94 (1978); Pulliam at 529-544; Sparkman at 368 (Stewart, J., Powell, J., dissenting), Dykes v. Hoseman, 776 F.2d 942, 954 (11th Cir.  1985) (Hatchett, J, dissenting) (“[T]he en banc court holds that judicial immunity is complete, unqualified, and without exception . . .  As the majority concedes, no precedent, Supreme Court or otherwise, requires such a broad definition and application of the judicial immunity doctrine.  [N]o policy considerations justify such a result. . . .  Judges . . . will be able to deal willy nilly with the rights of citizens without having to account for willful unconstitutional actions.”).
Instead of analyzing judicial immunity, Justice Warren adopted analysis of legislative privilege from Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951).  In Tenney Justice Frankfurter considered whether a California legislative committee conducting a contempt proceeding against a man circulating a flyer protesting the committee was immune from an action under Section 1983.  Id. at 377.   The question was whether a common law “speech or debate” privilege protecting lawmaking activity could be extended to a lawmaker’s behavior in conducting the contempt hearing.  Id.
Justice Frankfurter traced the history of English common law preserving legislative speech or debate privilege as derivative of liberty—an extension of the voters’ freedom of speech and conscience.  Id. at 372-73.  Protection of “speech or debate” was necessary to prohibit the English King and his aristocracy from persecuting members of Parliament making laws unfavorable to the then-ruling class.  Justice Frankfurter aligned the English speech liberty with the federal “speech or debate” analog in the United States Constitution at Article I, Sec. 6, cl. 1.[18] Like Chief Justice Warren, Justice Frankfurter presumed—analyzing no legislative history—that the 42nd Congress would not have intended to limit any state’s legislative activity in enacting the 1871 Civil Rights Act because Congress was itself a “staunch advocate of legislative freedom.”  Id. at 376 (emphasis added).
Tenney justified extending the speech or debate liberty to the committee hearing function because legislators are directly-elected and immediately accountable to voters.  Id. at 378.  Tenney also held the narrow immunity was lost if “there was a usurpation of functions exclusively vested in the Judiciary or the Executive.”  Id.
Judicial Immunity is the Opposite of Legislative Privilege—Judges Are Sovereigns Possessing Not “Rights” but Delegated Authority
 Judicial authority and legislative freedom are night and day.  Judges exercise jurisdiction as sovereigns—not liberties from sovereigns.  While judges have all the rights of any citizen qua a citizen, a judge qua judge possesses no rights.  “First and Fourteenth Amendments restrain “only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States.”  United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 621 (2000).  “[T]he censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 282-83 (1964). There is no need for a judge to express opinions, experiences, or desires of her own or those she represents to create law—he/she is given law.  [19]Other than necessary for faithful adjudication, a judge’s “freedom of conscience” is irrelevant to judicial function—relevant “conscience” is given in the form of law that has matured through free debate elsewhere. County Judges do not function as a body, and (should) have no one to “debate.”  The United States and State of Minnesota constitutions do not extend a speech or debate privilege to the judiciary because courts are not empowered to speak or debate.  The function of a judge is to adjudicate—apply the given law to properly-admitted facts.  Judges are not representatives of voters, but independent of electoral will, passion, and accountability. There is no need to protect a judge’s “speech” other than to preserve the judge’s ability to pronounce adjudication—merely a “substantial state interest”[20] that must yield to Minnesota’s “fundamental law”—citizen rights such as remedy,[21] due process, equal protection, speech, and association.  See Theide v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 226-27, 14 NW 2d 400, 406 (1944) (forcibly removing woman and children from their home in sub-zero weather by the town sheriff and forced to return to their “legal settlement” in another town for the purpose of obtaining poor relief violated “fundamental law”[22] despite consistency with state law.).  Minnesota courts may not construe statutes contrary to citizen rights under the “fundamental law.”  See T. Flemming, J. Norby, The Minnesota Bill of Rights: Wrapt in the Old Miasmal Mist, 7 Hamline L.Rev. 194 (1984).
 The long history of preservation of legislative speech and debate—a fundamental liberty—is entirely absent from the history of judicial immunity.  See Monell at 665-94; Pierson (Douglas, J. dissenting); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 243 (1974) (“Indeed, as the Court also indicated in Monroe v. Pape, supra, the legislative history indicates that there is no absolute immunity”); Pulliam at 540 (1984) (“every Member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that judges would be liable under § 1983”).  There being no “judicial speech” liberty in 1871, there is no reason to “presume” that the 1871 Congress would have seen need to expressly abrogate a tradition that has never existed.
Far from tradition, the “hoary doctrine of judicial immunity”[23] is expropriation.  Tenney’s “presumption” was a modest stretch of liberty over the border with sovereignty to protect the functions of elected representatives of the people.  Pierson’s adoption of Tenney’s stretch to protect sovereigns of the people was a full-force embezzlement of liberty.  Deployed today to exonerate sovereign county judges in their oppression of those in whom liberty is vested by the fundamental law, Pierson’s manufacture of judicial immunity is—in perspective—nothing short of a third American revolution.
Congress Expressly Intended to Abrogate Judicial Immunity
            Nor can Chief Justice Warren’s “presumption” withstand the incontrovertible record—The 1871 Congress repeatedly expressed intent that the Civil Rights Act would abrogate judicial immunity.  Congress adopted the language of Section 1983 from its criminal analog—the 1866 Civil Rights Act, today codified at 18 U.S.C. § 242.  Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).[24]  Section 1983 was introduced by Ohio Representative Shellabarger, who explained his bill on the House floor by referencing Section 2 of the 1866 Act: “that section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for . . . ”[25]  The Acts thus “must be construed as in pari materia”—any construction of the 1871 Act must admit congressional intent in enacting the 1866 Act.  Picking v. Pennsylvania R.R., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945).
On that record it is incontrovertible that the 42nd Congress affirmatively rejected common law judicial immunity.
I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the States than permit it to invade, strike down, and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded.
 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1837 (1866) (remarks of Representative Lawrence).  The 1866 Act was vetoed by President Johnson because it abrogated common law judicial immunity.[26]  In the fight to defeat the veto, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull expressed revulsion at the entire concept of judicial immunity: “It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion was hatched.”[27]
            Section 1 of the 1871 Act (now Section 1983) passed rapidly through Congress because debate wasn’t necessary—Congress recognized Section 1 as merely “adding” a civil remedy to the 1866 Act.  Debate instead focused on section 2 of the bill (modernly Section 1985) because of concerns over federalism and regulation of private behavior.  Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 99 (1971).
            The recorded debate demonstrates unequivocally that Congress intended to abrogate common law judicial immunity:
[T]he decisions of the county judges, who are made little kings, with almost despotic powers to carry out the demands of the legislature which elected them-powers which, almost without exception, have been exercised against Republicans without regard to law or justice, make up a catalogue of wrongs, outrageous violations, and evasions of the spirit of the new constitution, unscrupulous malignity and partisan hate never paralleled in the history of parties in this country or any other.
 Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. 186 (1871) (remarks of Representative Platt).
What is to be the case of a judge? . . . Is that State judge to be taken from his bench? Is he to be liable in an action?  … It is the language of the bill: for there is no limitation whatsoever on the terms that are employed, and they are as comprehensive as can be used.
Id. (remarks of Senator Thurman).
“[T]he judge of a State court, though acting under oath of office, is made liable to a suit in the Federal Court and subject to damages for his decision against a suitor, however honest and conscientious that decision may be . . .”
Id. (remarks of Representative Lewis).  Representative Arthur recognized the law would be a drastic reversal of common law immunity:
Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts …. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability . . . .  Under the provisions of this section every judge in the State court. . . will enter upon and pursue the call of official duty with the sword of Damocles suspended over him . . .”
Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1871) 365-366.[28]
Courts considering parallel questions have deferred to this vivid record.  See, e.g., Picking v. Pennsylvania R.R., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945) (“But the privilege as we have stated was a rule of the common law. Congress possessed the power to wipe it out. We think that the conclusion is irresistible that Congress by enacting the Civil Rights Act sub judice intended to abrogate the privilege to the extent indicated by that act and in fact did so . . . .  The statute must be deemed to include members of the state judiciary acting in official capacity.”); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665 (1978); Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622, 643 (1980) (“Nowhere in the debates, however, is there a suggestion that the common law excused a city from liability on account of the good faith of its authorized agents, much less an indication of a congressional intent to incorporate such an immunity into the Civil Rights Act”); Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 543 (1984).
Far from an intent to incorporate common law judicial immunity, Congress in passing both Acts specifically intended to eliminate it as the source of the monumental evil of state-sponsored oppression jeopardizing our nation’s existence by precipitating civil warfare.[29]

 

“The devastation caused by Minnesota Family Courts may be even more abominable than what we have  seen in California, Florida, Connecticut, and throughout the nation” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.  “Ms. Grazzin-Rucki’s family was so severely abused by Minnesota Family Courts that the children simply couldn’t withstand the turmoil.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s and her children’s tragedy shows how atrociously incompetent and downright criminal American Family Courts have become despite handling delicate family matters, and why Family Court must immediately cease its disastrous experiment with family well-being” says Stuart.

California Coalition is passing along Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s and Ms. MacDonald’s request to assist in locating the Grazzini-Rucki children–if you have any information about their whereabouts, please visit www.Missingkids.com to learn how to help.

With briefing on these critical family court immunity issues now ongoing in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, Family Courts are facing more pressure than they’ve ever before experienced.  WeightierMatter will be posting regular updates of both cases.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Sparkman at 368 (Stewart, J. dissenting).

[2]  “[T]o no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”  Magna Carta (1215); “[W]here there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (quoting William M. Blackstone, 3 Commentaries *23).

[3] Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1365 (2011)

[4] “Few persons sufficiently irritated to institute an action against a judge for his judicial acts would hesitate to ascribe any character to the acts which would be essential to the maintenance of the action.” Bradley at 348.

[5] Similar historical analyses are apparent in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172-85 (1961); Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 703 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559-62 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The courts that have accorded absolute immunity to social workers appear to have overlooked the necessary historical inquiry; none has seriously considered whether social workers enjoyed absolute immunity for their official duties in 1871. If they did not, absolute immunity is unavailable to social workers under § 1983; Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 132 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring).  See also Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570, 577 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no “firmly rooted tradition” of immunity for function of a private psychiatrist employed by prison).

[6] Martinez is abrogated law “mooted” by abandonment of the appeal.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986).

[7]  Rheuark relied on Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1263-64 (5th Cir.) opinion modified on denial of reh’g, 583 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1978), overruled by Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979) (“Under Texas [statutory] law trial judges select their court reporters, who thereafter serve during the pleasure of the judge.”  Sparks affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision denying immunity to co-conspirators.  Dissenters in the Sparks en banc decision relied heavily on Slavin.  The Supreme Court’s affirmation in Sparks abrogates Slavin.

[8] A simple example is that the Chief Justice of the United States is authorized by law to serve as the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.  20 U.S.C. § 76cc. Such authorization does not convert such service to a judicial act.  See, e.g., Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (1970) (“A judge does not cease to be a judge when he undertakes to chair a PTA meeting, but, of course, he does not bring judicial immunity to that forum, either.”)  Id. at 820 (cited favorably in Sparkman at 370 n. 10).

[9] Opening Brief of Appellant’s, APP 124

[10] APP COA -291

[11] Minn. Stat 148.88, Psychology Practice Act. Also see Minn. Admin. Rules 7200

[12] Knutson’s Brief page 21

[13] This distinction was recognized in Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978), fn. 7.  See also Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 535-36 (1868) (“In reference to judges of limited and inferior authority, it has been held that they are protected only when they act within their jurisdiction.”); Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johnson 282, 291 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1810) 1810 WL 1044, aff’d, 1811 WL 1445 (1811) (“[T]he judges of the king’s superior courts of general jurisdiction were not liable to answer personally for their errors in judgment. . . .  [W]ith respect to the inferior courts, it was only while they act within their jurisdiction.”); Phelps v. Sill, 1 Day 315, 327 (1804).  See also 1871 comments of Representative Arthur, infra, describing common law immunity: “Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts …. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability . . . .  “

[14] Specific to family issues, the Meyers plaintiffs accused “us[ing] the interviews [of children] to coerce perjured statements from young and vulnerable witnesses” in a criminal investigation and “initiat[ing] neglect proceedings in the family court on behalf of the Scott County Human Services Department [and] sign[ing] and approv[ing] the neglect petitions.”  Id. at 1450.  Because these functions are “functionally comparable to prosecutor’s initiation of the judicial process,” this Court extended absolute immunity.  Id. at 1452.

[15] Appellants’ Brf, APP 125

[16] All of the Fifth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuit authority derived from McAlester’s four-part test is error after Sparkman.  See, e.g., Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 946 (11th Cir.  1985); Adams v. McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1985); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522 (5th Cir. 1985); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986), and dozens of authority-in-error relying thereon.

[17] Analyzed in Bradley at n. 16.  “[A] judge of a county court was sued for slander, and he put in a plea that the words complained of were spoken by him in his capacity as such judge, while sitting in his court, and trying a cause in which the plaintiff was defendant.”

[18] That privilege is narrow: “The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  The privilege is against arrest—not civil liability—does not extend to felonies or treason, or “breach of the peace”— a misdemeanor.  Arrest outside of “Session” is permitted, and members maybe “questioned” for activity other than “speech or debate.”  Tenney at 377 (citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) (false imprisonment not privileged); Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).  Even so limited Jefferson was fearful of the power it gave legislators.  Tenney at 375.  Hamilton was not so fearful of “the least dangerous branch”—because it exercised no similar liberty. The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton) (1788).

[19] See Separation of powers Minn. Const. Art 3, sec 1.

[20] Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991).

[21] Minnesota Constitution, Article 1. sec. 8 provides:

Redress of injuries or wrongs.

Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.

[22] “The entire social and political structure of America rests upon the cornerstone that all men have certain rights which are inherent and inalienable.  Among these are the right to be protected in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right to acquire, possess and enjoy property; and the right to establish a home and family relations—all under equal and impartial laws which govern the whole community and each member thereof… The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens exist notwithstanding there is no specific enumeration thereof in State Constitutions.”  Theide at 226-27, 14 NW 2d at 406.

[23] See Note, Liability of Judicial Officers Under Section 1983, 79 YALE L.J. 322, 337 (1969) (“Yale Note”).

[24] See also Yale Note at 327-328.

[25] Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. 60 (App.) (1871); Yale Note at 327.

[26] Yale Note at 327.

[27] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1758 (1866) (remarks of Senator Trumbull); Yale Note at 328.

[28] See also Yale Note at 328 and references to additional consistent comments in n. 38.  “On three occasions during the debates, legislators explicitly stated that judges would be liable under the [1871] Act.  No one denied the statements.”  “In sum, the question of congressional intent seems relatively clear: there was no universal acceptance of the broad English immunity rule in 1871, and the only legislative history available supports the proposition that Congress intended Section 1983 to cover judges.”  Yale Note at 328. Yale Note’s 1969 author left open the door that “the legislative history does not preclude entirely the Court’s construction of the statute if the policy reasons for judicial immunity are sufficiently persuasive.”  That “policy reasons” door was closed eleven years later in Malley.

[29] Congress’ intent to hold judges accountable is recorded as recently as 1979 by the 96th Congress:

[Section 1983] is an essential element of an extraordinary series of congressional enactments that transformed the relationship between the Federal Government and its constituent parts.  [T]he very purpose of the 1983 was to interpose the Federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s Federal rights—to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of State law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.

Statement of Representative David A. Clarke, Chairperson, Committee on Judiciary, Government of the District of Columbia on the  Act of Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284, PL 170 LH, 1st Sess. (Dec. 29, 1979) (emphasis added).

FAIR USE AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER AND WARNING (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

CENSORSHIP IS A CRIME, AND SO IS THE “AS IS PHILOSOPHY” THAT ANYONE WOULD USE TO JUSTIFY IT IN COMMITTING SUCH A CRIME AND HIGH TREASON, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

1) CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS BLOG AND AUTHOR IS NOT A LAWYER, ATTORNEY, PARALEGAL, LEGAL PRACTITIONER, OR ADVOCATE, THUS, NONE OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS POST COULD POSSIBLY BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  IT IS EXPLICITLY NOT THE INTENT.  ONE WOULD, HYPOTHETICALLY, USE AT ONE’S OWN RISK AND PERIL IN REALITY.

2)  THIS POST IS MADE IN GOOD FAITH.

3)  THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS POST AND ON THIS BLOG IS SOLELY FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH PURPOSES AND/OR ENTERTAINMENT AND SHOULD EXPRESSLY NOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.  IT IS PROTECTED BY 17 USC, SECTION 107 (“FAIR USE”).

4)  THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THIS POST IS the EDITOR FOR CCFC, CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION.

A Mother Erased


This is what life is like for a little girl or boy to grow up without her or his real mommy.

The world needs to know that this is the worst kind of “violence” that exists.  Maybe it already does and that is the point.  If this be the case, what a nightmare for everyone.

 

The SisterWives

Mother-daughter relationships can be incredibly complex and difficult to navigate, because in each other they see the best and the worst of themselves.  Please join us in welcoming the author of A Mother Erased, as she shares her heartbreaking and personal story of estrangement, abandonment, and hope.

Minolta DSC

It was a warm September day, but my body froze when I saw my mother’s bright red hair.  She leaned out of her black Ford Mustang and waved at me.  She still recognizes me, I thought.  Twenty-one years ago she walked out of our lives leaving my sister, our father and me behind to piece together a new life.  My father remarried a year later and we’ve called his second wife “Mom” ever since.

At four years old, I was abandoned by the person I loved more than anyone.  How could I trust another adult again, especially a mother figure?  Besides, my stepmother did…

View original post 1,310 more words

ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF PARENTAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION ACT OF 2011 . . . FOR FATHER’S ONLY?


H.R.3873 — Enhancing the Quality of Parental Legal Representation Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH) 

HR 3873 IH

112th CONGRESS2d Session H. R. 3873To provide funds to State courts for the provision of legal representation to parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare cases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 1, 2012Ms. MOORE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILLTo provide funds to State courts for the provision of legal representation to parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare cases.

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 `Enhancing the Quality of Parental Legal Representation Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
      (1) In the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000, the Congress found that `under both Federal and State law, the courts play a crucial and essential role in the Nation’s child welfare system and in ensuring safety, stability, and permanence for abused and neglected children under the supervision of that system’.
      (2) Child outcomes are improved and courts function more effectively when all parties have quality legal representation. Analysis of data from programs in New York and Michigan revealed that more than 50 percent of children avoided unnecessary foster care placement when all parties received high quality representation. According to the American Bar Association, a pilot program in the State of Washington to improve representation for parents resulted in `a 53.3 percent increase in the rate of reunification’.
      (3) In New York, children placed in foster care whose parents receive high quality legal representation spent on average 4.5 months in placement compared to a statewide average of 2 1/2 years and re-entry rates of 1 percent compared to 15 percent statewide.
      (4) According to the American Bar Association, the cost per family for high quality legal services in New York was approximately $6,000 over the life of a case as compared to anywhere from $29,000 to $66,000 for 1 year of foster care for a child in New York City in 2010.
      (5) Training and standards of representation are necessary to ensure qualified representation. According to the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, parental representation is `often substandard, resulting in the failure of due process in these cases. As a result, numerous children are needlessly separated from their parents for extended periods of time and in many cases families are permanently severed through termination of parental rights orders’ and most states have no standard training requirements for attorneys representing parents in their state.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Provision of Legal Representation for Parents and Legal Guardians With Respect to Child Welfare Cases- Section 438(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(a)) is amended–
      (1) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’ at the end;
      (2) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
      (3) by adding at the end the following:
      `(5) to provide legal representation for parents and legal guardians with respect to proceedings described in paragraph (1).’.
    (b) Application- Section 438(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(b)) is amended–
      (1) in paragraph (1)–
        (A) by striking `and’ at the end of subparagraph (B);
        (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting `; and’; and
        (C) by adding at the end the following:
        `(D) in the case of a grant for any purpose described in subsection (a)(5)–
          `(i) a description of how the grant will be used to provide legal representation to parents and legal guardians;
          `(ii) a description of how the court will prioritize the provision of legal representation, including how and when attorneys will be assigned to represent a parent or legal guardian; and
          `(iii) a description of how courts and child welfare agencies on the local and State levels will collaborate and jointly plan for the collection and sharing of all relevant data and information to demonstrate how increased quality representation of parents and legal guardians with respect to child welfare cases will improve child and family outcomes.’; and
      (2) in paragraph (2)–
        (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking `or’;
        (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking `and (C)’ and inserting `(C), and (D)’; and
        (C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); and
        (D) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
        `(D) the purpose described in subsection (a)(5); or’.
    (c) Amount of Grant- Section 438(c)(1) is amended by striking `and (C)’ and inserting `(C), and (D)’.
    (d) Allocation of Funds- Section 438(c)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629h(c)(3)(A)) is amended–
      (1) by striking `and’ at the end of clause (iii);
      (2) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
      (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
          `(iv) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose described in subsection (a)(5); and’.
    (e) Funding- Section 436 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 629g) is amended–
      (1) in subsection (a), by striking `$345,000,000′ and inserting `$355,000,000′; and
      (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking `$30,000,000′ and inserting `$40,000,000′.

 

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

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FILES HISTORIC RESPONSE WITH US NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS


JUDICIAL “IMMUNITY” FACES HISTORIC ATTACK

NINTH CIRCUIT, ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FILED TODAY

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, A DELAWARE PBC CORP.

 JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.IMG_2694

http://www.weightiermatter.com/law/family-court-judicial-immunity-facing-historic-attack-ninth-circuit-additional-briefing-filed-today/5397/

When I spotted California Coalition for Families and Children’s anticipated response in their historic case against the Southern California domestic dispute industry (San Diego County Bar Association, judges, attorneys, court-appointed specialists and “therapists”), I felt giddy with excitement.  It feels wonderful to know that finally someone has the guts to stick up for those who deserve it, want it, and need it, and who are willing to go the distance for it, much to the chagrin of the rest of the evil perpetrating country at this point in time.  That the suit is brought against those evil perpetrators and those who “protect” them is that much sweeter.  In fact, it just makes it feel right because it is.

Enjoy reading.  I know I have, and I will.

 

FAIR USE AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

 

(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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Halt the Adoption Drive – Forced Adoption Exposed Jan 2015 (VIDEO, 6 MIN.)


This is the exact same model in the U.S.A. right now. The court affiliates in Connecticut, for example as reported to me by another individual, just sent out memo informing that they would be “removing” sixty percent (60%) more children this year (2015).

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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

CONGRATULATIONS TO TOP LAWYER BILL SCHEIDLER OF CORRUPT WA FOR ONE HE_ _ OF A RUN!| CORRUPT WA


To Mr. Bill from Julian’s Real Mummy:  We Need You More Fighting for Families and Children in the Courts, Anyway–Keep us Posted on the Federal RICO Suit–You’ve got this Real American’s vote for a Top Lawyer in the USA on this BLOG, DEDICATED TO THE REAL MOMMIES AND DADDIES OF THE REAL AMERICA , TO THEIR CHILDREN WHO WANT TO COME HOME, AND TO MY LITTLE JEWEL, MOST PRECIOUS JULIAN JACOB WORRELL OF GENEALOGY SALOOM–KEEP FIGHTING, AND THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN, AND FREEDOM TO SAVE THIS REPUBLIC USA!  I will be adding your name to the top lawyers/real lawyers for real americans list (although most of the best are currently losing their license for being true advocates to their clients)!

I’m sorry about the campaign.  I was also sorry to see Michelle MacDonald lose the Minnesota Supreme Court seat thanks to he/r courageous, yet compelled, representation of another Real Mommy, Ms. Sandra/”SAM” Grazzini-Rucki.  These criminals will stop at nothing to lose the contest.  Anyone who reads knows electronic voting is completely rigged as all elections have been for, well, you would probably know better than I.  Please don’t give up on that class action R.I.C.O. against the State BAR for what they’re doing to little children and law-abiding “sovereign, elect” US citizens of this Republic USA!

I’m fighting corruption down here in South Texas like you wouldn’t believe, well, okay, yes you do!

Signed, the Lion(ess) Who Watches the Hawk, Who Watches “The Mongoose” Who Watches the “Brood of Vipers in the Harris County (Houston, Texas) and Brazoria County Family Court Halls of the Pharisees in this New Babylon!

P.S.  To say I’m not exactly happy about the Kyla and Baby Lance situation there in Washington thanks, in part, to Judge Regina Cahan, an almost identical situation with an equal . . . sweet child of God who pulled the same tricks to continue to keep my little doll, Julian, who they now call “J.J.,” away from me for well over 2 1/2 years now, would be a gross understatement of gargantuan proportion.  I saw first read he/r story on CORRUPT CT, which I follow avidly, and re-blogged it on this site in case you have been to busy to read about it.  Veritatem Dilexi–Through Truth, Knowledge!  https://jonisaloom.wordpress.com/category/bring-home-baby-lance-judge-regina-cahan-wa-state/ (Re-Blogged with permission and intent from CORRUPT CT)

See “Top Lawyers in USA” at https://jonisaloom.wordpress.com/category/top-lawyers-in-us/

Woefully . . .

Bill Scheidler’s quest for WA house seat ends

 Scheidler’s first-time run for elective office ends on high note. Scheidler goes on to endorse Jesse Young.

I am energized, more determined than ever, and will up my effort to demand honesty and integrity from our public servants. And work to “remove from government those public servants who betray our trust.”

While I will not be working in doing all that I am doing from a legislative seat, I believe our soon-to-be elected legislators should recognize, by the results of my campaign, how many people crave virtue and honor from our public servants.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
While my quest for a house seat ended – having received about 15% of the vote — the context in which I campaigned tells the real story.

Despite such a simple campaign and an honest statement as to why we have such a mess, against the derogatory press coverage by the Kitsap Sun, over the few months of the campaign, nearly 5000 people heard of my work, my effort to restore the rule of law, to restore integrity and honor to public service and they said YES by their VOTE!

I cannot feel anything other than immense joy by the VOICE of these 5000 individuals. Today I know more people find our presently employed public servants lacking in the virtues so critical to public service. I am re-energized to continue what I do and am ready for 2016.

Thank you all,

Bill

Legislative District 26

Last updated on 08/05/2014 9:22 PM

Legislative District 26 – State Representative Pos. 1

Candidate Vote Vote %
(Prefers Republican Party)
4,968 14.85%
(Prefers Republican Party)
12,760 38.14%
(Prefers Democratic Party)
15,724 47%
Total Votes (not including write-ins) 33,452

– See more at: http://www.corruptwa.com/corrupt/government-officials/bill-scheidlers-quest-for-wa-house-seat-ends/#sthash.dVwq2AO6.dpuf

 

  • 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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

 

IS A DELAY BETTER THAN A DISASTER?| CORRUPT CT


re-blogged with permission and intent from

CORRUPT CT

Is a delay better than a disaster?

Is a delay better then a disaster?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “You may delay, but time will not, and lost time is never found again.”  Now take a minute to think about this.  “A delay is better than a disaster” is another famous quote from an unknown source.  While the two conflict in their meanings they both have the same outcome when it comes to the safety of your children, family and loved ones you need to make a decision.

When it comes down to it, there is no delay long enough for me to accept that a disaster is imminent.  This is my flesh and my blood and I will, at any cost, do what I need to do to prevent this disaster from happening.  That is why when I found out the danger my son was in I contacted the DCF, and after 45 long days, (“the CT DCF delaying, but time continuing on”), they finally responded to me saying that no danger was present.

I offered them many leads, who and where drugs were being sold, my sons medication non-the-less and other narcotics, that he was being left home alone 4 to 5 nights a week so that his father could sleep with his alcoholic girlfriend in her garage.  I even gave them the name of witnesses who have seen this first hand, the drugs, the prostitutes and the selling of controlled and prescribed drugs – the best time and method to contact them.
*Had my son’s blood level checked for proper medication levels? – FAIL
*Contacted the school and pulled his records to see he is failing every class due to lack of medications? – Fail
*Had the father of my son submit to a urinalysis or tox screen? – Fail
*Spoke to the police about the nights I had to pick my son up because it was 2 in the morning, he found drugs in the house and was upset? – Fail Fail Fail
*Took the 5 simple minutes to call the first hand witnesses that could attest to his behavior, soliciting prostitutes, using drugs and emotionally and physically neglecting our child – Fail

I was hoping to tell you a story of an epic battle of custody and the DCF doing their jobs but I am not able to, all I can do is supply you with the dates, the people I spoke to, the people that never got back to me, and the fact that the outcome was, and let this be a lesson, it is ok to use drugs, pick-up whores, neglect your children and sell illegal narcotics, you just need to ensure the case worker you get doesn’t actually give a shit about children or their safety, (average 90% of them) and you are in the clear.

So, lets get these details in writing and see how we can try to rectify this situation as soon as possible, because even now time is passing, and no one but the big man in the sky or whomever you believe to be your higher power knows when it will turn from a delay into a disaster, but once that happens it is far to late and that is beyond acceptable.  If it is the delay that brings the disaster in this case, I will be sure that the DCF pays, I will spend my last breath, dollar and everything I have to bring this to the highest court I can because someone needs to be responsible for these disasters that seem to happen all the time, in the news and online.  The father is certainly not in the right, but he is a sick man, and I warned DCF all about it, it ends up being their neglectful acts in the end that lead to tragedy (an event resulting in great loss and misfortune).
So it started with a call to the CT DCF hotline, after a disturbing call from my son at 1:30am
An investigation was started, let’s call the investigator… Kathy, yes her real name, I pay taxes which pays her salary. So she comes to speak with me at my home, and to ensure the words exchanged were not misunderstood I had a witness here. It is no secret that DCF likes to change their story, most likely to save time and paperwork, just my opinion.. Anyway, I informed her of the many, many dangers lurking in the home that my son is residing in. One being he found drugs, two he fills his oil tank with diesel, play’s Dr. on when he gets his meds and not, The drug use and the drinking, days without hot water. I could go on but I thought I would let the investigator do her job. I did though inform her that there were people that were also concerned about my son and that I highly suggested she at least call, as she said she would.
Tuesday 1-25-11 she came to my home, it was supposed to be on Monday 1-24-11 but she couldn’t make it. On 2-18-11 I called because I had not heard from her and wanted to know how things were coming along, she informed me that she had not gotten any releases back from school, the Dr, or his counselor. So she called back to discuss the major concerns of my son….oh wait that was my mother! There is much more to this story, so I have to say check back tomorrow for the rest, including the involvement of supervisors. Sleep well and don’t let the DCF bed bugs bite.

PARENTAL ABDUCTION RISK FACTORS


RE-POSTING, RE-POSTING, RE-POSTING

Parental Abduction Risk Factors

Because the Censors Keep taking this down . . . Pass it On to Everyone You know!

http://www.cybertipline.com/en_US/archive/documents/risk_factors_parental_abduction.pdf

Fair Use and Disclaimer:

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED)

(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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

(5) Censorship is a crime in this USA.

RICO LAWSUIT AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FAMILY COURT FRAUDSTERS| CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN


RICO LAWSUIT AGAINST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FAMILY COURT FRAUDSTERS

 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

\http://www.weightiermatter.com/resource-center-ddice-rico-materials/openning-brief-family-court-racketeering-case-filed-today/5246/

FOSTER “PARENT” THROWS BABY TO FLOOR, BABY DIES, GETS $100,000 BAIL


WATCH THESE VIDEOS BY CLICKING ON THE LINKS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AND PASS THEM ON!

donnellyjustice

When my husband and I rescued our son from the dangers of foster care bail was set at a half a million dollars and this lady kills a baby and gets only a hundred thousand dollar bail?

I changed the heading of this post. Originally I posted something I had to remove as I was very upset at the time I posted it. Then I posted a redaction. Now I am focusing this post on the news story below which is why I was upset to begin with. But the story below just goes to show why my husband and I rescued our son on May 23, 2011 after visiting him at the CPS office in Moreno Valley, CA and seeing a bruise on his face which he said that his “brother”, meaning the foster brother, hit him in the face. That rescue is the reason that the adoptive parents…

View original post 361 more words

Child Protective Services aka CPS, Everything you ever wanted to know. The Good, The bad, and The Ugly.


Child Protective Services aka CPS, Everything you ever wanted to know. The Good, The bad, and The Ugly..

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES| COURTHOUSE NEWS


CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES

 COURTHOUSE NEWS

By: Rebekah Kearn

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/16/socal-county-takes-thousands-of-babies-without-cause-class-says.htm

THE FAMILY ATTORNEY OF CHOICE, SHAWN MCMILLAN, SUES RIVERSIDE COUNTY DSS| CORRUPT CA


Coming to a Court Near You . . .

donnellyjustice

ATTORNEY SHAWN MCMILLAN HAS FILED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST SOCIAL WORKERS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Riverside County is VERY GOOD at hiding the fact that they literally steal children from innocent parents. They make it LOOK LIKE they are doing the “right thing” but in reality, they are not playing by their own rules. The Welfare & Institutions Codes are violated in every case but they will hold the parents to codes that shouldn’t even apply to them. It is teamwork, not only is the County railroading parents and abusing children but the whole Court system is involved. County Counsel, the Defense Panel, the Clerk, and yes, THE “JUDGE” are all fully aware of the scheme against parents and the taking of their children all for FEDERAL FUNDING and their paychecks. It IS a conspiracy and I can give you more people involved as well, such as every contractor for…

View original post 216 more words

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)


Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QuSc_U5VqDQ

Source: “Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie),” Published on Youtube.com on November 28, 2011 by Parentalrights.org

REPORT COURT OFFICIALS WHO GIVE CUSTODY TO ALLEGED ABUSERS AND SEXUAL ABUSERS| DAMON’S LIST


REPORT JUDGES WHO GIVE CHILD ABUSERS AND MOLESTERS, AS ALLEGED BY THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES WITHOUT “COACHING,” CUSTODY AND SILENCE THE PROTECTIVE PARENT WITH PUNITIVE AND COERCIVE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL…UNLAWFUL MEASURES ON DAMON’S LIST BY CLICKING ON THE LINK  BELOW OR PASTING IT INTO YOUR BROWSER.

http://www.courtlicensedabuse.com/

http://www.safekidsinternational.org/

 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM GUIDEBOOK FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON


GUARDIAN AD LITEM GUIDEBOOK FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON

GAL GUIDEBOOK.WASHINGTON.Title26GAL

https://www.kcba.org/CLE/Title26GAL.pdf

See, New Books By Mothers


amississippimom

Up and Running …. Janie McQueen, Robin Karr,

!! If you order today, you can have in hand well before Christmas in trade paperback via Amazon, and TODAY on Kindle! Audiobook for Audible and iTunes TBA soon!

In her 16-year-old upscale Charleston, South Carolina life, the biggest problems Emily Amber Ross has had to face run along the lines of designing alternative Halloween costumes, losing five pounds before school pictures, sourcing…
AMAZON.COM
AND,

The following is an excerpt from Janie McQueen‘s book “Hanging On By My Fingernails“. If you haven’t read this book, you should. Janie completely “gets” the horror of what we’re going through because she’s been through it too. Her ex-husband filed for sole custody of their two children and proceeded to have her arrested for no reason. Then, as a condition to her jail release, she had to agree…

View original post 850 more words

THE BABY-SNATCHERS (VIDEO)


CPS KIDNAPS BABY RIGHT OUT OF MOTHER’S ARMS IN THE HOSPITAL,

…WITH A NEWS CAMERA MAN FILMING?

Austin, Texas

Strange Days, Indeed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TXwBRfxRSz8

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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Shawn McMillan Stephen Daner 2014 Street Fighter Finalists


 RE-BLOGGED FROM

Breaking News

Home / DCF or CPS / Shawn McMillan Stephen Daner 2014 Street Fighter Finalists

Shawn McMillan Stephen Daner 2014 Street Fighter Finalists

Shawn A. McMillan and Stephen D. Daner, 2014 Street Fighter of the Year Finalists

SMITHFIELD, PA: MAN SUES CYS FOR WRONGFUL CHILD “REMOVAL,” 2008


June 17, 2008

PA- Smithfield man sues county CYS

6-17-2008 Pennsylvania:

A Smithfield man has sued Fayette County Children and Youth Services on Monday, claiming that the agency had no right to remove his children – ages 5, 6 and 8 – from him in 2006.

A caseworker took the children from the 29-year-old man’s home during an investigation into his relationship with a 16-year-old girl who sometimes baby-sat the children.

The man, referred to as John Doe in the suit, and the 16-year-old, identified only as K.K., both told a CYS caseworker that they waited until she was 16 to have a physical relationship, according to the suit, filed in federal court in Pittsburgh. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.

Also filed was a request for a temporary restraining order that would return Doe’s children to him.

The suit, filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania attorney Sara Rose, indicated the man never was accused of abusing his own children, and asks a judge to order their immediate return.

“My kids are my whole life and I just want them back,” Doe is quoted as saying in an ACLU-issued press release about the suit.

Rose said that CYS “abused its power to place children in state custody by removing these children from their father, even though the children never have been abused and are in no danger of abuse.

“As a result, Doe has had no contact with his children for almost a year, and has not lived with his children for almost two years. That is time with his children that he will never get back,” Rose said.

The children have lived with Doe’s parents since September 2006, and Doe has had no communication with them since August 2007.

“Even parents convicted of abusing their children often are allowed more contact with their children than plaintiff,” Rose contended in the suit.

According to the filing, Doe got involved with K.K. in 2006, after she turned 16.

K.K. also acted as a baby sitter for the Doe children, according to the complaint, and Doe and K.K. have known one another “for a number of years through family connections.”

The suit indicated that Doe and K.K. “deliberately waited” until K.K. turned 16 to initiate a sexual relationship because they called the Crime Victims Center of Fayette County to inquire about the age of consent in Pennsylvania.

K.K.’s mother found out about the relationship and called police in September 2006, Rose indicated.

“The police declined to press charges against plaintiff because engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old is not a crime under Pennsylvania law,” Rose wrote.

The legal standards that police and CYS apply to cases differ.

K.K.’s mother also contacted CYS, the suit alleged, and a caseworker initiated an investigation. During that investigation, they both admitted to having a sexual relationship after K.K. turned 16, according to the complaint.

In November 2006, a letter from CYS informed Doe that the agency had determined there was “substantial evidence” that he sexually abused K.K. Doe appealed in January 2007, the suit indicated. The state Department of Public Welfare heard the appeal in November 2007, and has not yet rendered a decision.

The suit indicated a caseworker called Doe on Sept. 22, 2006, and asked if there was anywhere his three children could stay during a 60-day CYS investigation into the investigations into the allegations that he abused K.K.

If there was nowhere for the children to stay, the caseworker told Doe that they would have to go into foster care, the suit alleged.

Doe sent the children to stay with his parents, according to the suit. He was allowed supervised visits by CYS, the suit indicated, and visited with them daily until Aug. 1, 2007.

That day, another caseworker came to Doe’s parents’ home with two state troopers and said she believed he was having unsupervised visits with his children.

That caseworker threatened to remove the Doe children unless plaintiff’s mother signed a plan that forbade Doe’s parents from allowing the children to have any contact with the plaintiff, the suit alleged.

Neither caseworker told Doe or his mother what their rights were, Rose alleged.

On Aug. 2, 2007, a third caseworker told Doe’s mother that he could not talk to his children unless he completed a sex-offender treatment program.

Doe indicated in the suit that he attended one sex-offender class, but stopped after learning that one of the requirements was admitting that he was a perpetrator of sexual abuse.

“Plaintiff refuses to state that he is a perpetrator of sexual abuse, as he disputes defendants’ claim that his relationship with K.K. constituted sexual abuse under the law and contests defendants’ contention that he is a perpetrator as that term is defined in the Child Protective Services Act,” the suit stated.

The suit indicated that CYS closed the case and indicated that it is the agency’s policy that because Doe is believed to be a sexual abuser that he cannot have any contact with his children.

Doe, according to the suit, is the children’s’ legal guardian since June 2005, when he and their mother separated. Their mother has been a psychiatric patient at Torrance State Hospital in Torrance since February 2008.

U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose has been assigned the case. ..News Source.. by Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard

INCESTUOUS INJUSTICE IN THE MOST ETHICAL CITY IN THE US


Source:  Re-Posted/Re-Blogged from Attorney Greg B. Enos’ blog, Divorce Reality, http://www.divorcereality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Franklin-billed-for-lawyer-work-after-she-became-a-judge.pdf (See also The Mongoose at http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs152/1109660142763/archive/1111480413874.html

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(1) This post is made in good faith and for the purpose of the public good and trust in the furtherance of liberty and justice for all denied and deprived.

(2) If any individual should require or wish retraction or modification in part or in full for good cause, contact the author of this post and blog for reasonable and lawful, efficient, equitable relief.

(3) Copyright information, if any, is unknown to Author of this blog, but the information contained herein is expressly not intended for commercial or profitable financial gain.  Rather, it is posted solely for general knowledge, academic research and statistics, and/or for entertainment value pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 107.

protest

Ella Wheeler Wilcox (from Poems of Purpose, 1916)

“To sin by silence, when we should protest,
Makes cowards out of men. The human race
Has climbed on protest. Had no voice been raised
Against injustice, ignorance and lust,
The Inquisition yet would serve the law,
And guillotines decide our least disputes.
The few who dare, must speak and speak again
To right the wrongs of many”…..

“Together, attorneys can improve our family courts!”

In this Issue
Count One: Submitting CPS Pay Vouchers That Simply Cannot Be True

Count Two: Billing for CPS Work After She Became Judge

Count Three: Accepting a Campaign Contribution From a Party to a Case She Was The Amicus Attorney On

Count Four: Billing for Non-Lawyer Tasks Such as “Post Office Runs”

Count Five: Falsely Asking to be “Re-Elected”

Enos Schools County Auditor and Harangues County Judge Emmett

Alicia Franklin Became a Judge on June 13, 2014, the Date of her Secret Swearing In Ceremony
Judicial Candidate Forum and Seminar
The bi-partisan group, Family Lawyers for Good Judges, is sponsoring a debate between all of the candidates for family courts in contested elections in Harris County on September 12, 2014. Here is the information on this event:
2014 HARRIS COUNTY FAMILY LAW JUDICIAL DEBATE AND JUDICIAL PANEL: “WHAT MAKES A GOOD FAMILY LAW JUDGE”
Date and Time: Friday, September 12, 2014 – 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Location: South Texas College of Law, Joe Green Auditorium, 4th Floor, 1303 San Jacinto St., Houston TX 77002

Cost: $150.00; 25% discount for Associate Members; Full Members are free of charge, Box lunch included

CLE: 4.0 hours, 1.0 hour ethics included

Click here to download the registration form for this event.

Click here to download the membership form to join this group. Click here for the group’s by-laws.

The folks putting on this event want to make it clear – Greg Enos has absolutely nothing to do with their organization or this candidate forum.

Count Four: Billing for Non-Lawyer Tasks Such as “Post Office Runs”

Alicia Franklin billed the county for one hour of work on May 6, 2014 in Cause No. 2014-02035J for “prepare letter to client, prepare to mail and post office run.” In Cause No. 2008-02442J, Franklin billed a quarter of an hour twice for “post office run” on April 10 and May 19, 2014. Attorneys simply do not bill their clients for running to the post office and Harris County tax payers should not be charged for such work either.

On May 1, 2014, Franklin billed the county in Cause No. 2013-41503 a quarter of an hour to e-file a document. She did the same thing on May 7, 2014 in Cause No. 2013-39931 when she charged a quarter of an hour for “e-filed affidavit.”  Again, this is something clerical staff do in most law offices and I have never heard of lawyers billing clients for that sort of work.

Franklin also billed the county frequently for merely printing documents, something attorneys or their clerical staff do simply by pushing a button. I have never heard of attorneys charging clients to print documents. In Cause No. 2011-04867-J, on May 5, 2014, for example, Franklin billed the county for 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to print a CPS report on what must be a really slow printer and then Franklin, on the same day, billed the county one hour to review the same report. It would be a very rare CPS report that was more than 6 – 8 pages long and an average reader can read such reports in ten minutes or less. Attorneys should not bill the county to just print documents.

Click here to see these examples of Franklin billing for non-lawyer work.

Tax payers should not pay attorneys to print documents, e-file pleadings, lick envelopes or drive to the post office to put envelopes in the mail box. These amazing time entries are proof that the CPS lawyers submitting invoices have no shame and no fear of their bills being reviewed. It is definite proof that the judges do not even read the time entries being submitted before they approve them for payment.
Count Five: Falsely Asking to be “Re-Elected”

Someone actually reads this little newsletter. Sherri Cothrun complained that Alicia Franklin was improperly using the phrase,”Re-Elect Alicia Franklin” on her website, but the naive Chronicle editor thought Cothrun was just being picky and “hyper technical.” Franklin apparently saw no need to change her web site after their Monday meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board.

However, after my newsletter that pointed this “re-elect versus keep” problem out was published last Thursday, Franklin quickly changed her website.

Franklin’s problem is that it was simply not true and it was unethical for her to ask to be “re-elected” if she has never been elected in the first place. I checked with the Commission on Judicial Conduct and confirmed that an appointed judge cannot use the phrase “re-elect” (they also cannot falsely claim to be a Rhodes Scholar or to have flown on the space shuttle either). The Code of Judicial Conduct applies to JUDGE Franklin just as it does to all judicial candidates. Canon 5,(1)(ii), says,”a judge or judicial candidate shall not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concerning the candidate…”

Anyone with political experience would have known that an appointed judge cannot ask voters to “re-elect” her, so this was not a mistake. Franklin’s team has plenty of political experience. However, the common thread you should see running through all of the articles in this newsletter is this: a smart person is making the sleazy choice and expecting to not get caught or called out on it.

A judge telling the truth to voters and knowing the rules and following them does not just involve a “hyper-technical” application of some rule. A judge in family court has to apply “hyper-technical” rules of law to parents and parties and sometimes punish people who do not follow the rules.

The arrogance of the attitude that “the Republicans are going to sweep this election so no one is going to care what we do” is wrong and disgusting. That was almost verbatim what I was told when I first broke the news to the Franklin camp of the distressing stories in this newsletter.

I have yet to hear anything like “Oh my gosh, if we screwed up we will get to the bottom of it, and apologize and make it right.” When I called out Judge Meca Walker for accepting $20,000 in improper campaign contributions last Fall, she immediately recognized the error, apologized and returned the money. That is what a person who cares about right and wrong does.

Enos Schools County Auditor and Harangues County Judge Emmett

Lawyers are stealing tax payer dollars and the system in place at Harris County allows it. Here are the problems:

1. A paper based system from the 1950’s is still in use. Lawyers fill out the pay vouchers by hand, the judges sign the vouchers and then they go to the County Auditor, who pays the amounts approved by the judges, no questions asked.

2. A judge, who may approve dozens of pay vouchers a week, cannot see what an attorney is billing in other cases in that same court or in other courts.

3. No one until me ever took a mass of vouchers from one single attorney and extracted the fees charged on all cases for a particular day to see what the attorney is billing the county for on that day. This is how Alicia Franklin got busted billing 23.5 hours in one day. If I can “audit” vouchers, why can’t the County Auditor?

4. The real problem is that no one has any incentive to closely monitor the CPS pay system. The judges are picking their pals for the appointments and therefore obviously want them to make money. The attorneys do not want their vouchers audited either. They have figured out that they can make a lot of money by submitting almost any hours they can make up and no one is ever going to care or catch them.

The simple solution is to go to an all electronic reporting system, like the State makes candidates use for reporting campaign contributions. Candidates must enter their information into a database program that automatically uploads the data to the State database that we can all search. Click here to see just how searchable the Texas Ethics Commission campaign finance database is.

The county should make ALL billing and pay information for appointed attorneys viewable on line by everyone, including judges and reporters. Our family and juvenile judges should demand that all court appointments and all fees for appointed attorneys be reported. Simple transparency will eliminate a lot of the abuses.

It would also help if our County Auditor actually audited some attorney vouchers on a random basis to keep everyone honest. However, the County Auditor is hired, fired and managed by the district judges of Harris County. How gung ho will the auditor be to audit the CPS invoices her bosses have already approved?

Lastly, we need to replace every single judge involved in this dirty CPS court appointment business, which is about three judges in the family courts and at least two of the three juvenile courts.

The children and tax payers of Harris County deserve better!
Alicia Franklin Became a Judge on June 13, 2014, the Date of Her Secret Swearing In
Alicia Franklin was appointed Judge of the 311th District Court by Governor Perry on June 13, 2014. That same day, Franklin had her friend and mentor, Judge Lisa Millard, swear her in as judge in a private ceremony. I soon heard that Franklin had been sworn in but no one would tell me the details. I asked Franklin’s fiance, Doug York, and he would not tell me, so I really became interested. I e-mailed Judge David Farr and District Clerk Chris Daniel and even Doug York and Alicia Franklin, but Farr and Daniel did not know and it took a while for me to learn the truth from Franklin and her fiance. At the time, I could not fathom why the exact date Franklin took office was a secret. Now that I see Franklin was billing the county for CPS lawyer work she did from June 13 – June 17, I think I understand.

Doug York e-mailed me on June 18 and said, in part:

However, since not knowing is driving you crazy the Doug York in me now wants to keep you guessing and apparently very frustrated…..

But alas, here’s a clue…..on the day she got the call from the Gov it would make sense to get sworn in by another family court judge she’s friends with now wouldn’t it…..but of course I’m not divulging anything as I am merely the small minion, a cog in the proverbial wheel….

On June 24, Franklin herself e-mailed me:

From: Alicia K. Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Greg Enos
Subject: Responding to your email of June 17
Hi Greg,
It has been amazing sitting as Judge of the 311th. Things are moving along and we are moving in the right direction. I look forward to seeing you in the 311th.
I wanted to follow up with you regarding the swearing in and upcoming investiture however I was waiting for confirmation that the ceremonial court was available at the date and time certain.
I was sworn in the day of my appointment by the Governor, June 13th, by Judge Lisa Millard. There will be a public ceremony that will take place in the ceremonial courtroom on the 17th floor of the civil courthouse on Friday, August 15, 2014 at noon with a catered reception to follow in the courtroom adjacent the ceremonial courtroom on the 17th floor.
. . . .

I obtained a copy of the oath of office Franklin signed on June 13, 2014 from the Secretary of State:
There can be no doubt, Franklin became a judge on June 13.

Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and child custody battle (he won) and understands what his clients are going through. Enos graduated from the University of Texas Law School and was a very successful personal injury attorney in Texas City before he decided his true calling was to help families in divorce and child custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities. He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of Interfaith Caring Ministries.
Attorney Greg Enos

SOURCE: The Mongoose , Attorney Greg B. Enos; see also Divorce Reality Blog
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs152/1109660142763/archive/1118307216570.html#Swearing
http://www.divorcereality.com/the-mongoose/?utm_source=September+3%2C+2014+Newsletter&utm_campaign=August+3+2014&utm_medium=archive

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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Comments Tori Kelly song “Lullabye” Rendition


COST OF CORRUPTION|CROMWELL CT : DIVORCE NIGHTMARES and POLICE CORRUPTION


November 25, 2014

Home / Connecticut Family Court’s / Corrupt Courts Strip Divorcees of Constitutional Rights
Corrupt Courts Strip Divorcees of Constitutional Rights
Corruption in family court

Corrupt Courts Strip Divorcees of Constitutional Rights

CROMWELL CT : DIVORCE NIGHTMARES and POLICE CORRUPTION

 Up until two years ago, Ted Taupier didn’t spend much time thinking about the meaning of his first, second, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights, but as he’s watched all those rights disappear along with his parental rights, Taupier tells RebelPundit he’s had a first hand look at the cruelty of an unchecked and unaccountable court system.

Taupier said his problems started when months after he and his wife, Tanya Taupier, decided to file for divorce in September 2012, and she hired a criminal defense attorney Chris Morano in early 2013, even though Taupier’s ex-wife wasn’t involved in any criminal matters at the time.

Morano gained a reputation about a decade earlier by successfully prosecuting Michael Skakel for the 1976 murder of Martha Moxley. That prosecution has since been overturned.

Morano didn’t respond to a phone call for comment at his office.

Taupier was arrested on a voyeurism charge on May 22, 2013. The arrest occurred, Taupier told RebelPundit, after Morano reached out to Barbara Hoffman, the Prosecuting Attorney in Middletown, Connecticut.

“I have the evidence; I’ve seen the evidence; this guy needs to be arrested.” Morano said to Hoffman.

But Hoffman never saw any physical evidence prior to making the arrest, and the charge is based entirely on a video Taupier made with the consent of his wife giving her a massage, when he considered becoming a professional masseuse.

More than a year later, the charges are left open though prosecutors haven’t followed through and no trial date has yet been scheduled, despite Taupier’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The damage to Taupier’s reputation had already been done as his arrest was covered throughout the media in Connecticut. Taupier had never even had a speeding or parking ticket prior to the arrest.

“It’s a defamation campaign,” Ted Taupier said to RebelPundit, of the arrest and subsequent media attention. He said that he lost out on a number of job opportunities after prospective employers found his arrest on-line.

Hoffman didn’t respond to an email for comment.

Taupier said it was the first in a series of actions in which Connecticut’s law enforcement was used as a weapon by his wife in their divorce.

Taupier said his constitutional rights were also violated when his wife’s attorney suggested that, because he took his kids to a bill signing at the state capitol he wasn’t acting in his children’s best interest in a contempt of court motion filed on August 22, 2014 by Tanya Taupier’s divorce attorney, Geraldine Ficarro.

“Two days after a long admonishment on the records by Judge Bozutto, the Defendant used the children as props for a photo opportunity regarding a legislator to advance her legislative efforts regarding Guardians ad Litem.”

This particular motion was telegraphed by statements made by the family court Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto on June 18, 2014.

“It was brought to my attention by the supervisor that there was some communication to the Family Relation’s officer who’s doing this that injected some of the politics that’s been going on outside this courthouse into this case; I can’t allow that.

“I can’t allow Taupier vs Taupier to be politicized. I can’t allow that.”

Ted Taupier said all this refers to a bill signing for Connecticut Senate Bill 494, which “makes changes to Connecticut’s family court system related to guardians ad litem (GALs) appointed by courts for minor children,” according to Gonzalez’s website.

Gonzalez, a Democratic State Senator, has become an advocate for family court reform in Connecticut and her pressure led to the creation of the Connecticut Task Force for Child Custody and Welfare which delivered a scathing report in February 2014 finding top to bottom corruption in Connecticut’s family court system and the Guardian ad Litem system in particular.

A Hartford Courant article on the matter quoted Gonzalez.

”The problem is so bad and the corruption is so bad that elected officials tend not to maybe believe it,” Gonzalez said, adding that she (does) not think guardians ad litem even belong in the family courts.

Taupier said he has become close to Gonzalez and even testified at the task force hearings and took his kids to the bill signing for this reason.

The judge ordered a hearing on the motion, which Ted Taupier said is inherent approval of its merits, even though taking your children to a bill signing would fall under basic constitutional principles of free speech and association.

Judge Bazzuto, Tanya Taupier, or her divorce attorney didn’t respond to emails for comment for this story.

Taupier said his first amendment rights were further violated when he was arrested for making terroristic threats against Judge Bazzuto on August 22, 2014.

The arrest stemmed from an email he sent to a group of aggrieved parents on August 29, 2014 in which he detailed all the things he felt the judge had done wrong in his case along with an homage to Charlton Heston’s screed in favor of the 2nd amendment.

“They can steal my kids from my cold dead bleeding cordite filled fists…as my 60 round mag falls to the floor and I’m dying as I change out of my 30 round mag.”

One of the recipients of the email, Jennifer Verraneault, forwarded the email to Linda Allard of the Greater Hartford Legal Aid Society. Allard called the head of Judicial Marshalls, Brian Clemens.

Emails to Allard and Verranneault were left unreturned.

This triggered an investigation and on August 29, 2014, the Connecticut State Police arrested Ted Taupier and charged him with threatening in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.

Taupier was given a cash bond of $35,000, meaning he needed to come up with 100% in order to bail himself out.

With family providing him with bail money, Taupier left prison the next morning.

The arraignment, which was originally set for September 12, 2014, was pushed up to September 2, 2014 only after Taupier posted bond.

At that arraignment, the judge added another $40,000 to the bond, and Taupier was taken back into custody until his family came up with the rest and he was released the next morning.

The State of Connecticut would generally ask for $75,000 for defendants accused of violent crimes or sexual assaults meaning an argument could be made that his excessive bail violated Taupier’s eighth amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment which includes excessive bail.

Taupier was also fitted for an ankle monitoring bracelet and given house arrest, which continues to this day. Judging him a risk to society, the judge also ordered the removal of all of Taupier’s firearms, and the effective violation of his second amendment rights.

All of this was done even though prosecutors appear to know the charge against Taupier is dubious.

“”He (Taupier) didn’t really threaten her (the judge)” Brenda Hans, the prosecutor in charge, said in the Middleburg, Connecticut Court House, to a colleague on November 5, 2014. “He had guns at home.”

The conversation was relayed to RebelPundit by a citizen who was in the courthouse but asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Hans didn’t respond to an email for comment.

At around the same time, Tanya Taupier employed the Cromwell Connecticut Police Department to forcibly remove Taupier’s kids from school in the middle of their first day.

According to Ted Taupier, his son had been bullied at the school he attended the previous year and as a result he enrolled both his kids in an elementary school near his home.

But a court order bound both parents to enroll the kids in the school his son had been bullied in. Ted Taupier told RebelPundit that he’d cleared the move with his ex-wife, but the accuracy of that statement is a part

When his ex-wife found out, her lawyer called for an ex-parte emergency hearing and arguing that her kids were in immediate danger in their new school got Judge Buzzuto to sign an emergency order which allowed the police to come and forcibly take them out of school.

Ted Taupier filmed the exchange and placed it on You Tube.

Alisha Mathers is Ted Taupier’s divorce attorney and has been since shortly after these events.

“Ted (Taupier) was wrong.” Mathers told RebelPundit of the manner in which he enrolled his kids in school but added. “It (the emergency order to remove his kids) is ridiculous.”

Mathers told RebelPundit that in general ex parte motions are frowned up in most courts because the violate the basic right of an accused facing their accuser, and they are used only in emergency situations where someone’s life or physical safety is in danger.

Having someone’s children not go to the school they want should not be a reason for allowing an ex-parte motion, Mathers added.

An ex-parte motion or hearing is a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties and is supposed to be limited by the fifth and fourteenth amendments which provide due process of the law.

“They (his ex-wife’s legal team) should have filed a contempt of court order.” Mathers added. “And they would have won (on the contempt of court order).”

Worse than that, the first dubious ex-parte motion led to a second ex-parte hearing where Judge Buzutto limited Ted Taupier’s parental rights stating, “He flagrantly violates court orders.”

He allowed Ted Taupier to see his kids in a pre-approved state run facility at his expense, however this effectively means Taupier can’t see his kids because he’s currently under house arrest and not allowed to leave his house.

Taupier said he hasn’t seen his children since the day in the parking lot when police forcibly removed them from school.

Taupier’s legal troubles weren’t over. On September 8, 2014, Geographical Area 09 issued a criminal protective order against Ted Taupier based on the original voyeurism charge, though the criminal case has stalled and voyeurism is not one of the offenses under Connecticut domestic violence laws which would trigger a protective order.

On October 24, 2014, the State of Connecticut said as much in a brief filed in Judicial District of Middleburg.

“(I)t’s evident that despite the fact that Tanya Taupier is the victim of the voyeurism case, those crimes don’t meet the definition of ‘family violence’ or ‘family violence’ crimes. Additionally, she’s not a victim in the threatening case involving Judge Bozzuto and all of the provisions outlining protective orders pertain to the victim, his or her ‘family or household member’.”

Though the brief has been filed, the protective order hasn’t been lifted as of the publication of this article. Taupier said he wasn’t even allowed to vote on November 4, 2014, because he wasn’t allowed out of his house.

Though his ex-wife claimed that both their kids were being “psychologically harmed” by attending the school chosen by Taupier according to an email from the children’s current therapist, the children are in crisis at the school chosen by the mother.

“When they first returned, there were concerns about the new crises, the separation from you and acting out by (Taupier’s son) at school — some aggressive talk which is extremely unusual for him.     As I’ve told you before, neither of them like to directly talk about the family conflicts (that is too intense for them).  Currently this is seriously symptomatic but that does not mean they are not impacted by the actions and conflicts,” said Nancy Eisworth, their current therapist, in an email to Taupier on October 10, 2014.

Taupier tells RebelPundit that in the last two years he’s met hundreds of folks, both male and female, also victims of corrupt family court proceedings, and he believes there is a silent epidemic of parents having their parental rights all across America by cruel and corrupt family courts.

http://rebelpundit.com/corrupt-courts-strip-divorcees-of-constitutional-rights

 

Corruptct comments – Ted Taupier is another victim of the corrupt family courts in Connecticut. We have met with Ted Taupier, a well spoken educated man who loves his children. He shared with us the details regarding his arrested on a voyeurism charge, it is far from what it is claimed to be and who is the “victim” in this said charge. It is disturbing to see how far some will go during a divorce, with little to no regard of the effects it will have on the child/children.

Connecticut family courts as well as family courts nation wide are all about money. Attorney’s that practice in family law and what some will suggest you do, again no regard for the child or children. Caught in what seems to be the never ending web within corrupt family courts, where money is the concern.

How much longer will these illegal act’s in family court continue? Family court cases in Connecticut go on for years, as they continue to find way’s to rob you of everything. Money is not enough, as the innocent children in these cases will be left with life long scars and how they are made to “choose” a parent to side with. No child should ever have to choose, or be told that one parent is bad, brainwashing children to benefit a parents in family court.

Greed seems to be more important in these courts for “family”, money is the main attraction. There is great concern about what continues to occur within them, even more when it is well known and nothing is done about it. Family court corruption in Connecticut occurs daily and has been going on for years. Many children end up in the care of the wrong parent, money talks in family court, but where is the voice for the innocent children? As long as money continues to run through the courts and the attorney’s that know all to well of how to continue to drag out cases and generate money for others.

FIDUCIARY LITIGATION AND “PARENT-CHILD THIRD PARTY” PRE-MEDITATED, BEFORE AND AFTER-THE-FACT GUILTY OF MISPRISION AND MALFEASANCE


FIDUCIARY LITIGATION AND “PARENT-CHILD THIRD PARTY” PRE-MEDITATED, BEFORE AND AFTER-THE-FACT GUILTY OF MISPRISION AND MALFEASANCE

From the “Presenter” Below who helped the local and state government actor individuals (and private individuals not yet defendants or parties of record), family law attorner and “Adjutant General of Texas” (appointed by Gov. Rick Perry), John Nichols, Sr., father to “Bo” Nichols, Jr.:

http://www.skillernfirm.com/uploads/2/1/9/4/21940676/fiduciary_litigation_-_parent_child_3rd_party.pdf

Have we upped the ante, yet and raised the flat $20,000 entry due and owing to Judge Lisa A.Millard and Conrad Moren complicit with Houston Attorney Lawrence Rothenberg and family law Attorney Bruce Allen Buskirk and GAL/AAL Donna Everson?

How long was Cheryl Harvick on your payroll that you advertise as having CPS supervisors of twelve years on your staff in your Internet ads, Nichols?

DEFENDING A DFPS CASE PARENTS: PRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY BRIAN FISCHER, HOUSTON,TX


DEFENDING A DFPS CASE

PARENTS:

PRESENTATION BY

ATTORNEY

BRIAN J. FISCHER,

HOUSTON,TX

HTTP://WWW.ESC1.NET/CMS/LIB/TX21000366/CENTRICITY/DOMAIN/89/FISCHERFINAL.PDF

http://www.juvenilelaw.org/Portals/0/Article%20Library/Articles%202013/DFPS%20Case%20Law%20Update.pdf

2015 Conference Information for the Robert O. Dawson Juvenile Law Institute Conference in Fort Worth, Texas:  http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/regionaltraining/JuvenileLawConferenceFlyer_2015.p

THE NEW MAFIA: Family Court Racketeering 101 (VIDEO)


THE NEW MAFIA:  Family Court Racketeering 101

Short Video Explains How To Identify and Recover From Divorce Industry Racketeering

by ccfc editor

Check this out from California Coalition for Families and Children (“CCFC”) and Weightier Matters.com, Colbern Stuart…

 http://www.weightiermatter.com/divorce/family-court-racketeering-101-short-video-explains-identify-recover-divorce-industry-racketeering/5184/

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(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 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Lea’s Story| Banken v. Banken; Carver County, Minnesota (VIDEO)


Lea’s Story

Banken v. Banken

Carver County, Minnesota

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Cp7XrC2xHyo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q4yHMrXpPA&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AwY0yQlvFn4

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(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, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

“SAVING KATIA,” for her Mother, Kathie Seidel|Fort Worth, Texas


Source(s):

(1)   Firsthand from Ms. Kathy Seidel, “Katia’s mom”,(e-mailed article to author of this blog in June 2014 in a kind gesture after hearing Author of this blog’s story, or party of it, on T.S. Radio Show on Blogtalkradio.com ,which is fervently hosted by a very devoted and, in this Author’s opinion, kind and highly credible and  credentialed individual, and proud grandma/mother, Marti Oakley, on the evening of June 22, 2014(See also PPG Gazette, a blog or website at http://ppjg.me/); initially published in the Fort Worth Weekly, Saving Katia, Jeff Prince, Posted July 2, 2008, http://www.fwweekly.com/2008/07/02/saving-katia/.

(2) Author of this blog, Julian’s Real Mummy, Joni Faith Saloom, would like to take this space to honor these ladies determined to bring awareness and with hope and activism through truth and journalistic integrity and reform efforts in their respective states with regard to, among other issues rife with import, guardian and institutional abuse, human trafficking through the courts, and erosion of guaranteed liberties, rights, privileges, and immunities.  In over two years of this Author being deprived of her only property, referred to by the government as “child,” and reaching out to those who have the real power to make positive changes in this fertile constitutional ground, Oakley/T.S. Radio Show host and producer, and one of her avid listeners, Ms. Kathy Seidel, a real (adoptive) mommy most worthy of the honorable and earned “title,” were the only ones, along with a Tarrant County mom who introduced me to a filmmaker in New York were willing to try to bring exposure to my case.  I hope to pay it forward to the best of my ability.

    (3)                                 Copyright 2014 FW Weekly.
3311 Hamilton Ave. Fort Worth, TX 76107
Phone: (817) 321-9700 – Fax: (817) 335-9575 – Email Contact
FreePress Web Publisher system by Echoes Media, Inc.

Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America…and Their Children Who Want to Come Home recommends checking out Ms. Kathy Seidel’s real advocacy group, “GRADE”– Guardianship Reform Advocates For The Disabled & Elderly at http://www.guardianshipreform.org/ (which is not affiliated with the Fort Worth Weekly (see copyright information at the end of this post

 Fair Use Notice and Warning and Legal Disclaimers (by a non-legal practitioner, lawyer, attorney, or trial advocate, except with regard to her own meritorious case, sui juris, de jure:
(1)  This post is made in the best of faith construed in the light most favorable to real advocates who truly care.
(2)  This post is made solely for educational/general knowledge, academic research purposes by Author of this blog, and is expressly not intended for commercial or profitable use of any kind.  Author just now noticed that this post/article is subject to  copyright (see information and copyright owner at the bottom of this post.
Accordingly, please contact the proper owner if one seeks to use this information proffered by Fort Worth Weekly and author or journalist Jeff Prince before “copying” or plagiarizing so as not to potentially incur any criminal and/or civil charges or attorney’s fees.
(3) If the owner of the copyright and/or anyone else desires that this post removed, modified, or if any such individual ( he/she/they) desire retractions, Author of this blog and re-post will be happy to accommodate your wishes.
(4)  Please accept individual blog Author’s sincere apology for not first asking permission as this was an honest mistake.  Author did not notice the copyright at the bottom.
(5)  Please also feel free to contact Author of this blog through comments (which are not automatically published without Author’s sole approval.  One might express whether or not one wishes for their comment(s) to be private and unpublished.
(6)  Finally, Many thanks to author or journalist/reporter, Mr. Jeff Prince and the Fort Worth Weekly’s honor and integrity in publishing or posting this story for Ms. Kathy.  Author wishes there were more media outlets so willing.
(7) On knowledge and belief, the views and opinions expressed in parts of this post and on this blog by Author and others are expressly not the current (or past) views of FW Weekly or Fort Worth Weekly or any of its affiliated employees, corporate affiliates, sponsors, publishers, editors, reporters, sources, investors,  owners, subsidiaries, corporations, or advertisers.
 Saving Katia An adoptive mom loses custody of her troubled daughter

By Jeff Prince

Adopting orphans from foreign countries comes with risk, but Kathie Seidel was willing to roll the dice. She was hurting. She wanted to be a mother again. For more than 20 years she had showered love on her only child, Brian, and his accidental death in 1989 had sent her reeling.

“Everything in my life was an adventure with Brian,” she said. “He was such a joy, and I wanted to have that again. Parenting was the best thing I ever did with my life.”

Unable to bear more children, she decided to become an adoptive mother. At 40 and single, she wasn’t the preferred candidate for American adoption agencies, so she looked overseas. Her first adopted child came from Russia in 1993. Four-year-old Greg arrived with problems and charms. Hyperactive and diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, he was also intelligent, sweet, and loving. Seidel was crazy about him; he adapted well to his new home, and they quickly bonded.

But this time around, she decided against raising an only child. Greg would get a sibling. The two adoptions together would cost $32,000, but Seidel’s career in computer software sales was thriving, and she could afford it. She chose a girl who had lived the first eight years of her life in a Russian orphanage.  On the outside, Katia was slender, pretty, and dark-eyed. On the inside, she was a time bomb.

“Katia came, and all hell broke loose,” Seidel said. The girl bullied her new brother. She was autistic and slow to develop. Epileptic seizures appeared to have caused mild brain damage. And she was later diagnosed with attachment disorder, a behavioral problem associated with neglected or abused infants who miss out on being held, rocked, baby-talked, nourished, and otherwise loved in their first 18 months. These children have difficulty bonding with adoptive families and can exhibit destructive outbursts, known as rages, along with other socially awkward behaviors, including cruelty to siblings and pets, lying, and food hoarding, and often have difficulty establishing relationships with peers.

Seidel soon realized the girl was going to demand much of her time and resources, but she was up for the challenge. An award-winning volunteer at social service agencies, she’d earned a master’s degree in special education and had taught emotionally disturbed students for years.

“Katia came to the right place when she came to me,” Seidel said.
As it turns out, knowledge, experience, love, and determination don’t guarantee rosy outcomes. Seidel’s life turned upside-down. These days, she finds herself frazzled, heartsore, and broke.

“My retirement money has been wiped out,” she said.  While Katia’s condition certainly played a role in those problems, Seidel said her biggest obstacle has been overcoming what she and others call a fractured, underfunded, overwhelmed, and vindictive system that is supposed to provide services to people with cognitive disabilities in Texas. She’s spent thousands of dollars on attorneys trying to fight court and government actions that have replaced her as Katia’s legal guardian and moved the girl to a succession of institutions and group homes.

“If you buck the system, they put your kid in an institution,” Seidel said.
Local officials hesitate to discuss Katia’s case, citing confidentiality issues, but they say Seidel wasn’t cooperative and that the girl is doing better after being removed from her home.

Tarrant County’s guardianship system, which deals with children, the elderly, and those not mentally capable of representing themselves, is considered among the state’s best. But the staff is overseeing 1,300 guardianship cases with limited resources, and some clients can be volatile. Robert Gieb, an attorney appointed to represent Katia, described Seidel as likely to torpedo most situations.
“She’s convinced it’s her way or the highway, and she doesn’t like anybody who disagrees with her,” he said.

Seidel said she’s just fighting for her daughter against a stacked deck of judges, court investigators, attorneys, and agencies working to squash parents who demand services and attention. An expert in the field of attachment disorder is questioning how Katia’s case was handled. Other parents of mentally challenged kids describe a system that pits parents against officials in court battles in which everyone loses.

“What happened to Kathie and her daughter is wrong, ” said Michelle Dooley, whose son was also ordered by a local judge to be institutionalized. After his release, she moved him to another city. “I will never have my son back in Tarrant County, because I don’t like the politics they play here.”

Seidel flew to Russia in 1993 to meet Greg before she adopted him. Her second adoption, in 1994, was different.  “With Katia, her orphanage director wanted to bring her here,” she said. “I found out later the main reason she wanted to come here was to buy leather coats and take them back to Russia and sell them.”

Seidel was just happy to get a daughter and expand her little family. Before the adoption, she’d seen a photo of a thin girl in a simple dress with a huge bow in her hair. A video had depicted the girl walking and riding a stick horse. Everything seemed fine. When she arrived, the girl spoke no English but made it clear that her time in the orphanage was tough. She would pick up a tennis shoe and point to her bottom and imitate spankings. As she learned English, she gave more details.

“She had to clean the potties of the younger children and didn’t wear any gloves or anything,” Seidel said. “They worked in the gardens three times a day, and she didn’t go to school. They didn’t have much in the way of food. She told me about mice and bugs running all over the place.”
Given up for adoption at birth, Katia arrived in the States with anger and self-esteem issues. She was born with only one ear and was embarrassed by the deformity. But there was a deeper problem. She could be sweet and joyful but also lapsed into rages. Sometimes she treated Greg like a trusted companion. Other times she’d physically attack him. “I’m going to kill you” was a common threat during the rages. Her behavior is typical for someone with attachment disorder.
“Katia knew that Greg had had a similar experience at the orphanage, but she thought he stood in the way of getting close to me,” Seidel said. “She was going to do anything she could to hurt him for many years. She didn’t understand when she got here that she and I would be just as close as Greg and I. It was hard for her to see there would be enough love for everybody.”

Greg, now 20, is forgiving by nature, and he and Katia grew closer over the years.
“She loves him now, and he is so good to her,” Seidel said. “She has worked so hard to get better.”
Katia would be better off returning to her own home or at least being moved to a group home in Fort Worth that’s nearby, Greg said. Instead, she’s socked away in a Denton County group home and prevented from seeing her family regularly, even though she’s homesick, he said. “She’s supposed to have rights,” he said. “She’s 22, and she’s not even allowed to see her own family. For her to want to see her family so badly and not be able to is not right.”
Studies have shown that the best method for raising many developmentally challenged children is to integrate them socially and allow them to live and work around people without disabilities. Seidel tried to get home attendant care and respite services through Tarrant County Mental Health and Mental Retardation. But funds are so short that the waiting list stretches for years. Katia’s behavior, seizures, and need for medication meant Seidel was taking off from work often. Her income shrank. She wrote many dozens of letters to local and state agencies seeking in-home help. Finally, in 2006, she wrote to Gov. Rick Perry, explained her situation, and received permission from his office to be moved up on the waiting list.

The respite care never came. Within months, Katia was institutionalized despite Seidel’s pleading.Prior to 2006, Seidel had a good relationship with Tarrant County MHMR, where she volunteered. The agency awarded her a certificate of appreciation in 1999 for her “dedication, support, and valuable input.” Seidel said the relationship changed once she began pressing for home care and complaining to the governor about a lack of services. The last thing Seidel wanted was for Katia to be institutionalized; attendant care would have allowed the girl to stay at home with supervision, freeing up Seidel to work.

Seidel blames MHMR for providing what she said was false information to probate court officials that allowed them to remove Katia from her home and put her in Denton County’s Cimarron Living Center, a facility with a long track record of neglecting its residents. She also accuses local officials of removing her as Katia’s legal guardian in a closed-door meeting that she was not told about. She said court officials don’t understand attachment disorders and eventually prevented her from visiting her daughter.

“This is what happens when there are no services available – families get destroyed,” Seidel said.

Katia’s behavior had been much improved in the months leading up to her institutionalization. In April 2006, she had started taking nutrition supplements under the care of a medical doctor. The effect was noticeable to Karyn Purvis, director of the Texas Christian University Institute of Child Development. She specializes in attachment disorders among adopted children from foreign countries and noticed that the supplements had changed some portions of Katia’s brain chemistry, which “meant fewer seizures, less behavioral problems,” she said.
Whereas Katia used to rage once or twice a week, she had gone five months with only two rages, according to her mother. But on Sept. 28, 2006, she had a setback. Katia came home from school — the Boulevard Heights Transition Center’s Life, Education, and Preparation (LEAP) program — in a bad mood after clashing with her special ed teacher. Too much stimulation and activity sometimes prompted rages, and Seidel spotted the signs. Katia squabbled with her brother and said she wanted to go to a Chinese restaurant. Seidel told her no, and Katia erupted, throwing a chair and kicking her mom. When Katia was little, Seidel could hold her daughter until the violence subsided. But Katia was grown and strong. Seidel called 911 for help, and an ambulance took the girl to a hospital.
“I thought that was the safest thing,” Seidel said.

Instead, hospitalization set in motion a chain of events that led to Katia being removed from her home against her family’s wishes.
As she had done many times through the years during rages, Katia threatened violence. Threats are common with attachment disorder, often followed the next day by extreme sorrow and pleas for forgiveness. According to court records, Katia told hospital staff she didn’t want to go back home. Seidel, though, maintains Katia actually said, “I don’t want to go home until I’m better.”

The next day, Tarrant County Probate Judge Pat Ferchill assigned a court investigator to evaluate the case. On Oct. 2, the investigator applied for the immediate removal of Seidel as Katia’s guardian, without bothering to notify the mother. Ferchill appointed attorney Robert Gieb as guardian ad litem to represent Katia. That same day, the judge assigned legal guardianship to a nonprofit organization, Guardianship Services Inc., which serves adults who lack the ability to manage personal or financial affairs.

On the order for removal, the judge noted that Seidel “did not appear at the hearing.” But Seidel wasn’t invited, consulted, or even aware of a hearing. The court can remove guardians without their knowledge in cases involving neglect or abuse, but people who know Seidel say she is her daughter’s biggest champion and defender and certainly no abuser.
The judge wrote in his order that Seidel “has neglected the ward by refusing to have her assessed for more appropriate facility placement, leading to physical altercations between the guardian and the ward, ultimately leading to inpatient psychiatric care for the ward.”
Seidel, however, said she was a fall guy, that MHMR had failed to follow through with Katia’s assessment months before. Seidel didn’t complain at the time because Katia was doing so well on the supplements. Later, MHMR would blame her for not getting Katia assessed for respite care in a facility, and the court used that as a reason to remove custody of her child, Seidel said. She has spent every day since then fighting to get Katia back.
MHMR did not respond to the Weekly’s request for an interview by press time.
“What’s happened to Katia has been horribly grueling for her family, and her mom has been excluded from her care,” Purvis said.

Purvis wrote to Gieb on Oct. 7 describing how the supplement therapy had improved Katia’s behavior. She provided test results showing “significant shifts” in the neurochemicals associated with seizures and psychotic behavior and explained how crucial it is that adopted children with attachment disorder remain close to their families.

“Our institute specializes in working with traumatized children adopted from international orphanages, and a cardinal principle in working with these children is to avoid isolation at all costs,” she wrote.

The TCU institute recently received a $60,000 grant to provide training on attachment disorders and the effects of trauma, for judges, lawyers, caseworkers, and guardians ad litem across the state.

“There is a great hunger to know more,” she said.
But Purvis never received a reply from Gieb. And Seidel said that Katia is no longer receiving the supplements.
“I offered to consult with them on Katia’s behalf,” Purvis said. “For a child that’s raised in an orphanage like Katia was, to be cut off suddenly from her family for a long period of time can be a very critical blow.”
Purvis spoke with authority — she has known Seidel and Katia for 10 years. Katia was among the first children to attend one of Purvis’ TCU-hosted summer camps for kids with attachment disorder in 1999. Purvis has remained in sporadic contact with the family over the years.

“Kathie is a fierce advocate for her children,” Purvis said. “She is an attentive mom and a devoted mom. Being a fighter for your kids can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Quite frankly, a parent who is an advocate is a lot more trouble to work with for an agency or institution, and she is well studied on these topics.”
At first, Seidel was allowed to visit Katia. But after she began complaining about the low quality of care being provided at the group home, she said, she was barred from seeing her daughter and could only get limited and monitored time on the phone. The isolation was exactly what Purvis had explained to the court would be most traumatizing for Katia.
“Why wouldn’t we partner with a parent who wanted to be involved?” Purvis said. “Why would we strip a child from her mother? I’d challenge anybody — if you took Katia away from Kathie Seidel and gave her to any other family, agency, or authority to raise and they spent about 30 days, they’d see that moms like Kathie who fight for their kids are extraordinary.”

When considering cases involving guardianship, investigators in Ferchill’s court sometimes call on Paul Kaufman, a principal at a Fort Worth Independent School District school that offers transition programs for special ed students. Kaufman told a court investigator that Katia was from a loving family and that Seidel supported her daughter’s participation in a program designed to increase independence, find jobs, and use public transportation.

His comments don’t appear in public documents regarding Katia’s guardianship case.  Kaufman met Seidel a few years ago at a social services meeting and saw the contentious, persistent personality that rubs so many officials the wrong way. After the meeting, he initiated a conversation.
“The perception that everybody had was based on the fact that if Kathie felt like she had to fight to get what was right, she wasn’t going to roll over and do what everyone wanted her to do,” he said. “Not everyone welcomes that attitude. I do.”
Kaufman told her he was interested in helping her daughter, and he saw another personality emerge.
“She became very reasonable,” he said. “I never saw her doing anything I felt was unreasonable. I haven’t had any issues dealing with her, and I explained all that to the person at the probate court when I was talking to the investigator there.”
Kaufman, however, is perplexed. He has dealt with Ferchill’s court investigators and Gieb many times before and describes them as devoted to the wards they are assigned to protect.
“They do an outstanding job, in my opinion, for looking out for children,” he said. “I’ve got nothing negative to say about that court at all. They are on my side on the front line in taking care of folks, and something happened here that I don’t get … . The deal with Kathie is the first time I’ve not understood what happened.”
So how do two entities he admires — a court system and a devoted mother — become enemies in a controversial battle to get care for a young woman? He figures there was a communication breakdown.
“Clearly Kathie is not evil and corrupt, and clearly the court is not evil and corrupt,” he said. “When she is fighting she does not appear to be reasonable, and it takes a lot to cut through that and see there is a reasonable person in there. It’s possible she was perceived by the court as being unreasonable and irrational, I don’t know.”

To Seidel, what happened in Katia’s case seems simple: She pressured local agencies for services, became a squeaky wheel in a strapped system with little tolerance for such, got crossways with officials, and was smacked down and cut off from her daughter. She too worries about Katia’s privacy and at first didn’t want to go public with the story but did so as a last resort to try to regain guardianship of her child or at least get her returned to Fort Worth. Some parents who have mentally disabled children are happy to have their burden lightened by having their children institutionalized. Others keep their children at home and do the best they can. Parents who want their children at home but also want services face one obstacle after another, particularly in states such as Texas that traditionally rank near the bottom in funding for social service programs.
“Most parents don’t have the background I have and don’t know the child’s rights like I do,” Seidel said. “They don’t have $25,000 to go to court and fight it, or they’re too scared. Nobody ever fights it.”

Tarrant County probate judges determine whether disabled persons should be assigned guardians. Ferchill, who removed Seidel as her daughter’s guardian without notice, did not respond to several requests for an interview. Court investigator Paula Conley, who recommended the guardian change, spoke to Fort Worth Weekly about guardianship cases in general but would not specifically comment on Katia’s case, citing confidentiality.

“There is a priority for serving as guardian, and if the family members are appropriate and they are taking care of them and there is no allegation of abuse or neglect, we always look to the family first,” she said.
Ferchill’s office employs masters-level social workers to help oversee cases and requires guardians to file annual reports.  Donna Baugh is development director at Texas Guardianship Association, formed to promote communication and cooperation among individuals, organizations, agencies, and courts concerned with guardianship. She views Ferchill’s court as top-notch.

“Judge Ferchill is a big supporter of our organization and is probably one of the most active at monitoring his guardianship cases,” she said. “He wants to make sure the wards he is in charge of are being cared for properly. They have a group that goes out and investigates yearly and tries to figure out if everything is the way it is supposed to be.”

One of those annual visits was done in April 2006 at Seidel’s home and found no problems; six months later, she was considered an unfit guardian.
Baugh empathizes with parents who want to keep developmentally challenged kids at home.

“It’s very difficult to get home-care services,” she said. “People are on the waiting list for years. Texas is near the bottom of the 50 states when it comes to social services.”

In lieu of home care assistance, many such kids are sent to institutions or group homes. Horror stories abound about many of these places, and Baugh said parents shouldn’t hesitate to complain if they witness abuse or neglect of patients.
Seidel said complaining about Cimarron and the group homes where Katia has been staying has only resulted in her being labeled a malcontent and made it more difficult for her to get any contact with her child.

Many of Ferchill’s cases involve wards with relatives under stress, and the court intervenes only when necessary, Conley said.
“If there are problems — and with 1,300 cases there are going to be problems — if the guardian contacts us we’ll try to facilitate some sort of resolution,” she said.
So, what happens when a resolution can’t be found and the court makes a decision that a relative doesn’t agree with?
“They always have the option of hiring an attorney,” she said.
Seidel, so far, has paid more than $20,000 in attorney fees fighting the probate court’s decisions. She said most of the money was spent setting up meetings with Guardianship Services and Gieb and negotiating visits with her daughter, but she’s been unsuccessful in changing the decision. Ferchill hasn’t shown interest in meeting with her, she said, and Gieb told her that the judge “listens to his own people.”

Asked whether the court sends wards to institutions such as Cimarron that have been accused of neglect and garnered low scores during state inspections, Conley said, “I’m not going to go into specifics. I know what this is about. I don’t want to talk about a specific facility. We look at all the facilities that we use. We are concerned about every facility, and we try to be aware of the staff and the problems, and any problems that come to light we will investigate and look at.
“If we think the facility is not meeting their needs, we‘ll move that ward,” she said.
How quickly that occurs varies. Katia was eventually moved, but Cimarron and other poor-performing facilities remain open. Other wards get sent there. Conley couldn’t name any facility that had ever been removed from Tarrant County’s list of care providers as a result of poor care.

Gieb said Cimarron and other institutions aren’t perfect, but neither is life. The court determined Katia would be better off at Cimarron than under Seidel’s care.
“It was the thing that had to be at the time,” he said.

In June 2007, Seidel filed an application with the court to have Katia removed from Cimarron after reporting neglect and abuse of her daughter by staff and other residents. In response, Gieb wrote that the idea of removing Katia from Cimarron was “without merit and should be rejected.” The application was denied.
Last week, the Weekly asked him why he would defend an institution that typically receives low scores for poor service to residents and laud that institution as a better environment for Katia than being with her own family, who wanted her home.

“I’m not unaware of the fact that Cimarron has problems,” he said, but added that Katia “wasn’t there that long.”
Katia spent almost a year in the institution before being moved to a group home.
“Bob Gieb doesn’t view my daughter as a person,” Seidel said. “Would he think a year is not very long if it were his daughter in there?”
During a conversation between Gieb and the Weekly, he warned against printing a story favorable to Seidel.

“You’re about to drive off a cliff on this,” he said. “I’m not saying government is perfect. Everything I can see that was done was the prudent thing to do — not perfect, but the prudent thing.”

He described Katia as happy and content in her new group home. “She had a difficult case and had a difficult life, and Ms. Seidel doesn’t know how to deal with her daughter,” he said. But he wouldn’t go into details about why Seidel is considered an unfit guardian.

After a short conversation, he said he had to attend an appointment but agreed to meet with the Weekly for another interview. However, a few days later he sent a letter saying, “I do not see how any further conversation will be productive for you or me, or, more importantly, the ward. I suspect that you have determined your point of view for your article, and that you are now simply filling in the support for that viewpoint.”

He continued, “While you find the ward’s mother, Ms. Seidel, to be credible, I do not. Obviously, neither did the court.”  Gieb wrote that he does believe Seidel loves Katia. “However, the ward’s problems are severe and complex, and [it] proved to be beyond Ms. Seidel’s ability to deal with those problems.”

Critics of the mental health system in Texas say confidentiality issues provide the perfect hiding spot for officials seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions. Group home providers, for-profit institution owners, and various agency officials can dodge questions when a ward’s care is criticized. Allegations of abuse or neglect from people with mental impairments are often ignored. And even when problems are proved, tort reform laws have capped the amount of money an institution or provider must pay, which means many lawyers won’t or can’t afford to take the cases.

After exhausting her resources on lawyers, Seidel recently persuaded Dallas attorney Kimberly Stovall to help her on a pro bono basis. A veteran of numerous cases involving MHMR, their wards, and care providers, Stovall helped secure an $11 million court decision against a group home in the Houston area after a resident died of neglect in 1998.

Abominable conditions at state institutions for the mentally impaired came to light in the 1970s and ’80s and led to a move toward smaller group homes, many of them nonprofit and community-based. But over the years, large for-profit corporations have swallowed up many of these smaller providers. News reports have documented continuing problems at many such facilities, where employee pay is often abysmal.

Nowadays, Stovall said, few attorneys are interested in pursuing lawsuits. With tort reform, that $11 million settlement would now be about $250,000, hardly enough to cover legal fees in a lengthy court case, she said. But just because the case filings have diminished doesn’t mean the abuse has stopped at group homes and institutions.

“There is more abuse now than ever before,” she said.
Cimarron is a 116-bed facility in Lewisville that operates largely on state and federal funds. Records from the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services records show that, twice in the past three years, Cimarron has been in danger of losing its certification because of deficient practices. Its overall rating of 40 out of 100 is well below the state average of 90. Allegations against the facility include poor medical care, theft from residents, resident-on-resident violence, insufficient staff to monitor the residents, failure to report allegations of client mistreatment, and at least one sexual relationship between a transvestite staff member and a male resident.
The Weekly’s calls to Cimarron seeking comment were not returned.
Guardianship Services Inc., the organization that supplanted Seidel as Katia’s legal guardian, refused to discuss particulars in the case.
“We are very protective of our clients’ confidentiality, so I am not going to be able to say a lot about Katia herself,” said Colleen Colton, the company’s executive director.

I asked to speak to Katia in person.“We would prefer that you didn’t.”
I asked why not, since Katia is an adult and, while having some mental, emotional, and physical difficulties, is relatively high-functioning (she has an IQ of about 80).
“I’m not going to get into an argument about whether you can talk to her or not,” Colton said. “I would prefer that you didn’t, and I know the court is concerned about that too. She has a right to privacy and a right not to have everything spread out over the newspaper.”

Doesn’t she also have the right to say whether she wants to talk to a reporter?
“No, because she is under guardianship,” Colton said.

When asked about the court’s decision to send Katia to Cimarron and the problems documented there, she said, “I don’t think I want to comment on the quality of a provider. I could get in trouble there. Every provider has its ups and downs.”

Michelle Dooley’s son, Morgan, has cognitive disabilities, and the Fort Worth woman has had her own battles with local agencies in trying to get services. She met Seidel years ago, and the two have compared notes. Morgan received therapy and other services paid through MHMR, but once he got older, stronger, and more likely to rage — and the available funding diminished — that began to change. The agency proposed that the boy be institutionalized, something Dooley resisted.

“I would rather have him at home than in an institution any day of the week,” she said. “State schools and state hospitals are not run very well. There is a lot of abuse that goes on. I’ve seen it first-hand.”

In 2002, when Morgan turned 16, the court ordered that he be placed in an institution in Wichita Falls after Dooley called police during one of his rages. Police showed up with guns drawn, and she begged them to be gentle in dealing with him. After he was institutionalized, she began noticing bruises and, at one point, he sported a black eye. She said staff was treating him roughly. He was later moved to a group home in Denton and is doing well, she said.

Dooley, Seidel, and other parents interviewed for this article shared similar problems in raising handicapped children and in getting services while at the same time trying to keep their children at home. They said the Tarrant County probate court system doesn’t always have the clients’ interests at heart and can be retaliatory.

“There are a lot of parents like me who want our kids in the community and want them to be contributors to society,” she said.

Email this Article…

Back to Top

ive.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=7022

SAMPLE OBJECTIONS TO REMOVAL ORDER


SAMPLE OBJECTIONS TO REMOVAL ORDER.

“No Way Out But One”


 

About the Collins Family


1994

Holly

Holly Collins didn’t want to run away. In fact, she put it off until she could not live with herself unless she protected her children. She KNEW these children she so loved were being abused while in the custody of their father. They told her. They told the court supervisors. They told the guardian ad litem. But the Minnesota family court gave the father custody anyway.

“I just thought if you told the truth, you know, you would be believed. I always just told the kids, just tell the truth, so when the court didn’t believe us, I started going through all of our records.”

Holly had records of legal documents, medical reports, as well as pictures the children drew which clearly showed abuse.

No Way Out But One explores how Holly, a battered woman lost custody of her children. After a judge gave her ex-husband full custody, it’s easy to see how Holly would have been desperate.

It is important to acknowledge that kidnapping is crime. And the legal consequences for those convicted of kidnapping charges can be grave indeed. Holly will also be the first to tell you that their life on the run was hard on everyone. And she is aware that in a post-9/11 world of increased airport security, she and her children would never have made it out of the country. But to this day, Holly says her biggest regret was waiting as long as she did to take her children and run. She has other regrets of course. But then, just ask her to tell you about her children – all of them – and her face lights up.

Jennifer

Jennifer Collins was the early inspiration for this documentary. Garland and Barry heard her speak at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in 2009. Barry’s article was published in E Pluribus Media.

Jennifer’s story, her memories, were so moving and so powerful plans were made shortly thereafter to begin work on a documentary.

Jennifer speaks in No Way Out But One of going to supervised visitation to see her mother after the court gave her father full custody.

“I was told on several occasions that I wasn’t allowed to talk about what my father was doing to us…I showed up for example once (at a supervised visitation) with bruises. And I showed my mother and I got in trouble. They (the supervisors) said, “No, no. You know you’re not allowed to talk about those things anymore and if you do then you’re not allowed to see your mother.”

Jennifer was in elementary school at the time.

Today, Jennifer is the Executive Director of Courageous Kids, which helps other children who have been abused speak about their abuse so that they can begin to change the system.

Jennifer’s blog has details, facts, and pictures about her experience of abuse, being on the run, living at the refugee center, and speaking about her life today and some of the challenges she still faces.

Zachary

Zachary spoke out for the first time at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in 2011.

“I would like to say that never since we left did I feel like I was kidnapped. Actually when I kid I thought it was quite ridiculous when we heard that they were charging my mom for kidnapping her own children. Taking them away from an abusive father….it seemed completely ludicrous to me. That’s one thing I’d like to get clear.”

 

“NO WAY OUT BUT ONE”| THE HOLLY COLLINS STORY


NO WAY OUT BUT ONE:

THE HOLLY COLLINS STORY

http://nowayoutbutone.com/?page_id=15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sChzzJtBOns&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLzOZfvEurqVwurI43HyuDTJZSELYoHI7P (In Jennifer Collins’ own words)

Source: Uploaded by CJEMARIN to Youtube.com on January 16, 2014 (from Center for Judicial Excellence,http://www.centerforjudicialexcellenc…, http://www.nowayoutbutone.com;Kids of Divorce Speak Out, Divorce Corp,The Untold Story from the Center for Judicial Excellence. Documentary clips about the Collins family, the first American family granted asylum in the Netherlands because of dangerous decisions by the Minnesota Family Courts. Additional footage available.

To all the people who refuse to or are not able for whatever reason to believe what is happening not only in every (anti) American family court of fraud across this nation, and around the world, and to all others, please click on the above link to read how Real Mommy Holly Collins and her courageous children were forced to seek asylum in The Netherlands to escape the oppression and tyranny of the family court fraud and government abuse that sought to destroy her and her family.  They encourage more people to expose the truth instead of hiding, especially the children.  “Take heart and have courage.” (The Holy Bible, repeated throughout, all real versions).

Daddy Anthony Lingle and Baby Hailey’s Story


 

Category Archives: Anthony Lingle

Anthony Lingle | My Story

Anthony Lingle – My Story 

BRANDY L. OWEN
The Sacramento Shield
mrsbrandyowen@gmail.com

I met a girl named Kari.  We fell in love.  As with most couples, we spent every waking moment together.  In a very short time, we found out she was pregnant.  I was very happy and asked her to marry me.  She said yes, and everything was great. I accompanied her to every doctor’s appointment and supported her every way I could.  We knew that as soon as Kari’s dad found out she was pregnant, he would kick her out of his house.  As a result, I moved from my one bedroom apartment to a two bedroom to accommodate the growing family.  She moved in, and everything was still great.

Then things were not so great.  When Kari was just over 6 months pregnant, I caught her drinking on a few occasions.  Every time I inquired about the alcohol, she got very mad and left.  When I became overwhelmed with concern, I showed up at the next doctor’s appointment, unannounced.  I discussed this concern with the doctor, thinking prenatal exposure to tobacco and alcohol could harm our growing baby.  My intentions were good, and I hoped the doctor would take necessary measures by discussing the importance of a “clean and sober” pregnancy with Kari and perhaps contact DHS, CPS, or similar organizations if the neglect continued.  However, my efforts were either dismissed or not enforced, as the drinking continued.  When Kari found out I spoke to the doctor, she became angry again, screaming for me to go away and leave her alone.  I knew it would be best if I did as she asked.

Soon after, I filed for joint custody and a paternal test through the Sacramento Court System.  In return, Kari filed a restraining order against me for being overly controlling.   This claim was based on her false account of my previous actions, of me pleading with Kari and the doctor for things to change, for the neglect to cease.  In addition, she fashioned lies on the restraining order in attempt to have me arrested and removed from my obstructing position.  Rightfully, the restraining order was dismissed when the judge found her claim untrue.  The judge also required that we return sometime after the child’s birth for case revision and a paternal test, upon my request.

On January 1, 2010, my daughter Hailey was born.  Responsibility for her care was immediately given to the prospective adoptive parents at birth.  Unfortunately, Hailey’s birth was kept secret from me, despite the court’s word that I would be informed.  I found out on my own by calling the hospital every day.  And due to privacy laws, I was not allowed much information.  At my next court visit, I was notified that the case was transferred to Placer County, the location of the adoption.  The paternal test results were revealed at the next court date, which showed 96.9% probability of my paternity.  It was also at this court date that Kari’s lawyer informed me of her intent of adoption.  I was unaware she could commit such a selfish act without my consent.

I obtained an attorney to fight the adoption, and it was during the first trial hearing that the truth was revealed.  To my dismay, the continued alcohol and tobacco use during pregnancy showed their effects in multiple ways.  I was horrified when I saw the photos of Hailey from birth, as she was scratched and bruised from head to toe.  Some battle wounds from birth are not uncommon, but the extent of her injuries seemed beyond normal, and I suspect were due to chemical dependency and withdrawal.  She was in the hospital on a respirator for about nine days after birth to allow her undeveloped lungs to reach full potential.  Hailey was also born with “Intrauterine Retardation,” a condition that can be caused by long-term exposure to alcohol and nicotine during pregnancy.  This caused Hailey to be born with a low birth weight, less than six pounds at full gestation.  My prior efforts to prevent fetal harm were apparently useless.

Despite having spent $75,00 ($150,000 as of Dec. 2011) towards the attorney fees, I lost my counsel when more money was required.  A court-appointed attorney resumed fighting on my behalf.  During the trial, the judge called me unfit as a parent for a few reasons; one being that I was attempting parenthood solo, where the adoptive parents could provide twice the support and care.  In addition, the judge was concerned about my rocky past.  I had a drug problem many years ago, but have since completed the Salvation Army’s 12 month live-in program, volunteered an additional 12 months there, and completed an eight-month EMT course through the Charles Jones Skill Center.  I have remained clean for nearly 7 years.  All this happened long before I met Hailey’s mother.

During these adoption hearings, the prospective adoptive parents revealed they were filing for divorce.  The judge then put a stay on the case decision until he could investigate and gather details.  The resulting deposition exposed another truth, that the prospective adoptive mother had been cheating on the husband with six other people since the court hearings began, four men and two women. One of these men had been the best man at their wedding.  She also had a medical marijuana card for anxiety, which is still current today. I surmise this is just a cover to obtain a “legal” front for previously illegal drug use.  My concern is that she won’t give 100% to Hailey’s care while under the influence or may not be alert in emergency situations.  And what affect would this have on Hailey?  She may grow up thinking this behavior is acceptable.  Surprisingly, the adoptive mother filed for sole adoptive custody to raise Hailey as a single parent.  Back when the adoptive parents were together, my request for adoption was rejected for this very reason.  And yet the prospective adoptive mother was succeeding where my argument failed.

I was given visitation with my daughter when she was five months old.  I saw her every Tuesday and Thursday for two hours each day, and I did not miss a single one. May 1st of this year was the day of reckoning, when the judge made his decision.  My court-appointed attorney’s opinion of my case was bleak; he didn’t think I stood a chance.  He said if I had 20 years clean, perhaps, but after only 6.5 years, the chances were slim-to-none.  It was a classic case of “A parent with a scarred history” versus “An adoptive parent with no record”.  This case was very unique due to the unexpected divorce during the adoption case.  I prayed every day not to lose my daughter.  I did not believe the courts possessed any reason to remove my influence from Hailey’s life.  I wanted to be in her life, to raise her, since I first learned of her conception.  She is my daughter, I Love her with all my heart.  When I first laid eyes on her at five months, I fell in love. She became my heart, she was my daughter.  I never turned my back on her.  I believed I had a right to raise my daughter, believed she deserved me as a father, but at that point I did not know what to expect of the outcome.  The courts were attempting to revoke my rights as Hailey’s father, saying I was unfit, despite my “Kelsey S Father” status that proved I was responsible, reliable, and supportive.  True, I had been addicted to drugs for 12 years, ensued much trouble during this time, and have been punished greatly as a result.  But I have been clean for almost 7 years, learned how to live sober, improved my way of life, and tried my hardest to ensure only the best for my future.

As of May 2nd, 2011, the court terminated my parental right to be Hailey’s father, and in doing so, deprived Hailey’s life of her fatherly experiences.  I fear I have lost my daughter completely, that the adoptive parent might move away and never tell Hailey about me, about my love for her, my devotion to her, and my valiant fight for her.  I am currently in the process of appealing the court’s decision in hopes I can gain my daughter back and provide her with a better life.  I have been keeping everything pertaining to Hailey and the custody case in a safe box.  If I do not win the appeal, my only wish is that one day Hailey will ask where she came from and will receive the truth.  I hope she will look me up, come find me, and I will pull out the box.  I will share it with her and share my wonderful memories.  I will share my noble fight and tell her I never wanted to give her away, that I have always loved her.

I am sharing my story with you today because it may be the only way to return Hailey where she belongs – in my arms – and to be involved in every part of her life, not just to be her weekend father.  I feel like the judge’s decision was unfair, a violation of constitutional rights, and I hope that those who believe me could help make that difference.  As you read this, please pray for us.

Sincerely,
Anthony Lingle, Hailey’s loving and devoted father

http://afathersfightforhisdaughter.weebly.com/the-story.html

http://www.facebook.com/AFathersFightForHisDaughter

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAnthonybaby?feature=mhee

http://afathersfightforhisdaughter.weebly.com/

http://afathersfightforhisdaughter.weebly.com/interviews.html

http://savehailey.com/

The Stolen Show | Anthony Lingle’s Daughter Sold for $82,000 | Parts 1-4

The Stolen Show did an interview with Anthony Lingle and his case about how his daughter was sold for $82,000:


Backgroundhttp://sacshield.wordpress.com/savehailey-com-anthony-lingle/

The Stolen Show on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003075710617

Anthony Lingle | The Family Court System Has Become the New Regime

There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly then our present Family Court System” – Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge

Families are being torn apart by people in positions of power – judges, therapists, counselors, attorneys. The family court system and our system of justice have become the new regime. If you don’t agree with them, if you stand up for your rights, or voice your displeasure in the system you are crushed. As much as I hate to say it the alienators think that they are in control but really they are just puppets in the hands of power hungry people who want to play God in the lives of the people. Parental Alienation is one of the tools they use to destroy families and gain control of our children. It is happening everyday in every civilized country around the globe and the majority of people are sitting back and apathetically letting it happen.

I have been pondering what has been happening in the courts lately. I am struck by the overall apathy of people until it directly affects their lives. Apathy is the very thing that destroys a nation. When we become apathetic we let down our guard and allow the wolves to enter the sheep’s fold. These wolves are cleverly disguised as sheep but no matter what they look like on the outside they are wolves who seek to devour every thing in site. I know it sounds a little dramatic and a little conspiracy theory but the reality is that we have let the wolves in.

Anthony Lingle
Sacramento, California
SaveHailey.com 

This Christmas Without You, Hailey

Anthony Lingle is the father whose own daughter was sold for an $82,000 adoption by his ex-fiancee with no warning or discussion.


By Anthony Lingle
Hailey’s Loving Father
THE NIGHTS ARE GETTING LONGER
THE SUN IS BARELY HERE
THE WEATHER IS COLD AND FROSTY
SO CHRISTMAS MUST BE NEAR
TWINKLING LIGHTS WILL START APPEARING
HOLLY AND TINSEL HERE AND THERE
SANTA WISH LIST WILL BE WRITTEN
BY EXCITED CHILDREN EVERYWHERE
BUT FOR ME THERE WILL BE NO TURKEY
OR MONEY TO BUY GIFTS DECORATIONS WILL
STAY PACKED AWAY NO MISTLETOE TO BE KISSED UNDER
FOR ME THIS CHRISTMAS DAY.
NO CHRISTMAS MORNING SMILES
AS WE WAKE TO GREET THE MORN’
NO SPECIAL GIFTS FOR EACH OTHER
WITH FANCY WRAPPINGS TO BE TORN
MY DAY WILL BE FILLED WITH MEMORIES
WITH SADNESS AND WITH TEARS
WITH REMEMBERING HAPPY CHRISTMAS’S
SPENT TOGETHER IN PREVIOUS YEAR
THIS YEAR WILL BE THE FRIST CHRISTMAS
I HAVE TO SPEND ALONE WITHOUT YOU
SO IT WILL NOT BE HAPPY AND JOLLY
JUST VERY EMPTY ,SAD AND BLUE
BUT DEEP DOWN I KNOW YOU’LL BE WITH ME
I WILL FEEL YOUR PRESENCE WHEN I AM BLUE
I WILL SMILE WHEN I REMEMBER SOME SILLY TIME WITH YOU
AND TWINKLING EYES THAT WERE UNIQUELY YOU
SO I AM NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS CHRISTMAS
I KNOW I WILL BE FEELING OH SO BLUE
BUT I KNOW IT IS SOMETHING I HAVE TO LIVE THROUGH
THIS VERY FIRST CHRISTMAS WITHOUT YOU HAILEY
DADDY WILL ALWAYS BE WITH YOU.

www.SaveHailey.com

Freedom of the Press Group LLC Launches The Sacramento Shield

The Sacramento Shield is the third Freedom of the Press Group LLC venture in California after sister Web sites, The Placer County Observer and The Amador Arrow. The strategy is to shine a light on a corrupt, wicked and evil judicial branch of government, as well as provide an outlet and forum for victims of governmental abuse to voice their concerns and tell the world their stories. Publisher Joey G. Dauben received a vision to launch The Sacramento Shield in his car on Nov. 29, 2011.

“I was driving along, listening to Christian band Red, and thinking about my friend Anthony Lingle, and figuring out a way to better help him get his story out,” said Dauben, 30. “Yahweh then told me, ‘Start a blog in Sacramento. Call it The Shield.’ And that is quite literally how this blog came about.”

Dubbed an “Investigative Protection Blog,” the meaning behind that is as a priority, all of the Freedom of the Press Group LLC Blogs and Newspapers (there are more than 50 now) will devote the mission of each outlet to investigating political corruption in those particular areas, cities, counties, regions or states. And then, the FOTP Group outlets will serve as a “protection mechanism” to literally Shield sources, children, parents, mothers, fathers, individuals and people from all walks of life from their government, from retaliation and from evil deeds and wicked schemes. This spiritual war needs courageous individuals to come forward and fight, but we cannot think for one second that our enemies will not retaliation or react towards us in harassing, mental, or even physical ways.

Anthony Lingle’s Case


Anthony Lingle’s Case.

October Is Child Support Awareness Month!


Interview with Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, Mother who Fought and Won $10.6 Million from Orange County and Lying Social Workers


Interview with Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick and bill windsor of lawless america, Mother who Fought and Won $10.6 Million from Orange County and Lying Social Workers

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ivprh_i1Pvg

www.familycourtinamerica.org/2013/01/16/deanna-fogarty-with-bill-windsor-of-lawless-america/

Click on the link above to access the video on Youtube.com from Bill Windsor’s Lawless America Series in which he interviews mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, after she courageously fought the system that robbed her of everything, including her two daughters after they made allegations of sexual abuse about their father and were subsequently institutionalized.  Hardwick and her daughters were re-victimized by an abusive “protective” system and lying social workers and court employees and judges in a conspiracy to protect her ex-husband from truthful “lies,” as misalleged by those with financial motive and incentive to cover-up precisely these types of allegations in which the father’s gender (and any grants and funding programs tied to it) takes precedence over fairness, justice, and lawful and constitutional rulings by those trusted with society’s most precious assets–children and families (or property and property owners).  Hardwick had to endure humiliating “supervised ‘visitation’” with her own daughters with zero showing of parental unfitness on her part, as is the case with so many of us still fighting.  Thank “God” for Hardwick and her daughters’ “unconquerable souls” (Invictus, poem by William Ernest Henley, Book of Verses, 1888).