From Womb to Tomb: Child Slavery in the Courts


PressTV: From womb to tomb: Child slavery and US courts, by Brett Redmayne-Titley

Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:20PM GMT

By Brett Redmayne-Titley

US family courts are stealing children from the loving arms of innocent parents.

In this ongoing exclusive report for Press TV, the previous examples of Ruby Dillon and her daughter Lexi have show that Child Protective Services (CPS) has no interest in “protection” of children. Its sole motivation is personal profit.

No child is safe.

Down the road in San Diego County a young boy is missing, taken by a man who is not the father, not even a parent. Innocent mother Tammy Rief, who is from Georgia and has never lived in California, now sits in a California prison. Despite an Alabama court order keeping the kidnapper away from her child, and another court order giving Tammy, the mother, full custody, a California judge abused his court to steal her son, Jonah, from his home in Georgia and give him to a man documented to have abused her son. [“Tammy” and “Jonah Rief,” https://youtu.be/Ql9vcE29puU];[http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2015/04/jonah-rief-child-trafficking-satanic.html];[https://honestyisthebestapproach.wordpress.com/tag/tammy-rief/]; [http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=7015]; [http://judiciallies.blogspot.com/2014/09/jonah-rief-one-of-many-cases-cloaked-in.html]; [ Tammy’s police report, http://www.scribd.com/doc/214078952/Police-Report-in-Tammy-Rief-s-case];[ http://stolenintoterror.blogspot.com/2014/09/jonah-rief-trafficked-to-terrorists.html].

Without Tammy Rief’s knowledge Judge Gregory W. Pollack was working in far away California with the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan, to have the FBI steal her and her son from Georgia.

This short story of injustice and child trafficking, applied to a San Diego Superior Court judge, Gregory W. Pollack, shows the unique, fraudulent and illegal applications of California law in favor of kidnapping.

For Tammy losing her son, Jonah, started silently in an unknown court not in Georgia; California divorce court.

Tammy has never been married. Much less to anyone in California. Tammy had briefly dated the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan, in South Carolina but had not heard from him in over three years before he suddenly attempted to achieve custody of Jonah in her state of residence, Georgia. Tammy proved to the Georgia court that the kidnapper could not be the biological father and that Jonah was at risk to the kidnapper. Hence the judge issued the two restraining orders establishing full custody to Tammy and preventing the kidnapper anywhere near Jonah.

But, that was Alabama.

Undaunted, the kidnapper somehow got a California divorce court judge to award him custody of Jonah although he had never been married to Ruby or taken a paternity test. The California court had no jurisdiction, or legal right, to hear a divorce case or any case that did not have a connection to California law and California residency. Worse, Ruby did not receive notice, per law, of the out-of-state proceedings she had no knowledge of. [https://youtu.be/f21F79cR7ug].

It turns out that California divorce court is also a favorable place to steal children. The judge awarded custody of Jonah to the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan. Armed with this fraudulent California court decision the kidnapper was off to an even more favorable court, that of San Diego’s finest judge Gregory W. Pollack. Using the divorce court decision and his own unsubstantiated, self-administered paternity test the judge secretly gave his client custody of Jonah, despite the Alabama court orders to the contrary.

Like his Orange County brethren judge Pollack threw Tammy’s due process and constitutional rights into the trash. When a jury was selected Judge Pollack allowed the jurors to be selected in a closed court and for some to have direct affiliations with the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan. The judge allowed so many legal violations that there is only one answer to the question why?

Next, an obviously corrupt judge Pollack issued a state warrant and had California Marshals arrest and render Jonah and Ruby from Georgia into his California jurisdiction and control.

Stuck in San Diego by court order, Jonah soon returns from a court ordered weekend visit with his father. Witnesses attest that his mother, upon Jonah’s arrival, saw Jonah had been battered and had rope burns on both wrists and on his ankles. Jonah told his mother that his father had abused him along with several other men.

Every species of mother will fearlessly and selflessly defend their child against anyone and anything. Tammy was no different.

Faced with a virtual Twilight Zone episode of unfathomable facts, she grabbed Jonah and sprinted to the nearest out-of-state hospital. Arizona. Examination showed Jonah had been physically and sexually abused. Arizona police were called in. Reports taken. Witness statements taken. Criminal charges discussed. Evidence prepared.

Then the Arizona police arrested Tammy and Jonah and sent them back to the kidnapper and Judge Pollack who charged Tammy with kidnapping her son. She is now finishing a three-year prison sentence.

Similar stories of court ordered kidnapping have been reported in Detroit, MI, Florida and Oklahoma

Jonah was last reported to have entered Australia some months ago.

FROM WOMB TO TOMB

In a land becoming endemically corrupt, morals in America have no value. Ruby and Lexi’s case follows a familiar plot. It has been repeated again and again. Like all evil plots there are multiple actors, all working as a conspiracy. A conspiracy to traffic children. A conspiracy to create the perfect circle of crime.

If you have assets, and those assets are connected, the plot follows a similar script to Ruby’s and Tammy’s.

A pedophile such as, Mahathep “Mathew” Srikureja, finds a bottom feeding attorney with no morals, like Mathew DeArmey, who has secret and influential contacts with immoral CPS Minor’s Councils, like Harold LaFlamme. The corrupt Minor’s Council has connections to immoral family court judges like Wilson, Waltz, or Salter. The Minor’s council also has contacts with immoral CPS doctors, foster care homes, and child/ parent monitoring companies who, as co-conspirators, do and say what the Minor’s council tells them to do and say.

Together they all collude to fabricate evidence and testimony, exclude evidence from the purview of the court, manipulate the child’s testimony against the abusive criminal parent, and provide “protection”, not to the child, but to criminal parent having the good fortune and money to find an attorney like Mathew DeArmey.

If you are more modest means, however, and CPS knocks on your door be very, very, worried.

THE FOSTER CARE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

California leads the nation with 80,000 children in foster care. Thirty years ago CPS added nine children a month, yet today it takes1600 children per month into custody. The state receives between 125-150,000 thousand dollars per child per year ($12 billion), but the child must be in foster care for more than a year. Intriguingly, the average stay in Los Angeles is twenty months and in San Francisco twenty-nine. Hmm.

L. Wallace Pate is a child rights attorney who has followed CPS and its decline into barbarism for over thirty years. She outlined the CPS plot in a recent KFI-Radio interview.

Children are money. For a “Perverse Financial Incentive,” CPS and their parasitic attorneys, and hirelings need new children and they take them. Infants are the plum target as they are of highest value to adoption agencies that also make out on the deal. The courts have ruled it illegal and inadmissible, yet new mother’s on any social assistance, such as medicaid, are uniformly drug tested. Ms. Pate appropriately calls this, “junk science.”

Although these tests have been proven to be inaccurate in seventy-six percent of sample tests, and hospitals are precluded from providing that info to CPS, mothers who test positive have their infant seized by CPS. If the mother has other children they are taken from her, too.

Only 7% of CPS cases against parents involve sexual abuse and 10% percent are for physical abuse. The remaining eighty-three percent are children taken for any reason CPS can fabricate. The judge will, of course, go along with anything.

Then comes the required trial. Even though a criminal trial has a thirty day deadline, family court is a mere fifteen. But the cases never reach trial, since if there was a trial, the facts would favor the parents and CPS would lose the one-hundred-fifty grand at the base of their empire. Just ask Ruby Dillon.

Corrupt public defenders talk the desperate parents into, “taking a plea,” threatening them with the lie that this the fastest way to get their child back. Almost always they take this advice. If not, the judge simply restricts all evidence.

Now that the child is in the clutches of foster care the parents have almost no rights. Now come the horrors of sexual and physical abuse. Kids in foster care are ten times more likely to be abused and six times more likely to die than the national average. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors commissioned a secret report, until it was leaked to the LA Times (that shelved the story), on existing CPS practices. It’s no wonder they tried to keep it secret.

Five hundred- seventy children died in a recent eighteen month period while under CPS supervision. Two hundred and seventy of these were in CPS custody.

Next. Forced institutional sedation.

Within ninety days 80% of the new child inmates will be forced to take some type of psychotropic drug. A federal study recently showed a huge disparity in the use of these drugs in foster homes verses those prescribed by doctors of loving families. In Texas it was four times the state average. CPS has a convenient reason for this endemic drug use; “Separation Anxiety.”

No shit.

Not coincidentally California leads the nation in prison population with over 600,000 inmates. 70% percent have been in foster care. This creates a steady supply of very cheap prison labor to be used by a privatized prison industry that cares more for its stock dividends than human treatment. This cheap labor saves these manufacturing companies billions of dollars every year.

The final insult comes when the courts requires that the parent, who tried in vain to rescue their son or daughter from CPS, now pay back their court appointed legal fees, and those of CPS as well. Of course, CPS does not have to provide a receipt. The courts, however, will gladly garnish wages, seize tax refunds, and order arrest if these aggrieved parents do not obey.

What?!

PIGS AT A TROUGH

Children’s welfare means little to CPS or their minions who are feeding on limitless taxpayer funds. These funds are spread amongst the old guard insiders network of corruption.

Judges keep high paying jobs. Forty hand-picked law firms in twenty counties have been paid over one billion dollars over the past ten years.

The foster care corporations that warehouse the kidnapped children are paid handsomely, as are the parental monitoring companies.

The pharmaceutical companies get a “captured” clientele of 80,000 artificially, and highly medicated patients and an endless demand for their mind altering drugs.

The adoption companies make millions placing stolen children in homes and even get up to an $8,000 bonus from the state for each child placed. For the un-saleable child many foster homes are promoting a career choice and training; prostitution.

Finally, if this staggering CPS example of the “social safety net” does not work out, there is prison.

The circle of the crime is complete. From womb to tomb.

A HEALTHY DOSE OF MURDER

The power of CPS and their pet courts and judges have been covering their trail of corruption with targeted intimidation and, quite likely, murder. Few reporters are willing to take on the subject. Stories abound of defense attorneys signing on to a custody case only to drop it after a first private meeting with a judge, or dedicated reporters suddenly losing interest.

Some are deceased.

Martin Burns of Fox News/Los Angeles put considerable time into the issue of CPS and Superior Court corruption. He filed several stories for Fox, under his shows title, “Lost In The System.” One show was specifically about Lexi.

Burns boldly confronted Harold LaFlamme, Mathew DeArmey, and the rapist father, Mahathep “Mathew” Srikureja, after a hearing before judge Waltz. He confronted them aggressively in front of the camera, asking questions about their many legal conflicts of interest. As the rapist comically hid his face in DeArmey’s coat tails they fled just as quickly as they could, both collectively shuffling away with the fathers face appropriately joined at DeArmey’s posterior.

Martin Burns was found at the bottom of a ravine near a trail where he liked to walk. Accident? The LA Coroner ruled it a heart attack. So how did he get to the bottom of that cliff thirty feet from the trail?

His counterpart at Fox, “Lori” [Gina] Silva, who had co-written some of Burns’ stories as well as doing research, suddenly lost interest in CPS. She is still at Fox News/LA. She does not return calls.

Georgia State Sen. Nancy Schaefer and her husband of thirty-four years were by all reports loving and inseparable. Ruled a murder/suicide their deaths coincided with the her announcement of the completion of a four-year documentary project she had personally funded to expose names and crimes against children. Following her death, the documentary failed to surface. Its whereabouts is still unknown.

Greed knows no bounds. Greed has no soul. Any court willing to pry a child from the arms of his innocent mother or father has lost any value for life, much less humanity.

World-wide, America has lost all respect for humanity.

Now, it feasts on its own children.

BRT/HSN

Now, it feasts on its own children.

Brett Redmayne-Titley spent his formative years with his family in Queensland, Australia, Ghana, West Africa, and the Bahamas. Visiting over fifty counties over four decades he has seen the world slowly destroyed by greed, capitalism and empire. Not content to watch from the side lines, Brett has taken up his pen to tell the truth about important stories. On-scene reporting is his specialty. Traveling to the story he has written in-depth, multi-part articles about the Keystone XL Pipeline, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the police killing of Evan Kwik and many more.  His articles have been published by dozens of on-line news services. More articles by Brett Redmayne-Titley.

UPDATE on Sentencing of Protective Mom Tammy!

Child Molester Protector D.A. Bonnie Dumanis (through her minion, D.D.A. Jill Lindberg) requested the maximum sentence for Tammi (3 years), and, not surprisingly, Child Molester Protector Judge Kenneth So agreed, while admitting Tammy believed taking Jonah into hiding was necessary for his safety.

This is a contradiction which is obvious to any sane person. NO mother should be prosecuted, much less sentenced, if she goes into hiding because she believes her child is being sexually abused and there is corroborating evidence to confirm it. ‪#‎DontProsecuteProtectiveMoms‬

Even so, with time served and other factors, Tammy should be released within a few months. She has a strong case on appeal due to the many violations of Tammi’s and the public’s rights committed by Judge So. Safe Kids will update as we get info.
______________________________________________

San Diego Sex Abuse Scandal Continues Friday with Sentencing of Protective Mom for “Abduction”
Criminal Court Tactics Employed to Cover Up Abuse Exposed

Judge Kenneth So, D.A. Bonnie Dumanis and Public Defender Kristin Scogin all colluded in covering up substantial evidence of sexual abuse in order to secure Protective Mom Tammy’s conviction. Now Judge So will sentence Tammy for the crime of protecting her son.

CourtWatchers documented the many contortions these officials went through in their coordinated effort to cover up the sexual abuse of Little Jonah and convict PM Tammy Rief. This was obviously done to cover up for the family court cover up by the notorious Judges Gregory Pollack and Eugenia Eyherabide, as well as by CPS.

Here is some of the evidence of the cover up compiled:
[Evidence of the sexual abuse: http://bit.ly/JonahsAbuse]

• Public Defender Kristin Scogin only called two of Tammy’s friends as defense witnesses, because they could be dismissed as biased. She refused to call any of the 50 other professional/ objective witnesses Tammy wanted, including law enforcement, CPS workers, M.D.’s and mental health professionals from three different counties who had evidence of the abuse.

• P.D. Scogin refused to call the most important witness in the case: the N.C. detective who Little Jonah disclosed the sexual abuse to when they were caught in hiding. (In contrast, the prosecuting attorney called the N.C. sergeant who made the arrest helping to convict Tammy.) When Safe Kids asked Scogin to comment on why she did not call the detective, she refused.

• Judge So would not allow the N.C. police report which documented these disclosures by Jonah.

• P.D. Scogin called Tammy paranoid at least 10 times in her closing arguments, supporting the view that the abuse did not really happen; it was only in Tammy’s head, i.e. “she’s crazy” used so often in cover ups. The other tactic, “she’s lying/alienating”, could not be used because it had never been used in family court (the prolific “mad or bad” tactic).

• Judge So encouraged the prosecution to use the argument that the abuse has been investigated many times, but never substantiated, supporting the theory that Tammy was paranoid. (Of course, there was never a proper investigation and CPS and family court had colluded in the cover up, as usual.)

• Judge So defined “malicious” (the requirement for conviction) for the jury as anytime somebody does a wrongful act, as opposed to when somebody deliberately does a wrongful act, so as to incriminate Tammy.

• Important evidence by Tammy’s friends was excluded, or simply not included, because Scogin did not ask the proper questions.

• Judge So prevented Tammy’s friends from speaking freely, even under direct examination, keeping much important evidence out. (It is supposed to be opposing counsel that stops the witness through valid objections, not the judge.)

• The jury was rigged. CourtWatchers were excluded from jury selection in violation of Constitutional rights of the public and the defendant to prevent them from witnessing the rigging. Tammy reported that the jury members selected were favorable to the prosecution and Scogin would not allow her to participate at all in the selection. And Judge So sealed the jury selection proceeding and jury names.

• Tammy was kept in jail for almost a year without bond or with a too-high bond, making it difficult for her to get support outside of the corrupt Scogin in preparing her case.

• P.D. Scogin tried to get Tammy declared mentally incompetent. That is when Safe Kids Intl became involved. Our court watch helped convince Judge Brannigan to not rule her incompetent. If she had been, she would have likely been institutionalized and medicated into silence about the sexual abuse.

• Judge So refused Tammy’s Marsden motion to get Scogin off her case. Judge So tricked a courtwatcher into leaving by acting like the hearing was finished and then starting up again after she was gone. He then sealed the Marsden motion with nobody to hear what justification he used to seal it.

• Tammy’s hearings were often not on calendar or were placed there at the last minute to deter court watchers.

• Judge So, Scogin and P.A. Jill Lindberg often went into chambers together for extended periods of time, under the guise of it being a “side bar”, to discuss their strategy off the record.

• Judge So sealed Tammy’s family court file, as it was a record of how long and how hard she had fought to protect Jonah and contained important evidence.

• D.A. Dumanis covered up Jonah’s disclosure to N.C. and the disclosure to CPS after Tammy was arrested and Jonah was back with his identified molester.

COURT WATCH Friday, 8:30 am, San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 55, Judge Kenneth So. 220 Broadway, San Diego, CA.

*You can support Tammy and/or express your outrage at the cover up with comments here. You can also express thanks to the courtwatchers who helped compile all the evidence of the cover up, especially PM Kathy Brown!

NOTE: In the event Tammy is released with time served on Friday, she needs a place to stay in So. Cal., preferably San Diego, for a month or so. If anyone can put her up, please PM Safe Kids. Thanks for supporting a Protective Mom!

Link to event with more info:
https://www.facebook.com/events/265231733654901/

Link to event re: declaring Tammy mentally incompetent:
https://www.facebook.com/events/647720755265517/

*D.A. Bonnie Dumanis is up for re-election. Spread the word that she covers up sexual abuse. She covered up in Damon and Jacob’s case, and Protective Mom Joyce’s case (her ex was later convicted of molesting other children).

fair use and disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL: GENDER WARS AND EXPERIMENTAL ADDICTION


Low-Income [high education] Mothers Without Custody:

Who Are They and Where Are Their Children?*

SUSAN ZURAVIN GEOFFREY GREIF

University of Maryland at Baltimore

The School of Social Work and Community Planning

As a focus of research, the non-custodial “low- income” [ high education]mother, particularly the mother who has received Aid to Families of Dependent Children, (AFDC) has been virtually ignored. Yet, she is central to many fields of study-foster care, child support enforcement, child maltreatment, and single parents. This article re-ports on 8 re-spondents from a co-hort of 518, urban, AFDC mothers who lost custody of all children during the 17 months following their se-lection in-to t/he study sample.

Fin-d-i-n-g-s   re-ve-al    t/h-at mos-t -of/ – the – chi-l-d / r-e-n -w-e-r-e- li-vi-n-g   W/IT-H/ re-lat-i-v-es;    

the major-it-y /  of /  mother/ s- had  lo-n-g- stand-ing   M-E-N—T–AL –  HE-a-L-t/h-pr-o-b-le-ms; and mos-t of the mothers not   o-n-l-y   wan/t-ed   ‘more’   child-re-n,  b-u-t  were  tr-y-i-n-g    to     get        . . . 

            . . .  p- re  -g  -n  –  ant.

Re-c-e-n-t     li-te-r-a-t-u-r-e-  has   pro-vi-d-ed   a   b-e-ginn-i-n-g    u-n-d-er-s-tand-ing  of  mothers who  do  not  have   c-u-stody   follow-ing   a   mar-i-t-al    b-re-a-k-up ( Fischer   &   Cardea,   1981; Greif,    1986;   Greif,    1987; Greif &   Pabst,   1988;   Herrerias,    1984;   Paskowicz,   1982 ).

Th-ese  stu-d-ies, ho-w-e-ve-r, have  fo-c-u-sed    on    on-l-y    o-n-e       seg-ment    of    t/he “non-custodial” mo-t/he/r              pop-u-lat-ion       w-hi-te,    mid-d-le-d  -as   -s,         once       mar-r-i-ed,       li-k-el-y      to          h-ave            ch-i-l-d-ren   who,  a -re li-vi-n-g- with t/he-ir- father, and who ma-y    have     re-li-nqu-i-s/h-ed          c-u-s-t-o-d-y          

v o-lun-tar-i-l-y.  

W/hi-le t/h-is seg-me-n-t of t/he pop-u-lat-ion ma-y be t/he largest, it is no-t  t/he  onl-y  o-ne  with  w-hich  soci-al  wo-rk-ers have co-n-t-act.

Child     “p-ro-tec-t-i-o-n”    and    fo-s   -t –  e-r    ca-re   c-a-se-wo-rk-er-s    pro-vid-e-se-r -vi-c-es  to po-p   -u,-  lat  –  i-ons    pre-dominan-tl-y    co-n-s-is-t-i-n-g   of   “ lo-w -in-co-me, ”   [ hi-g-h ed-u-cat-i-on]    sin-g-le,  

 no- ‘n – c-u-st’-o—di-al- mot/he/r-s –w/ho-m/u-s-t’   (m a) n- a-g-e    re-   u- n–  ‘if’- i  [  being  t/he  ]  ‘cat’-i-o-n”   with    or     p-er-man-en-t – se – -par-at -i-o-n       f-ro-m     t- he- ir –     ch-i-l-d--re-n.

*The re-se-arch re-port-ed i-n t/h/is pa-p-er  w- as- p – artial-l-y sup-  ported by g-ran-t a-ward FPR-000028-01-0 f-r-om   t/he   Off/ice  of  Po-p/-u-lat-i-o-n  A-ff-airs to Susan Zuravin. 163

 The p

—–u/r-

———–pose of this paper

———— is to  fur-the/r under-stand-ing

———————of the noncustodial mother population

——————————served   b-y   m/a/n-y  c-h-i-l-d

————————— we/l/fare

————————————— pro-g-rams   b-y    

———————————–exami n

————————————————i/n/g

——————–a su b——————————————-

—————————————–p- o- p – u – l -a t  —————————————–

—————————-  i  –  o-  n  -that

……………………….. has not been very  well–

……………………………..  stud/i-ed   mothe_rs-  

———————————————-with ” low-incomes”  [ hi-g-h edu-cat-i-o-n ]who may never have

——————been………………………….

———marr

………………i–e-d– may  not  

……………..be  white and  have 

 be/co-me . ……………………..

……………………..non

………………………………………cus-t-odi-al  

………………………………………………..fo-l-low-ing con-t-a-ct  with child protective services

 …………………………………..Eight (8) mothe/  rs who lost custody of all child-ren

………………………………….during the 17-months

…………………………………………………..following their se-lect-ion in-to a/

………………………………………………………….stud-y  sample of 518 AF DC mothers

———————–for-m t/he  ba-s-I-S   four

…………………..o/u/r    di-s

….–  s –c-u-s –s  –i–o—n.

 

Literature Review

To gather information about low-income, noncustodial mothers, we reviewed five areas of study, all of which have potential for focusing on issues of custody and low-income families. Little information was found. The noncustodial mother literature, as noted above, has almost exdusively focused on the middle-income mother without custody. The recent foster care literature (e.g., Fanshel, 1976; Rzepnicki, 1987) does not, to the best of our knowledge, focus on the needs of noncustodial mothers as differentiated from those of noncustodial fathers or twoparent families.

Moreover, it does not address situations where parents have children living in any of a variety of informal arrangements, i.e., with relatives, spouses, etc. The child support enforcement literature (e.g., Cassety, 1984) predominantly focuses on noncustodial parents whose children are recipients of Aid to Families of Dependent Children (AFDC). However, because the vast majority of AFDC caretakers are single parent mothers, the typical child support enforcement study focuses on noncustodial fathers. The child maltreatment literature (e.g., Parke & Collmer, 1975; Polansky, Hally, & Polansky, 1975; Wolfe, 1985), is peripherally related to custody issues in that some maltreating parents lose custody of one or more children.

It does not, to the best of our knowledge, address noncustodial mothers separate and apart from parents who maintain custody, or parents who lose custody of some but not all of their children. In fact, most studies do not mention whether respondents have lost custody of any children. After analyzing our data and seeing the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse among these mothers, we reviewed that body Low-Income Mothers Without Custody of literature, too. Loss of child custody as an outcome of drug addition was mentioned in one study (Nurco, Wegner, & Stephenson, 1982); the study reported that children were more likely to be removed from their parent(s) because of neglect rather than abuse.

Based on these reviews, there seems to be no one area of inquiry that daims these mothers as their own.  Consequently, we know little about them.

Yet, this little known population may be a fast-growing one for three reasons: (a) the increase in size of the population of single parent, female-headed families with children, many of whom are overburdened with financial and emotional problems; (b) the ever-increasing range of culturally sanctioned roles for women; and (c) the increased attention to and reporting of child maltreatment. Increases in this population have particular import for child welfare, namely an increase in the number of children at high risk for child maltreatment.

Theory (Finkelhor, 1985) as well as empirical findings (Finkelhor, 1980) suggest that children who live away from their natural mothers for periods of time may be at higher risk for sexual abuse than children who always live with their mothers. Studies of child maltreatment in formal, licensed foster care suggest that children living in such homes may be at higher risk for all types of maltreatment than the average child in the population-at-large (Bolton, Laner, & Gai, 1980).

And, if the maltreatment rate is high in licensed foster care-homes that are monitored, even if only on a periodic basis-one can only imagine how high the rate of maltreatment must be for informal care arrangements, i.e., custody arrangements with friends, neighbors, relatives, etc., situations that are not likely to be licensed and if monitored, not very dosely. For most middle-income mothers, concern about maltreatment is not an issue. Greif and Pabst’s survey (1988) of such mothers reveals that more than 90% of their children were living with their fathers.

Conceptual Framework-Characteristics of the Mother Without Custody Lacking specific theory or findings with regard to low-income, noncustodial mothers, we decided to use Belsky’s mo-d-e-l  of t/he de-ter-min-an-t-s of pa-r-en-t-ing, “o-ne de-r-i-v-e-d f-r-om re-se-ar-ch on t/he et-i-o-lo-g-y of ch-i-l-d ab-use and n-eglect” (Belsky, 1984, p. 83), as we-l-l a-s v-ar-i-ous h-y-p-o-t/he-se-s and fin-d-i-n-g-s f-ro-m t/he ch-i-l-d mal-treat-men-t and p-s-y-chi-atric li-t-er-a-t-u-re to i-d-ent-if-y a-re-as f-or st-u-d-y.

T/he-se  gu-id-e-s  a-re  par-t-i-c-u–lar-l-y  relevant  b-e-ca-use  o-ur  sam-p-l-e  in-c-l-u-d-e-s  a- l-ar-g-e  pro-‘portion’ of  ab-us-i-ng   and/o-r   ne-g-lect-i-n-g   fam-i-l-ie-s.  The two  areas  that we decided to explore-mental health problems and future childbearing plans-were selected from an array  of  potentially important topics on the basis of their relevance for clinical practice.  

Rationale – mental  health  problems

 The   Belsky  model  (1984)   p-o-s-i-t-s  “t/hre-e   gen-e-r-al   sour-ce-s   of   i-n-fl-u-en-c-e   on  par-en-t-al   fun-ct-ion-i-ng:

(a)  t/he   pa-re-nt-s’   o-n-t-o-genic   origins  and   per-son-al   p-sy-cho-logi-c-al   resources,

(b)  t/he   chi-l-d-‘s   character-i-s-t-i-c-s   of   in-di-vi-d-u-al-i-t-y,   and

(c)  co-n-t-e-x-t-u-al    s-o-ur-c-e-s –   of-    s-t-r-e-s-s     and   s-u-p-p-ort”    (p. 83).

Of    these    t/hree   sour-ce-s,    par-en-t    psy-chol-og-i-c-al     re-so-ur-c-es     r-e  id-ent-if-i-e-d    as     t/he     m-o-s-t   in-fl-u-e-n-t-i-a l     “no-t   si-mp-l-y    fo- r    t/he-i-r    d-i-re-ct    e-f-fe-ct    o-n    par-e-n-t-al     u-n-ct-i-o-n-i-n-g    b-u-t     al-so    be-cau-se    o-f    t/he    ro-le   t /he/y     un-do-ub-t-e-d-l-y     p-l-a-y    i-n    re-c-r-u-i-t-i-n-g    co-n-t-ex-t-u-al    sup-p-ort”   (p. 91).  

On  t /he   bas-i-s   of   Belsky’s   position  (1984)  regarding    the  salience   of   parental   psychological  resources  as  well  as  the  large  and  con-s-is–t-e-nt   body   of  findings   from  the   psychiatric   literature  which   reveal   that   ma-t-e-r-n-al    m-en-t-al    health    problems   (e.g., Colletta,  1983;  Longfellow, Zelkowitz, & Saunders, 1981; Susman, Trickett, Iannotti, Hollenbeck, & Zahn-Wexler, 1985; Weissman, Paykel, & Klerman, 1972)    have   a    particularly  adverse  affect  on  parenting    behaviors,   we   decided   to   ex-a-mi-n-e   mo-t/he/r’s   his/to/r/y   of  me/n/t/al  he-a-l-t-h   pro-b-l-e-m-s.

It seemed reasonable to surmise that the prevalence of mental health problems might be highest among mothers without custody. Moreover, on the basis of findings which show that neglectful mothers are more likely to have mental health problems than abusive or nonmaltreating mothers (Friedrich, Tyler, & Clark, 1985; Zuravin, 1988), we reasoned that more neglectful than abusive or control mothers might be noncustodial. Rationale-future childbearing plans The clinical impression of many caseworkers is that mothers who are separated from all of their children are at high risk for Low-Income Mothers Without Custody having another child. On the basis of information about the contracepting patterns of maltreating mothers alone (Zuravin, 1987), this impression seems to be a reasonable one.

     —     Both abusive and neglectful mothers are likely to use contraceptives less adequately and effectively than comparable control mothers.

     —     In addition, regardless of the problems non-custodial mothers had with their children, it is likely that these children were meeting some specific need-a need that the mother may well try to fulfill by having another child.

Thus, we reasoned that the non-custodial mothers may [ or may not ] be more likely to want to conceive another child than custodial mothers.

In summary, this presentation of information about [ only ]  eight (8) low-income [ high education], single mothers who do not have daily care and custody of any of their children,

     —     represents a beginning attempt to describe low-income [ high education], non-custodial mothers,         particularly those who once received AFDC.

While no claim is being made that these eight mothers are representative of non-custodial, low-income [and/or ] high education mothers, it is our hope that this presentation [ specifically not ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific, statistically (in)significant, biased and based report or real study or experiment] will help to

     (a)      stimulate interest in this under-studied population group,

     (b)      generate questions and hypotheses for future study, and

     (c)      provide the social work practitioner with a beginning description of this population.

Specific objectives are:

     (a)      to determine the composition of the noncustodial mother group by maltreatment status,

     (b)      to identify the range of situations in which the children of these mothers live,

     (c)      to characterize the “mental health problems,” [ or unique personality and character traits open to reasonably expansive interpretation across a variety of ‘spectrums’ or ‘lights’] as well as  [ equal to ] the future ‘child-bearing plan[t]s’ of these mothers.

Methodology

Information for this exploratory, descriptive study of  eight [ 8 ]  low-income/ [ or high education], non-custodial mothers and their children comes from,

     —     an extensive set of interview and case record data (Zuravin & Taylor, 1987) on

     —     518 individuals,

     —     low-income, 

     —     urban,

     —     single

     —     parent

     —     mothers.

The original purpose of this data set was to identify ‘personal,’ ‘social,’ and ‘contextual’ factors that increase the low-income child’s risk of being physically abused and/or neglected. Methodological information pertinent to the construction of the data set is detailed in the final report to the funder (Zuravin & Taylor, 1987) and various papers (e.g., Zuravin, 1987; Zuravin, 1988).

Below is a summary of information about the 518 respondents and a description of measures pertinent to the above study objectives.

Study participants

The eight women who are described in this paper come from a group of 518 women  [ (wo) man ] who were interviewed in their homes by one of ten trained interviewers sometime during the period ” 9/ 1/84  to  6/30/85.”

These 518 women had five (5) [ one circumstantial ]   characteristic(s) in common.

During the study sampling month, January 1984, all were:

     (a)      residents of Baltimore, Maryland,

     (b)      single parents (defined as not being legally married),

     (c)      recipients of financial assistance from the Aid to families of Dependent Children program, (d) had custody of and provided daily care for at least one natural child, and

     (e)      had at least one natural child 12 years of age or younger even if care and custody of the child was no longer the mother’s responsibility.

The 518 were purposely selected to differ relative to

     —     how adequately they were known to care for their natural children;

     –119 respondents were known to Baltimore City Department of Social Services (BCDSS), Division of Child Protective Services for personally neglecting their children,

     —     118 were known to BCDSS for having one or more physically abused children, and

     —     281 were not known to BCDSS for having any neglected, physically abused, or sexually abused children.

—     The 237 maltreating respondents were selected from a specially constructed sampling frame prepared from the co-hort of 1,744 families who were receiving child “protective” services during the sampling month.

     —     The 281 control group respondents were selected from a specially constructed sampling frame prepared from the co-hort of 37,158 families who were,

     —     receiving AFDC,

     —      but not child protective services during the sampling month.

Measures Information pertinent to objective a-specific custody arrangements for children of the eight women-was obtained during the personal interview.

     —     Each respondent was asked to identify, by name, age, and relationship, to he/r each member of h/er household.

     –     During a comprehensive history of each of the mother’s livebirths, the

     —     interviewer [ doctor/nurse/pediatrician/ physician’s assistant/hospital social worker or administrator/cps/SS caseworker regularly tipped off by the same “interviewer” on duty or manager or director ],  

     —     “checked” the household roster, ” Low-Income Mothers Without Custody,” to

     —       see if the child in question [ ? ]  was currently living with the respondent.

     —     If the child was not among the household members, the interviewer asked,

     —     “Where is she/he living now?”

[ Every ] Where possible, information from the interview was corroborated and supplemented by information from the child protective service (CPS) “case record.”

Information pertinent to objective b-mental health problems and childbearing plans-

     —     was obtained during the personal interview, and, where possible, 

     —     possible [ pre-determined/ profiled/pre-selection bias ]  corroborated with information from the case record.

Given the pre valence of depression and substance abuse problems among the population of urban, low-income, young women (Robins, Helzer, Croughan, & Ratcliffe, 1981),  information was “obtained” [ intentionally and knowingly “coached” to fathers to falsely and maliciously report,  or presumed without actual research, without investigation, probable cause, reliability, or reasonable suspicion based on specific, relevant, articulable evidence that that individual mother . . . ] —

     —     about current and past “problems with depression, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse.”

     —     The Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1970) was used to assess severity of depressive symptoms,

     —      on the day of the interview, and

     —     a variety of questions from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (Robins, Helzer, et al., 1981)

     —     were used to “obtain” [ guess to “substantiate” ] information about lifetime incidence of [ falsely reported or maliciously alleged with intent to prosecute and knowingly cause harm and inflict emotional distress, among other crimes and violations ] “depression as well as alcohol and drug problems. Relevant to the women’s future plans with respect to parenting,” two (2)  types of information were gathered:

     (a)      expectations for future pregnancies and family planning strategies around the time of the interview, and

     (b)     plans for assuming daily care and custody of their children.

To obtain information about future pregnancies and family planning strategies, respondents were asked a series of relevant questions taken from the National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 3 (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982).

     —     Information about [ CPS and irresponsible father’s collusive ] plans,

     —     for return of children’s  . . . “daily care and custody” . . . ” to the mothers” . . .  was “obtained,”

     —     where possible, from the child protective service case record narratives.

     —      Data analysis Because of the small size of the group of women who became noncustodial during the period from sampling to interview, formal statistical comparisons of this group with relevant groups of women who did not lose custody are “not warranted.”

Findings from such analyses would be seriously compromised by statistical conclusion validity problems (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

However, to give the reader a feel for how these women may differ from the other groups of women included in the study,

     —     we present comparable data “on all measures for the abusive (n = 116), neglectful (n = 113), and control (n = 281) mothers who had custody of at least one child on the day they were ‘interviewed’ for the study [ or unethical, uninformed, non-‘consented’  social experiment  or systematic, inhumate re’trauma’tization] .

Findings

Objective 1:

To determine the composition of the noncustodial mother group by maltreatment status,

The eight women who are the subjects of this paper became noncustodial sometime during the period 2/1/84 and the day they were interviewed, 7 to 17 months later.

All eight are from the two maltreatment samples. As predicted, the majority, six of the eight (75%), are from the neglect sample.

Objective 2:

To identify the range of situations in which the children of study mothers live Inspection of data on the custodians of the 29 children of the noncustodial mothers (see Table 1)

 —shows that the majority were not in formal. foster care on the day their mother was interviewed.

The largest proportion, 20 of 29, were with a relative.

The remaining

      —nine were in formal foster care,

     –  -seven in family care and two in group care.

Of the 20 children who were with a relative,

     –seven were with their father and

     –13 were with either a maternal or paternal relative.

Examining the identity of children’s custodians by mother’s former marital status suggests, as might be expected, that once-married mothers are more likely to have children who live with their fathers than mothers who were never married.

The two mothers who were married have children living with their father (the man to whom the mother was married), whereas only one of the six never married mothers has children living with their father.

Although highly detailed information on the transfer of daily care and custody for all 29 children is not available from the child protection case records, what is available leads to three conclusions:

(a) Child protective service intervention led to the transfers of custody.   It is not likely that any of these mothers would have voluntarily on her own sought to make suitable daily care and custody arrangements for any of their children. In many instances, it was necessary to involve juvenile court in the custody transfer. 

 

(b) Caseworkers tended to be extremely conservative about transfers of custody. A concerted effort was made to keep the children with their mother.

Most families received an extensive array of supportive services (i.e., day care, parent aide service, mental health services, parenting programs etc.), none of which they were able to effectively use, prior to removal of all the children.

(c) Every effort was made to keep the children out of formal foster home or group home care by making it a priority to place them with relatives.

Low-Income [high education]Mothers Without Custody

Table 1

Proportion of Children Living With Each of Three Types of Custodians and Proportion of Mothers Who Have Children With Each of the Three Types

Children      Mothers      Custodian      (n =29)      (n=8)*

Formal foster home or group home care      31%      (9)      50%      (4)

With childs father      24      (7)      37      (3)

With paternal or maternal relatives      44      (13)     37      (3)

*The number of mothers sums to more than eight because some of the mothers have children in more than one type of placement.

Objective 3:

To characterize the mental health problems as well as the future childbearing of low-income mothers without custody of their children Demographic description.

   Information about six demographic characteristics (displayed in Table 2) suggests that the eight noncustodial mothers may differ not only from the average control mother but also the average neglectful and abusive mother.

The mean age of the noncustodial mothers during the sampling month (1/84) was 26.1 years, younger than either the average neglectful or average abusive mother.

Four respondents were black and four were white, suggesting that white mothers may be over-represented among noncustodial mothers compared to the groups of abusive, neglectful, and control mothers.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Eight Noncustodial Mothers and Neglectful, Abusive and Nonmaltreating Mothers with Custody of One or More Children  

   Noncustodial Neglect      Abuse      Control Characteristics     Column Totals (n =8) (n =113) (n =116) (n =281)

Age as of 1/84     26.1      28.3      27.7      25.9

Grade completed      9.1      9.8      10.4      11.1

Number of livebirths      3.6      3.9      3.0      1.9

Race (percent white)      50.0      31.0      23.3      13.5       (4)      (35)     (27)      (38)

Employment (percent never employed)

75.0      50.4      52.6      37.4 (6)     (57)     (61)      (105)

Marital history (percent never married)      75.0      55.8      69.0      73.0      (6)     (63)     (80)      (205)

        –Two (25%) of the mothers had been employed,

     –and two had been married,

     –quite a few less than the other three groups.

They lagged behind the other three groups of mothers relative to educational achievement.

The average number of years of education per mother is 9.1; not one of the eight had graduated from high school.

And finally, the eight mothers had given birth to 29 children, all of whom were still alive at the time of the study.

The number of children per mother ranged from one to seven with the average being 3.6.

Naturally, these mothers also differ from the middle-class, white mothers studied by others in that they

     –had less education,

     –were less likely to have ever been employed,

     –were less likely to have ever been married, and

     –had more children.

Also of interest is that the eight mothers all lost custody involuntarily as compared with many of the middle class mothers who, in part, as a response to the women’s movement, relinquished custody voluntarily (Greif & Pabst, 1988). Mental health problems. Inspection of the data in Table 3 suggests, as pre dicted, that

     —     non-custodial mothers may [ or may not] have more 

     —     “Low-Income” [high education]  Mothers Without Custody

Table 3

Depression, Drinking, andDrug Problems Characteristic of Eight Noncustodial Mothers and Neglectful, Abusive and Non-maltreating Mothers with Custody of One or More Children

Noncustodial      Neglect      Abuse      Control Characteristics      (n =8)      (n =113)      (n =116)      (n =281)

Mental health problems      100.0%      85.0%      81.9%      66.9%      (8)      (96)      (95)      (188)

Two weeks depression      75.0      69.0      60.3      47.3      (6)      (78)     (70)      (133)

Prenatal depression      62.5       58.4      46.6      35.6      (5)      (66)      (54)      (100)

BDI > 13      62.5      47.8      47.4      23.8      (5)     (54)      (55)      (67)

Drinking problem      62.5      21.2      14.7      6.1      (5)      (24)      (17)      (17)

Hard drugs       25.0      10.6      5.2      2.1      (2)      (12)      (6)      (6)

Differences are–

     —     most apparent with respect to alcohol and drug problems, and

     —     least apparent with respect to depression.

Overall,

     —     the non-custodial mothers differ most from the custodial, non-maltreating mothers, and

     —     least from custodial neglectful mothers,

     —      suggesting that perhaps some of the custodial neglectful mothers may be at high risk for losing custody of their children.

All–

     —     eight (8) of the custodial mothers (100%) reported problems with at least one of three 

     —     “mental health problems”

     —     -depression, alcohol, and/or drug usage.

     —     High percentages (87% and 82%)

          —     of the neglectful and abusive  mothers also

               —     reported one, 

               —     or more

                       —      of these three problems.

     —      Of the three (3)

          —     “mental health problems,

               —     “depression” [a “state” . . . of mind ]  was

                        —     by far [ =  ] the most pre valent.

     —     All eight of the non-custodial mothers

            —     gave a positive response

                     —     to at least one

                    —     of the three (3)

                            —      “indicators of depressive symptoms:

                                        (a)      five  (5) (63%) were

                                                     —     moderately or severely

                                                             —     de-pressed on the day of the “interview,”

                                                    —     according to their Beck Depression score (scored 14 or greater) (Beck, 1970);

                                          (b)      six (6) (75%) “re-ported” a life-time

                                                      —     incidence of two or more weeks of depression; and

                                           (c)     five (5)(63%) were [ also ] de-pressed after the birth

                                                     —     of at least one child even

                                                    —     though the child was “wanted and planned.”

     —     Of the eight (8)t mothers, five  (5) (62.5%)

            —    had serious enough

                   —     depressive symptoms to

                           —     obtain “formal help: three (3) (37.5%)” had been “hospitalized” 

                                  —     at least overnight  [ for at least the birth delivery in hospital ],

                          —     and two (2)

                                 —      had received help

                              —     on an outpatient basis

                                         —     from a “mental health professional.”

      —     Comparison of the non-custodial mothers with the three (3)  groups of custodial mothers,

              —     on the three,  depression measures,  reveals that they differmost from the non-maltreating mothers. 

                            —     Drinking and drug problems.

          —     It is with respect to these two (2) problems that the non-custodial mothers differ the most

                   —     from the remaining “abusive and neglectful mothers.”

                         —     “Having periods

         —     of drinking for a couple of days and [ then ] not,

                —       being able to sober up

                          —     was characteristic [ as opposed to a “mental illness” ]

                               —       of 63% of the non-custodial mothers,

                                        —     as opposed to

                                               —     24% of the “neglectful,” and

                                               —     15% of the “abusive” mothers. Using hard drugs (cocaine, PCP, heroin, or LSD) for two

                                      —     or more weeks [ with “questionable ‘ child'” }

                                              —     was characteristic

                       —       of 25% of  the non-custodial mothers

                                           —     compared to

                                                   —     11% of the neglectful,  and

                                                  —     6% of the abusive mothers.

                                                 —     Three of the five (60%) women with drinking problems and

                                                —     both of the women [ (wo) man }  

                                                        —     with drug problems

                                                                —    had received some sort of “formal” help “from a mental health professional.”

Unfortunately, this help seemed to have little impact on their serious substance abuse problems. Future childbearing plans.

Just as the non-custodial mothers differed from the custodial mothers with respect to alcohol and drug problems, they also differed with respect to their future childbearing plans.

     —     Despite the many serious [ series of ?} child,

           —     care problems experienced by these women and the very high

                    —     incidence of behavioral, physical, and emotional problems characteristic of their children, all six of the women who were not sterile (either because of tubal ligation or hysterectomy) wanted to have at least one more child.

All six (6) answered “yes” to the question, “Looking to the future, do you intend to have another baby at some time” (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982).

     –Five wanted one more child and

     –one wanted two more children.

So, while

     –100% of the noncustodial mothers who could have another child wanted another child,

     –only 43% of the neglectful (n = 67),

    –54% of the abusive (n = 59), and

     –57% of the control mothers (n = 202) wanted another child.

     –And, not only did the six women want more children, all six had a steady boyfriend and

     –all except one were trying to get pregnant by that boyfriend during the two week period prior to the interview.

In response to the question, “Did you use any method of birth control the last time you had intercourse?” (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982)

     –all five answered “no.”

The descriptive statistics provide some information about these eight low-income, noncustodial mothers; however, due to the size of the study group, the picture is an abbreviated one.

To fill in this picture, we dose with a detailed description of ‘Roberta,’ a mother who is’ typical’ of the eight women who form the basis of this study.

The story of Roberta.

Roberta is a 32-year-old, never-married, mother of three children.

All three are living with relatives:

     –John, age 14, and Mary, age 12, live with one family while Brenda, age 3, lives with another.

Roberta was first reported to child protective services during 1975 for severe neglect of John and Mary.

Since the time of this report, daily care and custody of these two children has been provided by their maternal aunt.

During 1982, Roberta was reported to child protective services for failure to make appropriate child care arrangements for Brenda, a complaint very similar to the one that had lost her custody of John and Mary.

Several days prior to the complaint, she had been found guilty of shoplifting and required to serve 9 days in city jail.

Rather than make appropriate arrangements for the care of Brenda (two years old at the time), she left Brenda with her current boyfriend, Bobby, a known heroin addict.

Bobby contacted a friend of Roberta’s who not only came and got Brenda but reported the problem to child protective services.

Problems with depression, drinking, and drugs have repeatedly punctuated Roberta’s life. She was positive for all three depression measures:

(a) depressed after the birth of each of her three children even though the first two were planned conceptions,

(b) felt sad, blue, and depressed for at least two consecutive weeks during the six months preceding the interview, and

(c) moderately depressed on the day of the interview, according to her Beck Depression Inventory score. And, as if the problems with depression were not enough, Roberta also had long-standing  Welfare ing problems with substance abuse.

As recent as six months prior to the interview she had periods of drinking for a couple of days or more without sobering up and of “shooting herself with heroin.”

The case record narratives describe heroin and alcohol addiction problems dating back as far as 1975-the year when she was first reported for child neglect.

Despite the long-standing mental health problems, the repeated encounters with child protective services for child neglect, and the loss of custody of all her children, Roberta not only planned to have two more children before she reached 35, she was working on getting pregnant.

At last intercourse (the night before the interview), neither she nor Bobby had used any method of birth control.

During the year preceding the interview, they used birth control about half the time.

Discussion

The data describe these mothers as having more problems than their counterparts either in the low-income [high education] population (maltreators and controls) or in the “non-custodial” mother literature.

 

 

           The questions we sought . . .

 . . .answers . . . to . . .

 . . .and their findings–

. . .point

 . . .in many . . .

 . . .directions.

1. Overrepresentation of neglect– as opposed to abuse– among the eight non-custodial mother situations directs attention to the adequacy of services for intact neglectful families.

Even though neglectful mothers may suffer more frequently from mental health problems (Freidrich, Tyler, et al., 1985; Zuravin, 1988), it is important to pose the question-are we providing sufficient services, soon enough to these families?

Conceivably, neglectful situations do not receive services until the mother’s mental health problems have deteriorated to the point where they are virtually ‘intractable.’

According to Wolock and Horowitz (1984), “in spite of data showing that neglect is no less severe than physical abuse, there is some evidence that preoccupation with abuse [ or sexual assault, misconduct, or abuse of a child] may have led the protective service worker to view neglect as being of lesser severity, and, in the face of unmanageably high caseloads, to be more likely to screen out neglect cases” (p. 537) (also, see Selinske, 1984).

2.      The fact that many of their children are not in formal foster care raises the question of who is caring for these children. Low-Income Mothers Without Custody Are they in adequate placements with relatives or are they as much at risk for maltreatment as they were when living with their mothers?

This takes us back to one of the possible adverse consequences, mentioned earlier in the paper, of an increase in the population of low-income, noncustodial mothers.

We may be seeing a growing number of unmonitored, unattached children, ones that are shuffled from place to place after having been maltreated by their mothers.

Who know what happens to children, who, for example,

      –go with one relative, do not fit in there, and then move on to another and another informal placement.

     –More than two-thirds of this group of 29 children could be in this situation.

Are these children at high risk for ‘maltreatment ?’

Do these children constitute a large proportion of a rather newly recognized American social problem,

     –“runaway children and teenagers?” ? ? ?

3.      Most troubling of the facts learned about these eight mothers is that

     –the six who have not been sterilized want and are trying to have more children.

     –While middle class mothers have also started families again after becoming “non”-custodial (Greif & Pabst, 1988), it appears to occur in a small proportion of cases.

We could, thus hypothesize that having a low income and becoming noncustodial as a result of child protective service intervention are linked to a desire to have more children in a way that may not apply to middle-income non-custodial mothers.

Will history repeat itself for these mothers and their new children?

If so, short of mandatory sterilization, what is the “[‘final’] ‘solution?'”

There are at least three directions for future research on non-custodial mothers.

The first direction centers on

     –differences between low- and middle-“income”/ [education]/  non-custodial mothers.

For instance,

     –“Are non-custodial, low-income mothers, compared to non-custodial, middle-income mothers–

(a)      a less prevalent phenomenon?

(b)      less likely to voluntarily relinquish custody of their children than middle-income mothers?

(c)      more likely to become non-custodial involuntarily because of intractable mental health problems including depression and substance abuse?

(d)      more likely to want more children, and

     —     to try to have more children once they become non-custodial?

The second direction centers on

     –differences between low-income mothers who are non-custodial and comparable mothers who have custody     of some, but not all, of their children.

Do these two groups of mothers differ, and if so, how?

     –Does a mother lose some children on the way to losing all of her children?

     –And, if so, what could be done, preventively, to reverse this cycle?

And, finally,

     –the third direction centers on low-income fathers.

When and under what circumstances do they become custodians of their children (Greif & Zuravin, in press)?

How do those fathers who assume daily care and custody of their children differ [maritally and martially, as in, by force of law in times of “domestic ’emergency'”] from those who do not?

Traditionally, foster care literature has focused on and documented the consequences for children of being in formal foster family and group care placements.

It has not, however, to the best of our knowledge, addressed the issue of children who are living in “informal foster care arrangements”, i.e., the child who lives with relatives.

Given the current crisis in the formal foster care system-not enough placements to meet demand-placement of children with relatives is likely to increase. The consequences of these placements need documentation. Is the population of children in “informal foster care” growing?

Are children in “informal foster care” at increased risk for child maltreatment of all types?

Do they constitute a large proportion of the “runaway minor” problem?

We have attempted to show that more research on the lowincome, noncustodial mother is needed.

The study of this population, which has been virtually ignored, can provide a key to unlocking many fields of study relevant to social service policy and social work practice. References Belsky, J. (1984).

The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. Bolton, E, Laner, R., Gai, D. (1980).

For better or worse: Foster parents and foster children in an officially reported child maltreatment population. Children and Youth Services Bulletin, 3(1-2), 37-53. Cassety, J. (1984).

Child support: Emerging issues for practice. Social Casework, 65(2), 74-80. Colletta, N. (1983).

At risk for depression: A study of young mothers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142, 301-310. Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (1979).

Quasi-Experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Low-Income Mothers Without Custody Fanshel, D. (March, 1976).

Status changes of children in foster care: Final results of the Columbia University Longitudinal Study. Child Welfare, 55, 168-174. Finkelhor, D. (1985). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. NY: Free Press. Fischer, J. & Cardea, J. (1981). Mothers living apart from their children: A study in stress and coping. Alternative Lifestyles, 4(2), 218-227. Friedrich, W., Tyler, J., & Clark, J. (1985).

Personality and psychophysiological variables in abusive, neglectful, and low-income control mothers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173(8), 449-460. Greif, G. (1986).

Mothers without custody and child support. Family Relations, 35(1), 87-93. Greif, G. (1987). Mothers without custody. Social Work, 32(1), 11-16. Greif, G. & Pabst, M. (1988).

Mothers without custody. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Greif, G. & Zuravin, S. (forthcoming).

Fathers: A placement resource for abused and neglected children? Child Welfare. Herrerias, C. (1984).

Non-custodial mothers: A study of self-concept and social interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Social Work. University of Texas at Austin. Longfellow, C., Zelkowitz, P., & Saunders, E. (1981).

The quality of motherchild relationships. In D. Belle (Ed.), Lives in Stress: Women and Depression (pp. 163-176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Nurco, D., Wegner, N., & Stephenson, P. (1982).

Female narcotic addicts: Changing profiles. Journal of Addiction and Health, 3(2), 62-105. Parke, R. & Collmer, C. (1975).

Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. In M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research, Volume 5 (pp. 509-589). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Paskowicz, P. (1982).

Absentee mothers. NY: Allenheld/Universe Books. Polansky, N., Hally, C., & Polansky, N. F. (1975).

Profile of neglect: A survey of the state of knowledge of child neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (DHEW Publication No. 620-167/2260). Rzepnicki, T. (1987).

Recidivism of foster children returned to their own homes: A review of new directions for research. Social Service Review, 61(1), 56-70. Selinske, J. (1984).

Protecting CPS clients and workers. Public Welfare, 41(3), 30-35. Susman, E., Trickett, P., lannotti, R., Hollenbeck, B., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985).

Child-rearing patterns in depressed, abusive, and normal mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55(2), 237-251. Weissman, M., Paykel, M., & Klerman, G. (1972).

The depressed woman as a mother. Social Psychiatry, 7, 98-108. Wolfe, D. (1985).

Child abusive parents: An empirical review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 462-282. Wolock, I. & Horowitz, B. (1984).

Child maltreatment as a social problem: The neglect of neglect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(4), 530- 543. 180

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Zuravin S. (1987).

Unplanned pregnancies, family planning problems, and child maltreatment. Family Relations, 36(2), 135-139. Zuravin, S. (1988).

Child abuse, child neglect, and maternal depression: Are they related? In National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect (Ed.), Child Neglect Monograph: Proceedings from a Symposium (pp. 20- 46). Washington, DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Zuravin, S. & Taylor, R. (1987).

Child care adequacy and family planning practices. Final report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of Population Affairs for Grant FPR 000028-02-0.

 

The research reported in this paper was partially supported by grant award,

          —     FPR-000028-01-0 from …… Affairs for Grant. FPR 000028-02-0.

 

Read,

Etiology of child maltreatment:   A developmental€cological analysis.

By Belsky, Jay

Psychological Bulletin

Vol 114(3), Nov 1993, 413-434.

 Abstract

Applies a developmental–ecological perspective to the question of the etiology of physical child abuse and neglect by organizing the paper around a variety of “contexts of maltreatment.”
The roles of parent and child characteristics and processes are considered (“developmental context”),
          —     including an examination of  “inter-generational transmission.”* * *
The “immediate interactional context” of maltreatment, which focuses on the parenting and parent–child interactional processes associated with abuse and neglect, is analyzed.
Finally, the “broader context” is discussed with 3 specific sub-sections dealing with the:
          —     community,
          —    cultural, and
          —     evolutionary contexts of child maltreatment.
Implications for intervention are con sidered, and future research directions are outlined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

Texas Family Code Chapter 109| Appeals


     

Texas Family Code

Chapter 109

Appeals: Another Exercise in “Programmatic” Futility

Texas Family Code 109, Appeals, statute/code, but not necessarily US Constitutionally compliant law, Chapter 109, is another problematic “programmatic” issue that plagues the “‘state of Texas'” and its families because those of us who have been coerced and forced (initiation) through legal abuse, or otherwise, into the family court fraud /CPS/adoption/foster care scheme–The Texas Family Code (the bible of these racial hygiene and ethnic cleansing courts for Eugenics and imported Nazi and masonic racists and misogynistic criminal psychopaths in charge, and the “responsible” fathers and stepmothers that support them along with the “no fault divorce” family managing State Bar of Texas (“SBOT”))–do not “under stand” that indigent parents are rarely afforded the right and are routinely blocked from all hope of appeal of clearly legal (but unlawful) official custom, policy, and ratification.  

     We also do not under stand that one cannot appeal without an attorney, list of appellate points, and without findings of fact or conclusions of law, and certainly without any record or transcript of proceedings which are also routinely denied (and were to author of this blog, Julian’s Real Mommy, by the perniciously retaliatory, malicious 310th court and sundry personnel, Judge Lisa Millard, associate Judge Conrad Moren, CPS-appointed guardian ad litem, Donna Everson, and official court “recorder,” Benjamin A. Alva).

     This reads as yet another extortion method in the proverbial toolbox of the “CPS Cluster Courts” of East Texas and adoption and foster care R.I.C.O. court con industry.  

That includes you, bribed Judge Lisa A. Millard and associate Judge Conrad Moren of the 310th court in Houston, Texas (Harris County), but only after Cheryl Harvick, Brazoria County CPS supervisor in Pearland first permanently terminated my “possessory conservatorship” rights on May 08, 2012 before I was compelled and conned into your courtroom.  May others be saved by reading your tactics, and also from your judicial prostitution ring which expands the meaning of child/human trafficking from Florida, Georgia, and Texas (quoting Greg Todd, investigator). 

TEXAS FAMILY CODE

TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

SUBTITLE A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 109. APPEALS

Sec. 109.001.  TEMPORARY ORDERS DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL.  (a)  Not later than the 30th day after the date an appeal is perfected, on the motion of any party or on the court’s own motion and after notice and hearing, the court may make any order necessary to preserve and protect the safety and welfare of the child during the pendency of the appeal as the court may deem necessary and equitable.  In addition to other matters, an order may:

(1)  appoint temporary conservators for the child and provide for possession of the child;

(2)  require the temporary support of the child by a party;

(3)  restrain a party from molesting or disturbing the peace of the child or another party;

(4)  prohibit a person from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court;

(5)  require payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses;  or

(6)  suspend the operation of the order or judgment that is being appealed.

(b)  A court retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders rendered under this section unless the appellate court, on a proper showing, supersedes the court’s order.

(c)  A temporary order rendered under this section is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

(d)  The court may not suspend under Subsection (a)(6) the operation of an order or judgment terminating the parent-child relationship in a suit brought by the state or a political subdivision of the state permitted by law to bring the suit.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Sec. 109.002.  APPEAL. 

(a)  An appeal from a final order rendered in a suit, when allowed under this section or under other provisions of law, shall be as in civil cases generally under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

An appeal in a suit in which termination of the parent-child relationship is in issue shall be given precedence over other civil cases and shall be accelerated by the appellate courts.

  The procedures for an accelerated appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to an appeal in which the termination of the parent-child relationship is in issue.

(b)  An appeal may be taken by any party to a suit from a final order rendered under this title.

(c)  An appeal from a final order, with or without a supersedeas bond, does not suspend the order unless suspension is ordered by the court rendering the order. 

 The appellate court, on a proper showing, may permit the order to be suspended, unless the order provides for the termination of the parent-child relationship in a suit brought by the state or a political subdivision of the state permitted by law to bring the suit.

(d)  On the motion of the parties or on the court’s own motion, the appellate court in its opinion may identify the parties by fictitious names or by their initials only.

 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 6.17, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 421, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 75 (H.B. 906), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.

 

 Sec. 109.003.  PAYMENT FOR STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

 

(a)  If the party requesting a statement of facts in an appeal of a suit has filed an affidavit stating the party’s inability to pay costs as provided by Rule 20, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the affidavit is approved by the trial court, the trial court may order the county in which the trial was held to pay the costs of preparing the statement of facts.

 

(b)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit an official court reporter to be paid more than once for the preparation of the statement of facts.

 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 472, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 5.0025, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

 

Tutt Case, Texas CPS Steals Another


As usual, the only media or press allowed against Department of Family and Protective Services and the local CPS County Boards responsible for unconstitutional, illegal, and completely irrational “child” kidnappings–“removals”–supports the Texas General Fund.  Thus, another adoption/foster care fraud case, among others of the family court fraud and R.I.C.O. scam genre plaguing this nation engaged in a silent war follows, below:

RE-Blogged, Below

The Tutt Case, Texas Home School Association article, letter link below

http://www.thsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-01-27-tutt-dfps.pdf

Tutt Case – Call to Action

JANUARY 28, 2014 BY TIM LAMBERT

The Tutt case continues, so we are issuing this update and a call to action. While some of the Tutts’ children have been returned to their home, they have been traumatized by their removal. Some of them were told while in CPS custody that they could not refer to their adopted parents as “mom and dad” but only by their first names. The children are still in public school, and the academic assessment of the children ordered by the judge has not been done, nor has the order to psychologically examine Mrs. Tutt been scheduled. Another child remains in foster care. Three weeks after the order by the judge, and nothing has been done! It appears that no one in the judicial or CPS system is interested in bringing this family back together.

THSC has written a letter to the Texas commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, the department that oversees CPS, and is demanding an investigation into the caseworker and her supervisor who facilitated this travesty. You can read that DPS letter here. We are asking for those who would like to help the Tutts get all their children back and be allowed to resume their home education to help us by contacting Governor Perry’s office and the Texas legislators who make up theSenate Health and Human Services Committee and the House Human Services Committee, committees which oversee CPS. Urge them to contact DFPS and to launch an immediate investigation of the CPS caseworker (Ms. Shan Robinson) and her supervisor (Ms. Diana Etheridge).

These CPS officials facilitated the illegal removal of the Tutt children. For background, see my previous posts on the Tutt case. The bottom line is that a CPS worker investigated an incident and initially said all was well but a month later demanded a psychological evaluation and parenting classes. When Mrs. Tutt pointed out that classes had been taken and that she had a certificate from her physician noting she was physically and mentally fit to care for children, the caseworker said she would consult with her supervisor to see if that would be sufficient.

With no further communication with the family, the caseworker sought a court order to force Mrs. Tutt to have a psychological evaluation. This evaluation was sought in a November 15, 2013, ex parte hearing, of which the family was not notified nor represented and at which the caseworker was not present.

The caseworker stated that Judge Graciela Olvera refused to sign the order and “recommended that the children be removed from the home and placed in custody due to neglectful supervision and also the pattern of CPS referrals during the year.” She also stated, “Judge Olvera expressed concern about the mental state of the parents.”

In other words, the judge who professed to be “concerned about the mental state of the parents” refused to sign an order requiring a psychological evaluation but did sign an order to remove the children based on two of the children wandering away briefly and also on a pattern of CPS allegations, all of which had been ruled unfounded.

The caseworker stated in the presence of Mrs. Tutt and her 25 year-old daughter that she knew there was no cause for removal but that she had to come up with something to satisfy the judge who had issued the order for removal.

This is judicial abuse that was facilitated by CPS officials, and they must be held accountable. Please call Governor Perry’s office at (512) 463-2000 as well as the legislators who oversee CPS (listed in the links above) and demand an investigation into the CPS officials who followed the illegal ruling of Judge Olvera.

THSC will be hosting a press conference to publicize this issue and to demand an investigation into CPS and Judge Olvera on January 29 at 1:30 p.m. at the Dallas County Courthouse. Please join us and friends of the family in support of the Tutts as we publicly call for justice for this family and the return of their children and their freedom to resume home schooling. It is important that we have as many people as possible there in order to draw attention to this travesty. Please spread the word and join us in Dallas on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. at the Dallas County Courthouse. Old Red Courthouse building at 100 S. Houston Street, Dallas, TX 75202

Call The Governor and Texas Legislators

Governor Rick Perry – (512) 463-2000 – Main Switchboard
Send a message.

Senate Committee on Health and Human Services

Committee Chair:
Jane Nelson
(817) 424-3446 – Grapevine
Send an email.

Vice Chair:
Bob Deuell
(972) 279-1800 – Mesquite
(903) 450-9797 – Greenville
Send an email.

Committee Members:
Joan Huffman
(281) 980-3500 – Houston
Send an email.

Robert Nichols
(903) 589-3003 – Jacksonville
(936) 588-7391 – Montgomery
(936) 564-4252 – Nacogdoches
(936) 699-4988 – Lufkin
Send an email.

Charles Schwertner
(979) 776-0222
(512) 863-8456
Send an email.

Larry Taylor
(281) 485-9800 – Pearland
(281) 332-0003 – League City
Send an email.

Carlos I. Uresti
(210) 932-2568 – San Antonio
(830) 758-0294 – Eagle Pass
(432) 447-0270 – Pecos
Send an email.

Royce West
(214) 467-0123 – Dallas
(214) 741-0123 – Dallas
Send an email.

Judith Zaffirini
(956) 722-2293 – Laredo
Send an email.

House Human Services Committee

Committee Chair:
Richard Peña
(956) 753-7722 – Laredo
Send an email.

Vice Chair:
Naomi Gonzalez
(915) 775-9937 – El Paso
Send an email.

Committee Members:
Pat Fallon
(469) 362-0500 – Little Elm
Send an email.

Stephanie Klick
(817)281-0079 – North Richland Hills
Send an email.

Elliott Naishtat
(512) 463-0668 – Austin
Send an email.

Toni Rose
(214) 371-3300 – Dallas
Send an email.

Scott Sanford
(972) 548-7500 – McKinney
Send an email.

Scott Turner
(972) 722-7887 – Rockwall County
(972) 987-1447 – Collin County
Send an email.

John Zerwas
(281) 533-9042 – Simonton
Send an email.

Share this:

Related Posts:

  1. PRESS RELEASE: THSC CALLS ON CPS TO INVESTIGATE CASEWORKER IN TUTT CASE
  2. Tutt Case Update
  3. Tutt Case – Partial Victory
  4. Tutt Case Press Conference

FILED UNDER: PARENTAL RIGHTSTUTT FAMILY

About Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert, president of Texas Home School Coalition (the state home school support organization since 1986), has been involved in home school leadership in Texas since 1984. He and his wife Lyndsay taught their four now-grown children at home for 16 years, graduating the last two in 2000. As the head of the organization for the leading home school state in the country, Tim is recognized as an authority on home education issues in Texas. In this capacity, he has testified before numerous Texas legislative committees on issues related to home schooling. He often deals with state government agencies, including the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, on home education issues and has served as an expert witness on home education in a number of court cases. He has also addressed such conferences as the Texas Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissi

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

ons Officers on the topic.

Tim holds a B.A. in political science from Texas Tech University and is active in the political arena, having served eight years as Republican National Committeeman for Texas. He is committed to serving the home schooling community and to protecting parents’ right to choose the method of education of their children.

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


Sixteen Years Without Children and Life to Go

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

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

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

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

JUSTICE.WALL OF SHAME.NJCOURTCORRUPTION.DEREK SYPHRETT

 

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

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

Tyler, Texas

(SMITH COUNTY)

 Judge Sue Pirtle,

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

Former Judge Sitting by Assignment (Visiting Judge)

State of Texas

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

Family, Civil, Criminal

DID WE HAVE THE SAME JUDGE, OR

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

COURT CON?

 

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

Judge Cynthia Kent Grants Custody to an Abuser

 

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

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

Dear Judge Kent,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com

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

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

Mothers Without Custody World

Laura Turns Sweet 16

 

 

Robin Karr.precious Laura found.on facebook

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

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

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

How could she?

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

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

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

Family Court Extortion – Sunny Kelley Story


Family Court Injustice

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

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

View original post 148 more words

Termination of Parental Rights Reversed in Murfreesboro, TN: In re Alysia S.


Herston on Tennessee Family Law

Knoxville family law attorneysFacts: in 2010, Mother sought assistance in caring for Child after Mother lost her job. She signed a power of attorney and authorization of temporary guardianship stating Child would reside with another couple for approximately six months. During that period, the couple filed a petition alleging Child was dependent and neglected and seeking temporary custody of Child.

The juvenile court found Child dependent and neglected and granted custody to the couple.

Mother appealed to the circuit court, which found no clear and convincing evidence of dependency and neglect and ordered the juvenile court to reunify Child with Mother.

The couple appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.

Despite that procedural history, Child was never reunified with Mother because, in part, the trial court deferred to a psychologist who wanted to reunify Mother and Child over a period of two years. While this reunification process was occurring…

View original post 904 more words

TEXAS SHERIFF PUNCHES TO PUNISH PREGNANT (WO)MAN


EXCLUSIVE:  Texas Sheriff Deputy Punches Pregnant Woman

EXCLUSIVE:

Texas Sheriff Deputy Punches Pregnant Woman

According to the homeowner, as soon as she requested to view the court order a second time “the police forced their way into the house.”  She was pinned in the corner of the kitchen and that’s where the video starts. You can clearly see the 38 week pregnant women as she screams for help and reminds them she’s pregnant.

“I am pregnant!!!”

You can also hear the kids crying in the background as the CPS employee holds off the rest of the family while the officers assault her. She said she was in extreme pain because her stomach was pressed on the counter top. Shortly after that you can clearly see one of the officers punch the women twice in the back.
After releasing this story, I was contacted by a close friend of the victim  and she was able to provide some additional updates, none of which is good news…

She was taken to jail and her son was placed in foster care even though there were family members willing to care for the child. She was charged with assaulting a police officer although she denies any assault took place. While in jail she repeatedly asked to have her injuries examined and documented and was fearful for her unborn child. The jail nurse said she didn’t want to get involved fearing for her own job. No prenatal care was offered either. She was segregated because she was pregnant in an isolation cell where she slept on bare concrete and blankets and the lights were left on 24 hours a day. She was awakened every 15 minutes not because she made any threats of self harm but because that was the procedure in the isolation cells. She remained there for 6 days and when released she immediately went to her OB/GYN. They were able to take pictures of her injuries still present 8 days after the attack. They were also able to verify that these injuries were not present before as they saw her the day before the incident. They also documented that she lost weight while in captivity, not a good thing for a pregnant woman. She gave birth to another son soon after being released and once again CPS swooped in and confiscated the newborn at the hospital and placed him with a family member with severely restricted visits destroying the bonding and breastfeeding process.

Police officers will occasionally find themselves in situations where tensions are high and should use every means necessary to deescalate those tensions to resolve issues with civility.  However, it is becoming common place for police officers to quickly resort to violence, whether it be against peaceful people, or animals, and escalate the situation .

BrettSanders.me has obtained photos of the aftermath which shows bruising on the woman’s stomach as well as her legs.
11118285_992568190768367_1435692965_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11130717_992568180768368_943166541_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11125984_992568187435034_215817104_n

961648_992568184101701_1132891512_n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please call the Hunt County Sheriff’s Department and let them know you have seen the video and pictures and this behavior is not acceptable.  Ask for  Chief Buddy Oxford:

(903) 453-6800

Also, go by and leave them a comment on their Facebook page. They need to hear from us!

This article is brought to you by our sponsor, Private Internet Access.  Encrypt your internet usage and support this site at the same time!

Share

Brett Sanders is a liberty activist, Bitcoin advocate, voluntaryist and investigative journalist based in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. His work has been featured on CBS 11, Photography Is Not a Crime, CopBlock.org, and TheLibertyBeat.com

 “Welcome to Hunt, TX”

http://www.hill-country-visitor.com/Cities/Hunt.html

Hunt, Texas is located at the junction of the north and south forks of the Guadalupe River, in the heart of the Texas Hill Country, where the rugged limestone hills separate the coastal plain from the Edwards Plateau. It was named for the friend of the founder, Alvie Joy in 1912. Alvie Joy built the first post office for Hunt, Texas residents, who were mostly farmers and shingle makers. Dating from the 1920’s private camps were built along the banks of the river and still thrive every season.

The Stonehenge II replica was built on the North Fork north of Hunt; in the summer of 2012, Stonehenge II it was moved to the front yard of the Point Theater in nearby Ingram. Stonehenge II is 60 percent as tall as the original, and 90 percent as large in circumference. Along with the replica of Stonehenge are Easter Island-type statues. Take Texas 39 to Hunt.

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,

Related Postsx

$2.75 Million Dollar Settlement for Seven Foster Care Children in Nevada (Clark County)


The advocacy group’s attention has now shifted to whether recommendations for county child welfare reform and related court systems will be implemented.

“The track record for the county is not good,” said Bill Grimm, a senior attorney at the Oakland, Calif.,-based National Center for Youth Law, which filed the lawsuit and lobbies for the protection and care of foster children.

The settlement was approved by the Clark County Commission in mid-November, but it still needed final approval from the court. About $1.6 million will directly benefit the seven former foster children, while $500,000 will cover attorney fees and costs for plaintiffs’ counsel.

Clark County spent $1.4 million on attorney fees, which covered outside counsel, and other costs in defending the case.

The settlement follows a long legal battle over the county’s foster care system waged by the National Center for Youth Law and Morrison & Foerster LLP on behalf of their clients, the announcement said.

The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in 2010 and claimed the county’s child welfare agency failed to provide adequate care and safety for foster children.

A federal judge threw out the case, but a federal appeals court reinstated the suit in 2012.

The suit cited concerns with numerous aspects of the county’s child welfare system, including the use of psychotropic medications on children, reported physical and sexual abuse in foster homes, and the adequacy of Child Protective Services investigations.

The settlement was approved on March 21 by federal Judge Robert C. Jones. The money for each plaintiff ranges from $100,000 to $350,000, which has been deposited into annuities and trusts, Grimm said.

Four of the former foster children are still minors and may need to go to court for particular disbursements.

Now that the legal battle is over, the advocacy group’s attention has turned to the recently released report from a Nevada Blue Ribbon committee that recommends reforms to the county’s child welfare and court systems, Grimm said. The committee was appointed last fall by Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta to examine system shortcomings.

“A report gets issued … and when it comes to implementing the changes, very little ends up being done,” Grimm said.

Contact Yesenia Amaro at yamaro@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0440. Find her on Twitter: @YeseniaAmaro

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,

Fostering Profits: Abuse And Neglect At America’s Biggest For-Profit Foster Care Company – BuzzFeed News


How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children

via Fostering Profits: Abuse And Neglect At America’s Biggest For-Profit Foster Care Company – BuzzFeed News.

Fostering Profits

A BuzzFeed News investigation identified deaths, sex abuse, and blunders in screening, training, and overseeing foster parents at the nation’s largest for-profit foster care company.

posted on Feb. 20, 2015, at 10:52 a.m.In the summer of 2004, a 15-year-old boy, needy and eager for attention, was driven down a road that stretched through the endless flatlands of Maryland’s eastern shore. The boy, known in court records as R.R., arrived at a dirt driveway, where a sign on top of a wooden post announced Last Chance Farm.

Four separate couples lived at Last Chance Farm. All were related to one another and all earned money taking care of troubled children who had been placed in foster care, including R.R.

But R.R.’s new guardians weren’t directly supervised or paid by the government…

View original post 4,885 more words

KIDS-FOR-CASH JUDGE LISA MILLARD | CORRUPT TX


KIDS-FOR-CASH JUDGE LISA MILLARD

Judge Lisa A. Millard, 310th Court, Harris County, Texas in Houston Famous Cases: Clifford Hall, the “egg case,” City of Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s same-sex benefits denial case, mother not allowed to speak Spanish to her daughter case, wrongfully institutionalize little Christoper Logan Parks case, little Brittany Corcoran and Mother Nikki Jones Case, Dawn Cooper Case where Again Sold 7-year old Girl to Dangerous Man she Didn’t Know, and of course, the case of my only child, now 8 years old, then only 5, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, three years missing, held hostage with “Responsible” “Healthy Marriage Initiated Father” for Bribery

HOW WAS THIS WOMAN, JUDGE LISA A. MILLARD, AND HER ASSOCIATE JUDGE, CONRAD MOREN, IN THE 310TH COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS IN HOUSTON EVER QUALIFIED ABSENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE “CPS CLUSTER COURT”/FAMILY “CIVIL” CASE AFTER CPS ALREADY KIDNAPPED MY ONLY PRIVATE PROPERTY SOMETIMES DECEPTIVELY CONNED “CHILD” BY “STATE OF TEXAS?”

Oh, and look how cozy, the 313th Associate Judge who tried to shake me down and contributed to my false imprisonment because I couldn’t afford him in 2007, the then-appointed by Millard’s 310th court Associate Judge Conrad Moren’s buddy, Stephen Newhouse is involved, too.  Hmmmm.  I think the jury has returned the real verdict on who the real “crazy,” but rich criminals are HERE.

HOW IS THIS NOT A KIDS-FOR-CASH SCAM THAT MIRRORS THAT OF LUZERNE COUNTY WHERE KIDS- FOR -CASH JUDGE MARK CIAVARELLA AND CONAHAN WENT TO A PRISON CELL OF THEIR OWN IN THE US THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IN PENNSYLVANIA?

http://www.hcjpd.org/mission.asp

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

HELLO, DOWN HERE, BUT YOU’RE INVESTIGATING THE WRONG CORRUPT JUDGE AND PARENTS!


  Home
  Mission Statement
  Juvenile Board
  Juvenile Courts
  Services
  Careers/Internship
  Help for My Child
  Education Services
  Published Reports
  Public Information
  Report TJJD Abuse
  How to Reach US
  Links

 

 

Juvenile Board Members

 

Honorable Ed Emmett, Chairman
Judges:  (as in Judge’s Trials at the New Nuremberg?)
Honorable Bill Burke Honorable Michael Schneider
Honorable John Phillips   Honorable Don Coffey
Honorable Glenn Devlin  Honorable Lisa Millard
Honorable Denise Bradley
Staff:
Thomas D. Brooks, Executive Director
Juvenile Board Agenda – Approved Meeting Dates for 2015 

Burnett Bayland Rehabilitation Center – Cancelled
6500A Chimney Rock Rd
Houston, TX 77081
March 25, 2015 12:00PM

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-25-15Cancelled

Past Meeting Dates

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-25-15 Juvenile Board Meeting 1-28-15
Cancelled-Juvenile Board Meeting 12-17-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 11-19-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 10-22-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-24-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 8-27-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-23-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 6-25-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 5-28-14
 Juvenile Board Meeting 4-23-14  Juvenile Board Meeting 3-26-14
 Juvenile Board Meeting 1-22-14 Cancelled- Juvenile Board Meeting 12-11-13
 Juvenile Board Meeting 11-20-13  Juvenile Board Meeting 10-23-13
 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-25-13

 Juvenile Board Meeting 8-28-13

 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-24-13 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-26-13
Juvenile Board Meeting 5-22-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 4-24-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-27-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-27-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-23-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-12-12

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 11-14-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 10-24-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-26-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 8-22-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-25-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-27-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 5-23-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 4-18-12

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 3-28-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-22-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-25-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-14-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 11-16-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 10-26-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 9-28-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 8-24-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 7-27-11 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-22-11
Juvenile Board Meeting 6-1-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 5-25-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 4-27-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-23-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-16-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-26-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-15-10

Juvenile Board Meeting 11-17-10
No October 2010 Meeting Juvenile Board Meeting 09-22-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 08-25-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 07-28-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 06-15-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 06-02-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 05-26-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 05-20-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 04-28-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 03-24-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 02-24-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 01-27-10

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-16-09

Special Juvenile Board Meeting 11-24-09

 Juvenile Board Agenda 11-18-09

Juvenile Board Agenda 10-28-09
 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-23-09  Juvenile Board Agenda 08-26-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 07-22-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-24-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-27-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-06-09
Juvenile Board CANCELLED for 03-25-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 01-28-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 12-17-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 11-11-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 09-24-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 08-27-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 07-23-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-25-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-28-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-23-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-03-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 02-27-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 01-23-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 12-12-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 10-24-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 08-22-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 07-26-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 06-27-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-06-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-23-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-25-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-18-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 03-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 03-14-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 02-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 01-24-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 12-05-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 11-15-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-27-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 08-23-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 07-26-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 06-28-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 05-24-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-26-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 03-8-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 02-15-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 01-25-06


A Balanced Approach to Juvenile Justice

Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
1200 Congress
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: 713-222-4100

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/media/393/harriscountyreport.pdf

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/our-work/training.aspx#PS

TEXAS JUDGES ON THE TAKE GIVE AWAY|CORRUPT TX


http://www.ppcforchange.com/conspiracy-360th-district-court/

Vaughn Bailey copy

 

Vaughn Bailey, Tarrant County, Texas Attorney near Fort Worth

 

360th-offers-victim-a-deal

http://www.ppcforchange.com/conspiracy-360th-district-court/

Vaughn Bailey copy

Vaughn Bailey, Tarrant County, Texas Attorney near Fort Worth

 

360th-offers-victim-a-deal

For another tragic survival story that began in a Texas family court and a clique of collaborative pseudo-scienters . . . minues the qualifications, , click on the link below to read:

http://www.ppcforchange.com/mothers-quest-lost-infant/

For another tragic survival story that began in a Texas family court and a clique of collaborative pseudo-scienters . . . minues the qualifications, , click on the link below to read:

http://www.ppcforchange.com/mothers-quest-lost-infant/

Forced Adoption: Cameron, It’s Time To Say Sorry


 

 

Hopefully, US follows suit to inquire, conduct due diligence, and return children, . . . but not “to take” more or ask for more money other than to compensate the survivors.

 

Researching Reform

Stemming from a former Australian Prime Minister’s heartfelt apology to Australian women who lost their children in the 50’s and 60’s to forced adoption (all for the crime of being unmarried), a movement in the UK to see our government does the same is now underway.

After hearing Julian Gillard’s now famous apology to the nation for taking babies away from mothers in Australia solely because they were single, Veronica Smith, a retired nurse who also lost her child to forced adoption in the 60’s in Britain decided to set up the MAA, or Movement for an Adoption Apology. There is a movement already in Australia, called the National Apology for Forced Adoptions (which celebrated its two-year anniversary last week), but none at present for women who lost their children at the hands of British forced adoption policy during that period.

For the 500,000 women in Britain who lost their…

View original post 76 more words

RESEARCH SURVEY COLLECTION|California Protective Parent Association


 

 

RESEARCH SURVEY COLLECTION

California Protective Parent Association and Our Future Charitable Foundation are conducting an ongoing collection of data for a national research project. The project involves cases of children placed by family law courts into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with their identified abusing parent.
The collection and compilation of this data is a very important step in promoting awareness, providing actual statistics, increasing funding possibilities, and bringing about family court reform and legislative change. Your input is greatly appreciated.
You can see the results of our preliminary survey after 22 participants on our Research Data page, and an updated May 2003 statistical report after 67 participants by visiting the California Protective Parents site by clicking here.

PROTECTIVE PARENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Re: Custody Outcomes of Children Reporting Incest/Battery

NOTE: If you are concerned about secure confidentiality, we suggest you PRINT this survey (from pdf format) and mail it to us by US mail at our CPPA/OCOF address. If you prefer and are not concerned with confidentiality, you may send it online, but be aware it is not on a secured server at this time.
Identifying information is for contact information purposes only, and will not be included in our data.

CONTACT INFORMATION
 Your Name:
 Mailing Address:
 City:
 State:

Please answer all questions appropriate to your case.You may use the space below for comments or questions: Thank you for contributing to this survey.
Please print and mail this survey to: CPPA/OCOF 1731 Howe Ave. #168, Sacramento, CA 95825-9785
Or fax it to: (530) 758-9785 (phone: 800 441-7886)
Or submit it electronically by clicking the “send Request” button below. (Confidentiality respected, but not guaranteed, due to Internet security.)

 Zip Code:
 Phone Number:
 Alternate Phone:
 E-mail Address:
CASE INFORMATION
     Case Name:
1.) Jurisdiction State:
2.) Jurisdiction County:
3.) Case Number:
4.) Year documents 1st filed:
5.) Case still in progress? Yes No
FINANCIAL COST
6.) Approximate sum of money paid related to case?
      (Include attorney fees, court filings, mediation, evaluations, supervised       visitation, court ordered classes, therapy, etc.)
7.) Have you ever had to file bankruptcy as a result of litigation costs?       Yes No
ATTORNEY HISTORY
8.) Have you ever been represented by an attorney in this case?       Yes No
9.) If so, how many attorneys represented you in this case?
10.) Has your ex-spouse/partner ever had legal representation when        you did not? Yes No
CHILDREN
11.) What were the ages of the child(ren) of this relationship at the time        of the separation?        Girl’s ages:      Boy’s ages:
12.) What is the approximate percentage of time each caretaker spent        caring for the child(ren) before the separation?         Mother:   %         Father:    %         Relative:      %         Other:          %
13.) At the time of separation, did the primary caretaker maintain primary        physical custody? Yes No
PRIMARY ISSUES
14.) Over which of the following issues were there disputes in your court        case? (mark all that apply)         Property settlement         Spousal support         Child support         Move away         Child custody/visitation         Alcoholism         Drug abuse/type of drugs:         Other:
15.) Who initiated the litigation?         Mother         Father
16.) Were you the victim of domestic violence perpetrated upon you by        the other parent? Yes No
17.) If so, did your children witness the violence?        Yes No
18.) Did the violence begin or escalate after separation?        Yes No
19.) Did your ex-spouse/partner ever threaten to take the child(ren) if        you left the relationship? Yes No
20.) Were there allegations of child abuse made during your family        court litigation? Yes No
ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
Complete the information below regarding allegations made during litigation, including who is the identified perpetrator and who first made the allegation (mark all that apply):
21.) Physical abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
22.) Sexual abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
23.) Verbal/emotional abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
24.) Neglect allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
25.) Other allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
26.) What was the age and gender of the first child at the onset of        his/her abuse?   Boy Girl
27.) What was the age and gender of the second child at the onset of        his/her abuse?   Boy Girl
28.) Did the child positively identify the other parent as the perpetrator?        Yes No
29.) Was there medical/physical evidence of the abuse?        Yes No
30.) Was there other corroborative evidence of the abuse?        Yes No
31.) What were the child(ren)’s symptoms? (check all that apply)         Sexual acting out         Depression         Stomach/head/other pain         Dissociation         Overwhelming anger/rage         Nightmares/insomnia/sleep disorders         Fears/phobias:         Eating disorders         Regression (bedwetting/leak feces/thumb sucking)         Constipation/diarrhea         Learning disability         Attention deficit         Suicide attempt         Other:
32.) Did the child(ren) receive Victim of Crime funding for therapy       related to the crime? Yes No
EX-SPOUSE/PARTNER HISTORY
33.) Prior to the separation, did your ex-spouse/partner receive any of the         following labels by mental health professionals? (mark all that apply)         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post Traumatic Stress Disorder         Other:
34.) Does s/he have a history of alcohol and/or drug use?         Yes No
35.) If so, is s/he clean and sober?        Yes No     36.) Length of time clean and sober:
37.) Does s/he have a criminal history?        Yes No
38.) If so, what was s/he…        Arrested for?: 39.) Convicted of?:        Description:
PROTECTIVE PARENT HISTORY
40.) Prior to the separation, did you receive any of the         following labels by mental health professionals? (mark all that apply)         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post Traumatic Stress Disorder         Other:
41.) Do you have a history of alcohol and/or drug use?         Yes No
42.) If so, are you clean and sober?        Yes No     43.) Length of time clean and sober:
44.) Do you have a criminal history?        Yes No
45.) If so, what were you…        Arrested for? 46.) Convicted of?        Description:
ADVISE
47.) Did anyone ever advise or insist that you not mention domestic         violence or child abuse in family law court?        Yes No
48.) If so, who advised you?         Attorney         Mediator         Advocate         Court personnel         Other:
49.) Did your attorney ever tell you that pursuing court action against        your ex-spouse/partner could negatively affect your case?        Yes No
CHILD CUSTODY
50.) Was custody changed to the other parent over your objection, by        an emergency court order, or without your court presence?        Yes No
51.) Was unsupervised contact given to the identified offender despite        evidence of violence or abuse?        Yes No
52.) Was unsupervised contact given to the identified alcoholic/drug         abuser without drug testing?        Yes No N/A
53.) Was custody changed after you raised any of the following issues?        (Mark all that apply)         Violence         Child abuse         Substance abuse         Criminal conduct         Violations of court order         Move-away         Spousal support         Child support
54.) Were judicial findings made stating that you were a danger to your        child(ren) or that you were an unfit parent?        Yes No
55.) Were you ever placed on supervised visitation?        Yes No     56.) If so, length of time:
57.) Were you restricted from having any contact with your child(ren)?        Yes No     58.) If so, length of time:
59.) Do you believe the other parent attempted to gain increased custody        to avoid paying child support?        Yes No
60.) Was financial discovery conducted in your case?        Yes No
61.) Did you give up assets to keep custody?        Yes No
COURT MEDIATION
62.) Did you participate in court-connected mediation regarding custody?        Yes No
63.) If so, was mediation:         Voluntary         Court ordered         Coerced by threats
64.) Were you required to meet face-to-face with an ex-spouse/partner        who perpetrated violence and/or threats of harm?        Yes No
65.) Did you lose any custody rights or contact with your children as a        result of recommendations by a mediator?        Yes No
EVALUATIONS
66.) Did you participate in court connected evaluations regarding        custody?        Yes No
67.) If so, who was evaluated?:         Mother         Father         Child(ren)         Others:
68.) Who selected the evaluator?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
69.) Who paid for the evaluator?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:         
70.) Total amount paid for custody evaluation:
71.) Did you lose any custody rights or contact with your children as a         result of recommendations by the evaluator?        Yes No
CHILD’S ATTORNEY
72.) Did your child(ren) have an attorney/guardian?        Yes No
73.) If so, was he/she court appointed?:        Yes No
74.) Who selected the child(ren)’s attorney?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
75.) Who paid for the child(ren)’s attorney?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
76.) Total amount paid for child attorney:
77.) Did this attorney aggressively advocate for the safety of your         child(ren)?        Yes No
SYSTEM SUPPORT
78.) Was the other parent ever Arrested and/or Prosecuted        for spousal or child abuse?        Yes No
79.) Was Child Protective Services ever contacted to intervene in your        case?        Yes No
80.) If so, did they protect your child?        Yes No
EVIDENCE
81.) Did any court related professional ignore, minimize, or refute        evidence of abuse in your case?        Yes No
82.) If so, who?         Mediator         Evaluator         Attorney for minor         Judge         Other:
83.) Did any court related professional label you with any of the        following?         Parent Alienation Syndrome         Alienator         Folie a duex         Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy         Delusional         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post traumatic stress disorder         Other rare/unscientific label:
84.) In your case, was Richard Gardener, MD.:         An expert witness         A consultant         Quoted         Other:
PROCESS
85.) Do you believe you were discriminated against for your        attempts to protect yourself and/or your child(ren)?        Yes No
86.) If so, do you believe this occurred due to:         Unethics among court-related professionals         Unethics between ex-spouse/partner & court-related professionals         Financial/social status of your ex-spouse/partner         Gender bias         Other:
87.) Were evaluator or mediator recommendations ever provided to the        court less than 10 days before a hearing?        Yes No
88.) Were you prevented from seeing evaluations or reports that resulted        in custody decisions?:        Yes No
89.) Were you ever denied the ability to adequately present your case        (unable to present/examine witnesses, etc.)?:        Yes No
90.) Were hearings resulting in custody decisions held without your        knowledge or ability to be present (ex parte)?:        Yes No
91.) Were hearings regarding custody and visitation ever conducted        without a court reporter present?:        Yes No
92.) Were you ever threatened that talking publicly could result in        damage to your case?:        Yes No
93.) Were court transcripts complete and accurate?:        Yes No
94.) Were court transcripts denied or delayed?        Yes No
95.) If so, how long were the transcripts denied?
96.) Have you ever been incarcerated in a jail or mental health        facility due to the family law case?:        Yes No
CURRENT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT
97.) What best describes your children’s current custody         arrangement? (mark all that apply)         Primary with protective parent, supervised with perpetrator         Primary with protective parent, UNsupervised with perpetrator         Joint custody         Full custody with perpetrator parent         Supervised visitation with protective parent         No contact with protective parent         Other:
98.) Are you able to protect your child(ren)?         Yes No
99.) Do you believe your child(ren) are still being abused?         Yes No
100.) Did your child(ren) continue to report abuse after custody was        changed to the identified abuser?:        Yes No
101.) Did you stop reporting suspected child abuse for fear your contact        with your child(ren) will be terminated?:        Yes No
Do you give us permission to contact you for further information?        Yes No
Original web site & graphic design by: (Please visit web designer’s site by clicking text above)
Home | Welcome | Mission | Intro | Warning | Advice | Info | Research Data | Overview | Stories History | Events | Conference | Protests | Donations | Membership | Messages | Links | Survey | Contact

Please Help Save Kendall (Short Video)


donnellyjustice

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

View original post

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

Angel’s Story, for Little Angel Buddy (Video)


Angel’s Story, for Little Angel Buddy

(Video)

Cleburne, Texas

0902_buddy_cook001

Photo Source: Courtesy of Family and WFAA

 ANGEL COOK’S

Testimony to the Texas Sunset Commission for Department of Family and Protective Services for the “state of Texas”

Click on the link below or otherwise cut and pastor manually enter into your browser to watch and to hear how Texas “protected” little angel Buddy Cook when they lied–omitted and misrepresented to cause injury and harm to a little boy–about his medical history prior to his passing one morning for  which they wrongfully and deliberately charged Buddy’s loving adoptive mother, Angel Cook and he/r husband, David.  This lead to a year of He___ ___ (double hockey stick) for Angel, David, and their seven healthy children, minus little angel, Buddy, but a lifetime more.  Pictures of Buddy readily available on the public Internet show a beautiful, lovable, adorable little boy who was much adored.  To Buddy’s  mommies, so sorry for your loss, and the world’s.

The world must know that hundreds of thousands of mothers and children, and not just adoptive families, are intentionally and recklessly made to endure and survive the same hostility and destructive retribution from terrorist cell called child protective services, social services, or, just commonly “CPS.”  We survive with you, Angel, without our children from our own bodies–real, private property.

CPS DOES NOT NEED ANY MORE FUNDING!  BUT THE PARENTS WHOSE LIVES IT DELIBERATELY AND RECKLESSLY DESTROYS CERTAINLY DOES FOR THE DEBILITATING LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD, AFFECTIONS, ANGUISH, TIME, SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE, WORSE, AND TORTURE! REPORT WASTE, FRAUD, AND INEFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT TODAY! 

Unlike Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors which monitors DPSS, the local version of child protective and social services, Texas does not compensate or “settle” with its intended grant and funding, state “victims.”  But remember that you are not a victim, but rather a survivor as “victims” legally get “protected,” even when it hurts, is completely unnecessary, and sometimes kills innocent children and families.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3TxQcDJVW3c

 

Click on the link to read more details about Angel and Buddy Cook and their family in Texas at:

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/2014/09/02/adoptive-parents-cleared-wesley-cook/15001007/.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article4470414.html

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.

ENTITLEMENT FUNDING FOR STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE HANDLING OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION


SSA logo: link to Social Security Online home

ENTITLEMENT FUNDING FOR STATE COURTS TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE HANDLING OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION

Sec438. [42 U.S.C. 629h] (a) In General.—The Secretary shall make grants, in accordance with this section, to the highest State courts in States participating in the program under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act, for the purpose of enabling such courts—

(1) to conduct assessments, in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall publish, of the role, responsibilities, and effectiveness of State courts in carrying out State laws requiring proceedings (conducted by or under the supervision of the courts)—

(A) that implement parts B and E ;

(B) that determine the advisability or appropriateness of foster care placement;

(C) that determine whether to terminate parental rights;

(D) that determine whether to approve the adoption or other permanent placement of a child;

(E) that determine the best strategy to use to expedite the interstate placement of children, including—

(i) requiring courts in different States to cooperate in the sharing of information;

(ii) authorizing courts to obtain information and testimony from agencies and parties in other States without requiring interstate travel by the agencies and parties; and

(iii) permitting the participation of parents, children, other necessary parties, and attorneys in cases involving interstate placement without requiring their interstate travel; and

(2) to implement improvements the highest state courts deem necessary as a result of the assessments, including—

(A) to provide for the safety, well-being, and permanence of children in foster care, as set forth in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89), including the requirements in the Act related to concurrent planning;[147]

(B) to implement a corrective action plan, as necessary, resulting from reviews of child and family service programs under section 1123A of this Act; and[148]

(C)[149] to increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption;

(3) to ensure that the safety, permanence, and well-being needs of children are met in a timely and complete manner; and

(4)(A)[150] to provide for the training of judges, attorneys and other legal personnel in child welfare cases; and[151]

(B)[152] to increase and improve engagement of the entire family in court processes relating to child welfare, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption.

(b) Applications.—

(1) In general.—In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a highest State court shall have in effect a rule requiring State courts to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of a child in foster care under the responsibility of the State are notified of any proceeding to be held with respect to the child, and shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such form, and including such information and assurances as the Secretary may require, including—

(A) in the case of a grant for the purpose described in subsection (a)(3), 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 improved case tracking and analysis of child abuse and neglect cases will produce safe and timely permanency decisions;

(B) in the case of a grant for the purpose described in subsection (a)(4), a demonstration that a portion of the grant will be used for cross-training initiatives that are jointly planned and executed with the State agency or any other agency under contract with the State to administer the State program under the State plan under subpart 1, the State plan approved under section 434, or the State plan approved under part E; and

(C) in the case of a grant for any purpose described in subsection (a), a demonstration of meaningful and ongoing collaboration among the courts in the State, the State agency or any other agency under contract with the State who is responsible for administering the State program under part B or E, and, where applicable, Indian tribes.

(2)[153] Single grant application.—Pursuant to the requirements under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a highest State court desiring a grant under this section shall submit a single application to the Secretary that specifies whether the application is for a grant for—

(A) the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);

(B) the purpose described in subsection (a)(3);

(C) the purpose described in subsection (a)(4); or

(D) the purposes referred to in 2 or more (specifically identified) of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph.

(c)[154] Amount of Grant.—

(1) In general.—With respect to each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (b)(2) that refers to 1 or more grant purposes for which an application of a highest State court is approved under this section, the court shall be entitled to payment, for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, from the amount allocated under paragraph (3) of this subsection for grants for the purpose or purposes, of an amount equal to $85,000 plus the amount described in paragraph (2) of this subsection with respect to the purpose or purposes.

(2) Amount described.—The amount described in this paragraph for any fiscal year with respect to the purpose or purposes referred to in a subparagraph of subsection (b)(2) is the amount that bears the same ratio to the total of the amounts allocated under paragraph (3) of this subsection for grants for the purpose or purposes as the number of individuals in the State who have not attained 21 years of age bears to the total number of such individuals in all States the highest State courts of which have approved applications under this section for grants for the purpose or purposes.

(3) Allocation of funds.—

(A) Mandatory funds.—Of the amounts reserved under section 436(b)(2) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate—

(i) $9,000,000 for grants for the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);

(ii) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose described in subsection (a)(3);

(iii) $10,000,000 for grants for the purpose described in subsection (a)(4); and

(iv) $1,000,000 for grants to be awarded on a competitive basis among the highest courts of Indian tribes or tribal consortia that—

(I) are operating a program under part E, in accordance with section 479B;

(II) are seeking to operate a program under part E and have received an implementation grant under section 476; or

(III) has a court responsible for proceedings related to foster care or adoption.

(B) Discretionary funds.—The Secretary shall allocate all of the amounts reserved under section 437(b)(2) for grants for the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a).

(d) Federal Share.—Each highest State court which receives funds paid under this section may use such funds to pay not more than 75 percent of the cost of activities under this section in each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016[155].

(e) Funding for Grants for Improved Data Collection and Training.—Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the Secretary, for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010—

(1) $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B); and

(2) $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(C).

For fiscal year 2011, out of the amount reserved pursuant to section 436(b)(2) for such fiscal year, there are available $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), and $10,000,000 for grants referred to in subsection (b)(2)(C).


[147]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(1)(A), struck out “; and” and inserted “, including the requirements in the Act related to concurrent planning;”, effective October 1, 2011.

[148]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(1)(B), added “and”.

[149]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(1)(C), added subparagraph (C), effective October 1, 2011.

[150]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(2)(A), inserted “(A)”.

[151]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(2)(B), struck out the period and inserted “; and”.

[152]  P.L. 112-34, §104(a)(2)(C), added subparagraph (B), effective October 1, 2011.

[153]  P.L. 112-34, §104(b), amended paragraph (2) in its entirety, effective October 1, 2011. For paragraph (2) as it formerly read, see Vol. II, Appendix J, Superseded Provisions, P.L. 112-34.

[154]  P.L. 112-34, §104(c), amended subsection (c) in its entirety, effective October 1, 2011. For subsection (c) as it formerly read, see Vol. II, Appendix J, Superseded Provisions, P.L. 112-34.

[155]  P.L. 112-34, §104(d), struck out “2002 through 2011” and inserted “2012 through 2016”, effective October 1, 2011.

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,

Freemasonry, Kidnapping and Murder


Freemasonry, Kidnapping and Murder

From all accounts Maureen Spalek was the model mother, caring for her three children in the best way she possibly could. Life was pretty routine for Maurine, until she had a falling out with her high-level Freemason Husband:
 
“once married to an individual who told her openly that he was an untouchable high level Freemason. After a major disagreement and subsequent divorce her children were illegally taken after a visit to hospital for one of her children who was knocked over by a motor cycle in suspicious circumstances. The nurse involved wrote a report saying that Maureen was unstable and an unfit mother. The children were immediately taken in to care and very soon after adopted. Maureen has had independent reports stating that she is perfectly fit.” (Source)
 
When Maureen took her 4 year old with a broken leg to the hospital, she was forced to wait for over 24 hours before they would even treat him. Long enough to make any mother worth her salt angry enough to spit nails. When Maureen complained about this gross neglect, she was written up by the nurse in charge as being “defiant towards authority”.
 
The Nurse also wrote other derogatory comments about Maureen and filed her report with Social Services. As a result, all 3 of Maureen’s children were taken into custody by Social Services and placed in Foster homes. Maureen’s children were kidnapped and placed with other families without so much as a hearing to validate the seriousness of the Nurse’s report.
 
This ties into the recent events that involve Hollie and Anne Greig, whose home was broken into by police, ransacked as if by vandals, computers stolen and her locks changed. All because one lone and certified “nut-job”, who has befriended the pedophile gang that raped Hollie, and is still at large, wrote a letter to Social Services.
 
So, if you are a high ranking Freemason or close friends with a pedophile rape gang, UK Social Services is on your side. However, if you are a poor defenseless woman divorced from a high-level Freemason, or a little girl that was gang-raped repeatedly for years by a Pedophile gang, don’t bother complaining to the “authorities”. Unless you want more of the same.
 
After her children were taken by police, Maureen Spalek went to the Foster home to make sure they were not being mistreated. She rang the bell, no-one answered, she went away. The Foster parents called police and 7 police cars showed up on Maureen’s doorstep, kicked in her door, and hauled her off to jail.
 
As of this writing, no police cars have showed up or kicked the doors down of any of the alleged pedophiles in the Hollie Greig case. Not one. Maureen was denied legal representation and wasn’t charged until after she had spent some time in a cold dank prison cell reserved for loving mothers concerned about their children’s welfare.
 
The children of Maureen Spalek were put up for adoption. It appears that Nurse who wrote the report had a guilty conscience over the whole affair and was getting ready to “spill the beans” to Maureen.
 
“However, the nurse was murdered before she could speak to her. An individual was convicted of the murder and sentenced. Maureen attempted to get a visiting pass to the prison in an attempt to find out if this person did murder the nurse and why. Before she could make the visit the prisoner was killed in prison. Maureen is receiving daily harassment from Cheshire and Mersyside police organized through the untouchable masonic connections, she has also been the victim of corrupt judges and medical staff.” (Ibid)
 
 
The man who murdered the Nurse was identified as a “Contract Killer”. In other words, it is believed he was paid to kill the Nurse by someone who was very threatened by the direction things were going. He to had a twinge of remorse and was preparing to “name names” to Maureen. It looks like he was murdered as well. The prison stated he died “under suspicious circumstances”.
 
Yes, there are many ways to die, in “Merry Old Free-masonic England”. One could get hit by a car, or contract a terminal illness. It appears that quickest route to the funeral home involves the refusal to cover-up for the crimes of those that are connected to people in power.
 
To get arrested and thrown in “the clink” all you need to do is expose powerful Pedophiles, like Robert Green, or send your child a birthday card, like Maureen Spalek. Yes, Maureen Spalek was arrested once more for the horrific crime of sending a birthday card to her son. The son she painfully brought into this world. The son whose diapers she changed. The son who she fed and taught to walk. The son who was unlawfully kidnapped by the State.
 
Undoubtedly, as we speak, the police have placed surveillance on Maureen’s home (probably similar to the surveillance that tipped them off to the change of heart experienced by the now dead Nurse and her dead killer) where they monitor her night-time prayers for any mention of the names of her kidnapped children.
 
Still a third case has come to my attention. This one involves a Joseph Wallace, who demanded that the City of Glasgow explain to him why his son was permitted to be supervised by a State employee with a record of child molestation. It appears that Joseph’s son was also victimized by this animal. The Glasgow city attorney responded that the matter really wasn’t their concern and implied that somehow, if this employee they apparently hired to work around children, had child molestation in his past, it was Joseph’s duty and not theirs to discover it.
 
We can see now the genuine concern that our politicians have for our children. They are hard at work throwing journalists like Robert Green, or birthday card senders, like Maureen Spalek, in jail. Apparently they cannot afford to provide either Robert or Maureen with legal counsel because their lawyers are to busy helping to orchestrate a cover-up so horrific it defies imagination.
 
The only weapon we the people have is exposure. Please donate and help make this happen. Every penny will go towards helping publicize the Hollie Greig and Maureen Spalek case all across the internet.  

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

LEBENSBORN PROGRAM PTII: NAZI KIDNAPPING OF CHILDREN


Family Court Injustice

 Family Court Injustice has been documenting historical events and real life stories of children stolen from their families by unjust courts or through government and judicial policies and/or abuses of power. This article about the Lebensborn Program (1935-1945), Nazi Occupied Europe gives a glimpse into the Nazi eugenics program to create a “master race” that also included kidnapping and murder in it’s policies. 

“Lebensborn” meaning “fount of life” was a secret program implemented by the Nazis (1935-1945) with the goal of engineering a “master race”. Another part of Lebensborn included ridding the population of those considered “unwanted” or “subhuman” to further the Aryan race. The official purpose of Lebensborn was the “preservation and promotion of racially valuable Germanic hereditary property”.

Part I of the Lebensborn series includes information on women selected as “racially pure” who were chosen to bear children with SS officers and other Nazi officials. Most…

View original post 948 more words

The Real Story On What Happend With Corrupt DCF


Vermont DCF Social Workers Are Kidnapping Your Kids?

 

 

To all the fine people looking at this blog. Please feel free to comment on how you feel about DCF.

Good or bad your post will be shown! 

 

Also I would like to say thank you for signing the petition. And voting in the poll

 

 

The Story of the Redacted Family in Vermont

 

In the beginning

On or about September 14, 2006 Redacted‘s son was hit in the head with a full bottle of water thrown from behind him on the school bus(Yes, this is what started this entire mess. Long lost and forgotten about)

Redacted‘s son came home rubbing his head with a large lump on his head.  When he got off the bus, Father asked his son why he was rubbing his head. He said that he was hit with a bottle- The same bottle that rolled down the steps when…

View original post 3,663 more words

CPS Handbook Revision, February 2015


Angel Eyes Over Texas

Note: This month’s changes is a bit different than we are used to. They replaced the COMPLETE  7000 section dealing with “Foster and Adoptive Home Development

You may access the 7000 table of contents here or start reading the text here.

________________________________________________________________________________________

This revision of the Child Protective Services Handbook was published on February 2, 2015. Summaries of new or revised items are provided below.

7000 Foster and Adoptive Home Development (PATS 7452)

The 7000 section of the CPS handbook is replaced in its entirety. Information has been updated and reorganized.

Several policy alerts have been combined and published together:

Intermittent Alternate Care (PATS 4417)

Screening and Verifying Foster and Adoptive Homes (PATS 5423)

Home and Family Assessment Process (PATS 5424)

Staff were informed of these policies with the release of PSAs:

13-001 (10/1/2012) and

13-021 (12/17/2012).

Developing Foster and Adoptive Homes (PATS 5425)

Checking Criminal Records…

View original post 12 more words

WHERE IS THE MILITIA ON THIS ONE?|FOSTER CARE FRAUD KILLS SIX YEAR OLD GIRL IN MINNESOTA


WHERE IS THE MILITIA ON THIS ONE?

FOSTER CARE FRAUD KILLS SIX YEAR OLD GIRL IN MINNESOTA

 IF YOU TURN YOUR HEAD AWAY AND REFUSE TO “CLICK ON THIS LINK”  BELOW (AS A MATTER FACT, ALL OF THEM) AND BEAR THE SUFFERING OF YOUR OWN SPIRIT AND REAL FAMILY, MAY GOD HELP YOU AND MAY HE FIND YOU (OUT) NOW!  GOD HAS HIS OWN LIST.   KNOW THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT, BUT Rather that  IMMINENT AND PRESENT DANGER YOUR KID’S FUTURE is at “Stake” as the “Community Partners” have certainly claimed it without your knowledge or consent.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/minnesota-girl-6-killed-jump-rope-article-1.2079134

SOURCE:  DAILY NEWS (NY), Minnesota girl, 6, found dead with jump rope as noose in possible suicide,Minn. RACHELLE BLIDNER, January 15, 2015 (Thurs.); See also  star tribune-west metro, Did 6-year-old Brooklyn Park girl kill herself? Police wonder, DAVID CHANEN and BRANDON STAHL , Star TribunUpdated: January 14, 2015 – 11:04 PM, http://www.startribune.com/

Kendrea Johnson was discovered in her Brooklyn Park foster home bedroom with a jump rope tied around her neck and a note in purple marker on the floor saying, ‘I’m sorry.'”

Even gangsters and cold-hearted killers know the rules about children!  Take a lesson below if ya’ didn’t know.

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

https://www.youtube.com/user/docssupportgroup (and while we’re on the subject, and since the censor criminals took this video down, too, here in its ENCORE feature presentation).  Burn the image into your skull and remember for the next time a cop or a judge or social worker tries to tell you what to do instead of the other way around.  RIP KENDREA AND LITTLE “LOOKIE-POOKIE!” IN THIS LIFE, YOU WERE LOVED AND YOU ARE MISSED! I CRY FOR YOUR MOMMY AND DADDY.

 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Thursday, January 15, 2015, 10:39 AM
Updated: Thursday, January 15, 2015, 11:31 AM
 

And the mainstream media, government, and the Highest Court in all the Land want Real, natural-born America citizens of this Republic USA, “sovereign” and “elect” to believe that sodomy, transgender sensitivity, “PTSD,” gay rights, rigged electronic elections, social media, text messages, skinny jeans, Alzheimer’s disease, racial tensions, animal rights, and recycling are more important than the life (and he/r real mommy and daddy’s and brother and uncles’ memory of such life) of this beautiful little six-year old child, Kendrea Johnson who lived in Minnesota in foster care who was without a doubt kidnapped, tortured, used and abused six ways to Sunday without any other cause but for he/r innocence, youth, and power of purity of heart the ESSENCE born of the HOLY SPIRIT [ DRAMATIC PAUSE HERE FOR SPEECHLESS SUSPENSION OF BELIEF] are more newsworthy, important, and “worthy of living” (citing to Eugenicist Social Darwinism pedophiliac experimental SS social services DEGENERATE CRIMINALS IN GOVERNMENT STEALING MY REAL PROPERTY LIKE THE DAY THEY STOLE MY LITTLE BOY FOR FUNDING, BRIBES, AND SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS AND THE NEW AGENDA ON MAY 08, 2012, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON, LET US BE REAL CLEAR ON THAT POINT, AND GAVE HIM TO AN ALLEGED PEDOPHILE ACTUALLY OR OF THEIR OWN CONSPIRATORIAL ART WHO WILL AS A MATTER OF FACT BE EIGHT YEARS OLD IN TWO DAYS                  PROPAGANDIZED NONSENSE (CONSTRUCTIVELY AND PERHAPS MORE WELL-SPOKEN–BULL SH_ T) ?

THIS REAL MUMMY, FOR LITTLE KENDREA AND HE/R FAMILY AND LITTLE BROTHER, AGE 1, STILL STUCK WITH THESE ALFRED KINSEY, PEDO-SADISTIC LOW-LIFE PIGS GETTING PAID TO RUIN THIS REPUBLIC USA (NOTICE THE WORD DEMOCRACY WAS SPECIFICALLY NOT HEREIN USED AS THIS WOULD PROVE INFILTRATION AND HIGH TREASON NECESSITATING THE NEW NUREMBERG TRIALS THAT WILL SET OUR CHILDREN FREE), BECKONS AND CRIES AND SCREAMS OUT WITH RIGHTEOUS ANGER TO THE REAL PATRIOTS OF THIS REAL AMERICA TO ACT IMMEDIATELY AND TO TAKE NO PRISONERS–DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $100,000 OR THE $20,000 JUDICIAL RATE FOR LEGAL KIDNAPPING (OTHER GREASE MONEY EXCLUSIVE), GET ON THOSE HORSES FROM THE BUNDY RANCH, PUT ON YOUR HATS, BOOTS, AND SPURS, HIGH HEELS, SPIKED HEELS, RIDE UP TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, AND STAND-UP FOR WHAT EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FAILED TO DO FOR KENDREA, HE/R BROTHER, AND HE/R MOTHER (IT DOESN’T SAY WHERE HE/R “RESPONSIBLE” FATHER WAS OR IF SHE EVER KNEW HIM AND LET THAT NOT BE THE CAUSE OF PROPAGANDA TO TAKE MORE CHILDREN FROM FIT UNMARRIED MOTHERS UNDER THE GUISE OF TRADITIONAL FAMILY RIGHTS LEST I HAVE TO HUNT YOU DOWN AND GIVE YOU A GET IT RIGHT WITH GOD MEETING MYSELF)!

CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments; SS Medical Psych Abuse Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW874zRAeC0&feature=player_detailpage

Dr. Judith Reisman and the Alfred Kinsey Problem (Video)|PEDOPHILIA AND NAZI AND US EXPERIMENTS ON SMALL CHILDREN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3QOd7M0l9M

http://www.drjudithreisman.org/

Source: Uploaded to Youtube.com by Duke Kraza on June 13, 2013

P.S. THANK YOU TO MY OWN DAD FOR SENDING THIS ARTICLE TO ME YESTERDAY.  “TAKE HEART AND HAVE COURAGE” AND JUDGE NOT LEST YOU TOO SHALL BE SO JUDGED! (THE HOLY BIBLE, ALL REAL VERSIONS)

TO MY SON’S FATHER AND THEIR ENTIRE WORRELL (MATT/MATTHEW JAMES WORRELL, DIANE M. WORRELL, NANCY G./GRAY WORRELL AND FAMILY, BRIAN AND CAREY WORRELL, JOHN KENNETH WORRELL, SR., JR., DEE WORRELL, JAMIE WILKES, AND THEIR NEGLECT-TO-PROTECT REAL ESTATE FRAUD _______ (FILL-IN-THE-BLANK WITH EXPLETIVE OF CHOICE HERE, REAL MOMMIES AND DADDIES SO LIKE-MINDED AND WATCHING FROM AFAR RIGHT NOW, AND NOT ALL OF THEM SO “WEAK” AND VULNERABLE) FAMILY NEAR HOUSTON, TEXAS WHO PLANNED TO “SUBJECT” MY SON, STILL HELD HOSTAGE AFTER 2 1/2 YEARS BY THEM, TO THIS SAME FOSTER CARE CUSTODY-SWITCHING, OH, HE’LL ONLY BE THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE SCAM, I SAY THIS: YOU ARE REALLY BANKING ON THE HOPE AND PRAYER THAT I’M NOT CRAZIER THAN THE LIKES OF ALL OF YOU.

 

 

DEMENTED NURSE STEALS BABY FROM YOUNG MOTHER (VIDEO, 4 MIN.)


DEMENTED NURSE STEALS BABY FROM YOUNG MOTHER

(VIDEO, 4 MIN.)

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

Source: Demented NURSE STEALS BABY from young Mother: <a href="/channel/UCfBr21xeYUUpC5ZQMmpZnzg" class=" yt-uix-sessionlink     spf-link  g-hovercard" data-sessionlink="ei=sEy3VIDAJ4KIrQbHrICQAg" data-ytid="UCfBr21xeYUUpC5ZQMmpZnzg" data-name="">CESSqc</a>CESSqc, published on Youtube.com , Social service crimes researchers @ [SSEC] Social Service economic crimes (research)March 07, 2011

Shannon Lybarger the mother of stolen baby girl “Alivia Hanson” declares an affidavit on video.

Posted By:
Social service crimes researchers @
[SSEC] Social Service economic crimes (research),

Standard YouTube License

 

 

 

History

 

THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN REPORT 2004, 2006|TEXAS COMPTROLLER CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN


forgotten children

THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN REPORT

by (former) TEXAS COMPTROLLER,

CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN

(2004, 2006 Rev.)

FORGOTTEN CHILDREN.Carole-Keeton-Strayhorn-Texas-Comptroller-Forgotten-Children-2004

FORGOTTEN CHILDREN UPDATE.2006.hccfoster06

Fair Use and Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Censorship is a crime.  When the government acts as a criminal, law-abiding man/(wo)man–American ‘citizens’–are not expected to act the same” (paraphrase) (Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S., 1926).

(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 u.S. 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 its incorporated, our, 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.

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.

CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments; SS Medical Psych Abuse Network (VIDEO)| BRENDA SCOTT


CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments;

SS Medical Psych Abuse Network (VIDEO)

By: Brenda Scott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UW874zRAeC0

Source: CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments; SS Medical Psych Abuse Network,

CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments; SS Medical Psych Abuse Network (VIDEO)


CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments; SS Medical Psych Abuse Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW874zRAeC0&feature=player_detailpage

Source:

CPS Arizona Used Foster Children in Perverted Sex Experiments; SS Medical Psych Abuse Network, Published to Youtube.com by mamasuntwinkle on November 29, 2012, standard youtube license applies

CPS PROFITS DESTROYING AMERICA (SHORT VIDEO)


CPS PROFITS DESTROYING AMERICA (SHORT VIDEO)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkt5zeYQ7-A&feature=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y73nFp0Y19c&feature=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNyjROnzyy0&feature=player_detailpage

Uploaded on Mar 28, 2011

Part 1/2. New Info March 26, 2011. Ga Sen Nancy Schaefer + Husband Killed W Mysterious Gun, GBI Destroys Evidence, Closes “Suicide” Case. OpEdNews. Garland-Favorito. Former Sen Nancy Schaefer lived the last couple of years of her life dedicated to helping children and families. Mrs. Schaefer had found during the last few years that:
– Georgia housed children in a foster home with a known pedophile who molested the children.
– Habersham County failed to remove six children from a home where they were being abused and tortured.
– Georgia turned two girls over to a California father who had a pornographic video business.

THE MURDER WEAPON – The findings in the case file would be highly convincing except for one major problem never before reported. The Schaefers were NOT killed with the small caliper gun that the family knew they owned. They were killed with a HIGHER CALIPER, UNTRACEABLE WEAPON that no family member had ever seen before. The weapon was originally shipped to a dealer in a remote part of southern Florida in 1982 and the ownership records have since been destroyed, possibly as a result of a natural disaster. The case file was unable to establish how the Schaefers, who lived in Georgia during the 1980s, acquired the murder weapon. It also contains no explanation as to why Bruce would not use the gun he already owned to commit the crime, but instead acquire another gun that just happened to be untraceable.
THE AUTOPSY REPORT – . . . notes show that Bruce wrote them after shooting Nancy and it would have taken hours for him to write and assemble the material for the notes before he shot himself.
THE ALLEGED FINANCIAL MOTIVE –
THE VIDEO – The metro Atlanta area has been nationally ranked as the largest center in the country for child sex trafficking. Most are also unaware that Sen. Schaefer was a national leader in the fight against related child abuse and perversion in government run, Child Protective Services (CPS). The GBI was repeatedly informed that Nancy was wrapping up a video documentary, a possible book and other supporting references on the subject. She told friends that this work would expose corruption in Georgia’s Dept of Family and Child Services (DFACS) and that several high profile, powerful Georgia politicians would be implicated. These people would have the means and incentive to prevent her work from being produced. While the GBI documented case inquiries from the general public there is no documentation of the inquiries received from government officials.
The GBI collected little information about the work that Nancy Schaefer had done. They interviewed only one person who was involved in helping to produce the video documentary. They did not obtain a copy of the video or interview its producer, William Fain. They also did not attempt to retrieve the documentary from the producer even though the Schaefers had arranged funding for the video and the producer was not necessarily entitled to ownership rights.
THE THREATS –
THE LIMITED SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION –
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE – During the time from June to December of 2010 individuals, including myself, filed open records requests for reports but the requests were denied because the case was still open. When Special Agent Whidby wrote the Final Investigative Summary in December of 2010, the GBI had destroyed all items that were seized or created at autopsy. They then completed closing the case in February of 2011 and made the file available.
THE OLD AND NEW UNANSWERED QUESTIONS –
CONCLUSION – The limited investigative scope is appalling considering the high profile circumstances surrounding the Schaefers’ deaths. Case file evidence mentioned in this report illustrates that the GBI was unwilling to investigate the case to the point where they could rule out professional assassination. They also destroyed all items seized or created at autopsy so now their actions can never be reviewed or questioned. Their conduct raises a legitimate question as to whether or not they could have been compromised or manipulated by officials implicated in former Nancy Schaefer’s documentary and materials. Their investigation may even become more questionable than the killings themselves.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Scha…

Nancy Schaefer Report 2007: The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services http://www.scribd.com/doc/45322760/Th…

Posted in accordance with U.S.C. Title 17 Chap 1 Sec 107 Fair use, for purposes of education, activism, criticism, research. No profit or monies solicited.

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

KENTUCKY’S ADOPTION HALL OF SHAME: IN LOVING MEMORY OF AMY DYE, AGE 9


 KENTUCKY’S ADOPTION HALL OF SHAME:

IN LOVING MEMORY OF AMY DYE,

AGE 9

http://www.reformtalk.net/2011/11/08/how-could-you-hall-of-shame-amy-dye-case-updated-child-death/

How Could You?

Hall of Shame-Amy Dye Case

UPDATED-Child Death

By on 11-08-2011 in Abuse in adoption, Abuse in foster care, Amythz “Amy” Dye, Garret Dye, How could you? Hall of Shame, Kentucky, Kimberly Dye, Kinship Adoption, Washington

How Could You? Hall of Shame-Amy Dye Case UPDATED-Child Death

This will be an archive of heinous actions by those involved in child welfare, foster care and adoption. We forewarn you that these are deeply disturbing stories that may involve sex abuse, murder, kidnapping and other horrendous actions.
From Todd County, Kentucky, it was finally revealed on November 7, 2011 that 9-year-old adoptee Amythz “Amy” Dye was killed on February 4, 2011 by Garrett Dye, 17, Amy’s adoptive brother. Amy was adopted from foster care into this house of horrors.

Garrett “pleaded guilty Oct. 21 [2011] in Todd Circuit Court to murdering her on Feb. 4 by beating her in the head with a jack handle. At the time, she was outside on a cold, snowy evening shoveling gravel as punishment for stealing pudding and juice from a friend’s lunch box at school,” according to Courier-Journal. Garrett, prosecuted as an adult, will be sentenced on November 23, 2011. The Lexington Herald-Leader reports “The recommended sentence is 50 years.” “Guiling said the teen offered no explanation for killing the vivacious 9-year-old, saying “I just don’t know, sir,” when the judge asked him why he did it.”

The Courier-Journal reports “A Franklin Circuit Court judge blasted state officials Monday for ignoring suspected prior abuse of a 9-year-old Western Kentucky girl beaten to death by her adoptive brother, saying they turned a “blind eye” to repeated reports of her horrific mistreatment.

In his second such order in four days, Judge Phillip Shepherd ordered the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to release records of child abuse death investigations.”

“Shepherd’s ruling comes after The Todd County Standard sought records from the cabinet about reports of suspected abuse or neglect involving Amy. The cabinet refused to provide the records to the newspaper, initially claiming it had none; but then, after acknowledging it did have records, it claimed they were exempt from open records law.”

We reported in one of our first posts and in detail in March (with an update in August) that Kentucky is known for routinely denying public access to information about abuse and death in the foster care system. Both major newspapers have filed suits to gain access via the Open Records Act about 44 child abuse cases or deaths in foster care that occurred in the past few years.

The Courier-Journal reports “The order notes cabinet officials had approved Amy’s adoptive home in

Todd County, with Kimberly Dye, after removing her from her birth parents because of “severe neglect and sexual abuse.”

“An innocent, nine-year-old girl was brutally beaten to death after enduring months of physical and emotional abuse in a home approved by the Commonwealth of Kentucky for her adoption,” Shepherd wrote.

Cabinet officials received the order Monday and are reviewing it, said spokeswoman Jill Midkiff.

Amy’s Adoptive Mother Kimberly and Trail of Abuse and Neglect

“After Amy’s death, police found the girl’s clothes in a dresser in a trailer outside the house, Shepherd’s order said. It said Amy sometimes soiled her clothes because of poor bowel control, and when she did, her adoptive mother — as punishment — forced her to go outside for clean clothes.”

“In the five years before Amy’s death, reports of suspected abuse or neglect “flooded in,” starting the year after she was adopted by Kimberly Dye, Shepherd’s order said. Some of the reports came from school officials, including a school nurse, and some said she was being beaten by other children in the home. Yet state social workers performed cursory inquiries and took no action, his order said.”

Kimberly Dye, who shared the home with her ex-husband, Christopher, could not be reached for comment. The family’s phone has been disconnected.

In another case, the cabinet got a report from a school nurse that the girl had a thumbprint on her face. Amythz said one of her brothers had done it, but that Dye had said she would spank the girl if she told anyone, the nurse reported.

The cabinet took no action to protect the girl despite the reports, despite knowing she was in a home with an adult it had said abused another child, despite knowing one of her adoptive brothers had drug problems and had been caught taking a gun to school, the ruling said.”

Judge: Social workers ignored reports of abuse before slaying of 9-year-old
[Lexington Herald-Leader 11/7/11 by Bill Estep]

Update: “It seemed like a storybook ending to a troubled life: 5-year-old Amy Dye, removed from her Washington home two years earlier and shuffled among relatives and foster care, had a chance for adoption by a relative in Kentucky.

The reports cited by Shepherd included a May 2, 2007, letter from a school nurse detailing six separate reports she made of suspected abuse to Amy. The nurse reported injuries such as severe bruises, thumbprints on the girl’s face and scraped and peeling skin.

The nurse said Amy told her she had been hurt by another child in the home and her mother threatened to spank her if she told anyone. Amy then lived with two adoptive brothers, Garrett Dye, and an older brother not identified in Shepherd’s order.

The order said most of the abuse allegations involved the older brother, not Garrett Dye.

The cabinet dismissed the complaints as “child against child” altercations or accepted Kimberly Dye’s explanation that Amy fell or that the girl “bruises easily and plays rough with her brothers,” the order said.

“It is stunning to believe that the cabinet will refuse to protect a child from repeated acts of physical violence when the parent knows of and tolerates such abuse and does nothing to prevent it,” Shepherd’s order said. “Yet that is exactly what happened here.”

State blasted on Western Kentucky girl’s slaying
[Courier-Jounral 11/7/11 by Deborah Yetter]

had approved the little girl’s adoption even though it had substantiated an earlier case of abuse in the home, according to Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip J. Shepherd.”

It also reveals the relationship of Amy to Kimberly. “The girl was Dye’s great-niece. Dye had two sons who were 10 years older and eight years older than Amythz. She was divorced, but her ex-husband, Christopher, moved back in at some point.

The cabinet had substantiated that Christopher Dye physically abused one of his sons in 2003.”

Specifics of abuse are revealed: “Shepherd said the cabinet received at least eight (8) reports from credible sources of suspected abuse to Amythz. Those included reports that one of her brothers had, at various times, thrown her across a bed and kicked her, shot her in the arm with a BB gun, and hit her in the head with a shovel, the ruling said.

Cabinet employees called Kimberly Dye about the reports at times. In one case when an employee called to ask about reports of bruises on the girl’s face, Dye admitted telling the girl not to tell anyone, according to Shepherd’s ruling.

This article gives a clearer statement that some of the abuse Amy suffered occurred before Kimberly Dye adopted her, yet the adoption still went through. “The Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Her great-aunt, Kimberly Dye, asked to take Amy into her Todd County home, saying she had always wanted a daughter and that her greatest pleasure was to “bask in the joy of motherhood.

Her two sons, Kimberly Dye said, were excited about having a younger sister and had agreed to share a bedroom to give Amy her own room.

“We’re so happy you are going to be a part of our family,” Dye and her sons, Myles and Garrett, said in a 2006 letter to Amy.

That image was shattered earlier this year when 17-year-old Garrett killed Amy, a slender 9-year-old with caramel skin and bright blue eyes, beating her to death with a jack handle. Garrett, now 18, is awaiting sentencing Wednesday for murder.”

“As part of his order, Shepherd placed the entire cabinet file in the court record. It includes Amy’s adoption records, multiple reports of alleged abuse and the cabinet’s investigation after her death.

During her time with the Dyes, Amy repeatedly showed up at school with bumps, bruises and abrasions and was once briefly abandoned in a hotel parking lot for misbehaving, the records said. In the months before her death on Feb. 4, according to the records, she was forced to go outside in freezing weather to fetch clean clothes as punishment for incontinence.

At the same time, problems had mounted for Garrett Dye, who got in trouble for taking a gun to school and spent time in a state juvenile center in 2009 for a drug violation, the records said.

And though Kimberly Dye identified herself as divorced and a single mother when the cabinet investigated her home and approved Amy’s adoption, records show her ex-husband, Christopher Dye, later moved in and was active in the care and discipline of all three children.

This occurred despite the fact the state had found that Christopher Dye had beaten Garrett with a belt in 2003, Shepherd’s order noted.

“The files contain no indication the cabinet ever took notice of the fact that the same household in which (Amy) was reportedly being abused was the same household in which the cabinet had previously substantiated abuse,” Shepherd’s order said.

Cabinet officials have fought efforts to release records in the case first sought by the Todd County

Standard, the weekly newspaper in the Western Kentucky county near the Tennessee border.

Friday, cabinet spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said state social service officials work hard to protect children and that “It is a tragedy any time a child dies.”

“We support the work of our staff when they follow the law, even when tragic events happen that could not have been foreseen,” Midkiff said. “When staff does not follow the law, we take appropriate disciplinary action.”

Kimberly Dye, 46, could not be reached for comment. Christopher Dye, 41, said neither he nor Kimberly Dye wished to comment. Neither has been charged.

Todd Commonwealth’s Attorney Gail Guiling told the Todd County Standard that she is waiting for law enforcement to present results of any further investigation to her.

Amy’s paternal grandmother, Kris Richard, of Moses Lake, Wash., said she was horrified by news reports that Kentucky child-welfare officials had dismissed earlier allegations of mistreatment in the Dye home.

“I am so angry that any of this took place,” Richard said, adding that her poor health prevented her

from adopting Amy. “I’m sickened, just sickened by this whole thing.”

Amy’s Life

Born Amythz “Amy” Rayne Lewis in Portland, Ore., in 2001, Amy was premature and weighed less than 4 pounds at birth.

When she was 3, state authorities removed her from her mother, Sharmesha Muldrew, and placed her for a time with Kris Richard, whose son is Amy’s father, according to the adoption records.

Richard said her son suffered a brain injury before Amy’s birth and was not involved the child’s life or able to care for her. Richard said she wanted to adopt Amy but was advised against it by her physician because of her health problems, including heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.

Muldrew, who lives near Portland, said in a phone interview that she was shocked by the circumstances of her daughter’s death and angry to learn that state officials knew of alleged abuse in the home earlier but did not remove Amy.

Records show Muldrew lost custody of Amy because of domestic violence in her home and agreed to have her rights to Amy terminated in 2005.

“They didn’t do nothing for her,” Muldrew said of Kentucky officials. “She slipped through the cracks.”

In addition to her stay with Richard, Amy went through several foster placements in Washington before Kimberly Dye, who is related through Amy’s father, offered to adopt her, according to records.

Washington child-welfare officials enlisted Kentucky officials to check out the Dye home and oversee Amy’s stay as a foster child, as well as her eventual adoption.

Records show Kimberly Dye received $551.60 per month from the state as an “adoption subsidy” for taking Amy.

At the time of the adoption, Kimberly Dye, then divorced, was a single mother living in Trenton, Ky., with her two sons. She told Kentucky officials she and her ex-husband had a good relationship but that he did not live in the home, the records said.

Christopher Dye was known to social service officials because of a 2003 incident before the divorce in which he was found to have abused Garrett — then 10 — by giving him “thirty licks” with a belt for misbehaving at school, according to the records.

School officials made a report to the cabinet after seeing bruises on the boy, the records said. The cabinet subsequently closed the case with no further action.

Kentucky officials approved Kimberly Dye as a foster-adoptive parent in July 2006, and Amy moved into the Dye home. The adoption became final on March 14, 2007, and the state closed its case on the family, the adoption records say.

That same month, the first report of suspected abuse of Amy came to the cabinet — one of a series reported by officials at her school, South Todd Elementary. In future months, the officials would report bumps, bruises and reports from Amy that her brothers had hurt her, the records show.

But social service officials either declined to investigate or declared the allegations unfounded, after Kimberly Dye told them that Amy was “clumsy,” fell frequently, bruised easily and sustained injuries when she “plays rough” with her brothers, according to the records.

She also told workers Amy lied and was an unreliable source, the records said.

Beaten to death

Teachers interviewed after Amy’s death described her as bright, with excellent grades and “no behavior problems at all,” the records said.

But on Feb. 4, the day she died, a teacher reported that Amy came to school upset because she had been caught taking juice and pudding from a friend’s lunchbox the previous day.


She said her parents were angry and had threatened to send her away from home, the records sai

“They stated they had never seen Amy so upset before,” the social worker’s report said.

That evening, Christopher Dye sent Amy and Garrett outside to shovel gravel as punishment, Amy for taking the food and her brother for driving his car without permission. Garrett Dye told police he became angry at the girl for chattering, the records said.

“The next thing he knew, he had hit Amy four times in the head with the jack handle, and she was laying on the ground,” according to a social worker’s interview with a state police detective.

According to the records, Garrett told police he dragged the body into some bushes and “ran inside the home and changed into clean clothes and hid his bloody clothes.”

When Amy didn’t return to the home that night, the Dyes reported her missing to police, who found her body after searching the property, according to the records. Garrett Dye was charged with Amy’s murder two days later.

In the months before her death, Christopher and Kimberly Dye had forced Amy to go outside in freezing weather to get clean clothes when she accidentally soiled herself because of bowel problems, according to records. After her death, police found all the d

rawers from her dresser containing her clothes outside on a trailer under a tarp, the records said.

The social worker’s report said Kimberly Dye reportedly was tired of Amy “pooping on herself” and said “if she was going to act like a dog, she would be treated like one,” according to the records.

The records also detail an incident last January in which Christopher Dye admitted that about a month before Amy’s death he took her to a hotel in Clarksville, Tenn., and left her alone in the parking lot to punish her for misbehavior.

“He thought this would be a good time to teach Amy a lesson,” the social worker’s report said.

Christopher Dye said he only left her for about a minute, then returned and found Amy “scared, upset and crying,” the records said. The records said he told Amy that if she didn’t improve her behavior, “this is what’s going to happen.”

That incident prompted Kentucky social service officials to substantiate a finding of child neglect against Christopher Dye for being an “inattentive caregiver” and using “unusual discipline.” Records show he was notified of the finding Aug. 11, six months after Amy’s death. State officials closed the case with no further action planned, the records said.

Richard, Amy’s grandmother, said she is haunted by thoughts of “what that poor baby went through.”

And she said she still has this question: “What’s going to happen to the state of Kentucky?”

The brutal death of Amy Dye: Kentucky social workers ignored months of abuse, records show
[Louisville Courier-Journal 11/19/11 ]

“Garrett Dye will spend 50 years in prison for killing his adopted sister, Todd Circuit Judge Tyler Gill announced this morning.

On his attorney’s advice, Dye, 18, turned down his chances to speak on his own behalf and enter a written statement in his pre-sentencing investigation. His attorney, Dennis Ritchie, also declined to make any presentation. Ritchie plans to appeal the case with the Kentucky Supreme Court, and any statements they made might hurt their case, Ritchie said.”
Garrett Dye receives 50-year sentence
[Kentucky New Era 11/23/11 by Nick Tabor]

Commentary: “The Lexington Courier-Journal reported in late November that 18- year- old Garrett Dye was sentenced to 50 years for the murder of his adopted sister, Amy Dye, who was 9- years-old. Amy was removed from her mother in Washington state at the age of three. For two years she was

Update 2: Garrett Dye sentenced to the recommended 50 years in prison.

shuffled between foster homes and relatives. Finally, at the age of five, her great aunt petitioned to adopt her, a seemingly happy ending to her ordeal. She came to Kentucky first as a foster child, into a home approved by state authorities, and then as an adopted daughter. The aunt received $550.60 a month to support the adoption.

What the state failed to do was verify that her new home would be a safe one. As is too often the case government workers did a shoddy job of keeping her safe. Across the nation kids under state protection, both in foster care and in cases of abuse that involve families, are at great risk of harm. In Amy’s case the warning signs were evident early on. Reports by school officials of suspected abuse were sent to the agency that is charged with protecting kids in Kentucky, but they went unheeded or were dismissed. School officials gave notice that they suspected abuse within a month of Amy’s adoption, but nothing was done. The judge, Tyler Gill, labeled the state’s Cabinet of Health and Family Services a “dysfunctional institution.

Garrett, who was 17 at the time of the murder, had also been abused by his father at age 10. This was substantiated by the Cabinet, but no action was taken. The same abuser was living in the house when Amy was killed. Records show that the adoptive parents, Christopher and Kimberly Dye forced the girl to go outside in freezing weather because she soiled herself. The “mother”, according to state reports, was tired of the girl’s incontinence. Christopher Dye also admitted to abandoning the girl in a parking lot in order to teach her a lesson.

On the snowy night of February 4th when Amy was killed, she and Garrett were outside shoveling gravel as punishment for “misbehaving.” Garrett confessed to becoming angry at her and beating her with a pick handle. Both he, as a victim of confirmed abuse, and Amy, as a foster child and then as an adoptee were supposedly being protected by the state. The same state paid Kimberly Dye.

According to AdoptUSkids, nearly 500,000 kids in the United States are in foster care. These kids are more likely to have academic problems, behavioral issues, mental illness, sexually transmitted  diseases, and to suffer abuse. A 2009 report by the Center for Family Policy and Research estimated that 1,770 kids died from abuse and neglect that year.

An article in Enough of Us (www.enoughof.us) claims that in California only 2 percent of foster kids attend college. One fourth end up in jail within two years of reaching adulthood. One in five become homeless. Good statistics are hard to come by, but during my time in prison I talked with many inmates who had been through the foster care systems of various states.

One in particular, Billy, told awful tales of his experiences as a foster kid in Maryland. He and his siblings were separated when he was five or so. In his first foster home he became sick at the dinner table and vomited. The foster father forced him to eat what he had just thrown up. He suffered abuse and neglect until he was old enough to run away. Finally he was sent to a juvenile facility. In Georgia he got locked up at age 16 and served 20 years. Another friend, Tim, was sent to a “Christian” orphanage in Kentucky. He was also around five. After his mother died he and his brothers and sister were all sent there. He was crying in the courtyard and the head of the orphanage picked him up by the ankle and began whipping him with a leather strap until he began to bleed. He stopped crying. As a teen he went on a robbery spree to fuel his drug habit.

These two were representative of a lot of guys I knew. They were angry at the world. They were poorly socialized. They trusted few people. They had learned to protect themselves the hard way, and they were ready to hurt others in order to do it. They were determined to never be defenseless again.

I imagine that most kids who are adopted or are in foster care don’t suffer these kinds of extremity,
and I have known several people who were fine foster parents. The idea of foster care is that kids are safer away from their parents than they are with them. The truth is that this is often not true.

Sometimes even a bad situation with family is better than the unknowns of an overburdened system.

For Amy, and for Garrett too, it is too late. Amy’s so called mother told the social worker that she was tired of Amy “pooping herself,” and that “if she was going to act like a dog, she would be treated like one.” This same woman continued to live with a proven abuser and allowed him to discipline the children. Somehow this home was seen as suitable by the state of Kentucky.”

When a State Fails to Protect a Child
[Juvenile Justice Information Exchange 12/2/11 by John Lash]

Update 3: Memorial to Amy Dye

Editor’s Note: Newspapers have battled with state government for the past two years on behalf of the citizens of Kentucky. The fight is over the right of the people to examine whether the state has been negligent in protecting children under its care who died as the result of child abuse or neglect. The issue is government transparency and public accountability.

The face of this fight has become Amy Dye, a 9-year-old in Elkton, in Todd County

few of us knew. A year ago, Amy was viciously murdered by her brother, who is now in prison. After Amy’s death, her hometown newspaper, the Todd County Standard and editor Ryan Craig sought the state’s investigative records so people who knew Amy and her family could learn whether the state had sufficiently protected her.

The Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader already were before Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd asking him to order the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to open its records in the case of the deaths or near-deaths of children under its protective care. The judge ordered the state to open its records. The state has appealed his decision on what information the cabinet can redact before records are released to the public.

No one should forget Judge Shepherd’s haunting words in his ruling opening the records of the cabinet’s investigation of Amy’s death. “This case presents a tragic example of the potentially deadly consequences of a child welfare system that has completely insulated itself from meaningful public scrutiny.”

In fact, the cabinet’s secrecy has obscured the fact that too many Kentucky children die every year (more than 270 between 2000-2009; the state had investigated reports of abuse or neglect in at least half of the cases before the child died. In one of those years, Kentucky led the nation in child abuse/neglect deaths with 41.)

The secrecy means citizens have no idea whether Kentucky has too few social workers, too little training for them, wrong procedures for identifying at-risk children, lack of support services for troubled homes, or contributing social and domestic issues that must be addressed.

The story of Amy’s death outraged a lot of Kentuckians, and already the state is making changes. The head of the cabinet and the commissioner over child protective services have resigned. The legislature has held hearings, and we have learned social workers have far too many cases to oversee. Gov. Steve Beshear has, despite the dire budget forecast, stopped cutting the cabinet’s budget and included $21 million more for social workers in his proposal for the coming fiscal biennium.

Journalists serve as watchdogs on behalf of citizens. That is what happened.

The heroes in this fight for government transparency and public accountability of the cabinet are Deborah Yetter, a reporter for the Courier-Journal who has persistently reported on the dire facts about at-risk children in this state; the newspapers who funded the efforts of their media lawyers to knock down the veil of secrecy, and Ryan Craig, a weekly newspaper editor in Todd County. It has been a fight waged in the name of Amy Dye and Kayden Branham, a toddler from Wayne County, and dozens of other children who died while under the protection of the state. It is a fight waged for the benefit of children who might yet be rescued if the state can protect them.

The following column, a letter to Amy Dye, was written on the anniversary of her death by Ryan Craig, the man who fought to find the truth, a newspaper editor, a husband and father of three children. It appeared originally in the Todd County Standard. — By Mike Farrell)

A Letter for Amy Dye: The world is a better place because of you

By Ryan Craig
Editor, Todd County Standard

Dear Amy:

We never met. Oh, I’m sure we were in the same building at your school at the same time or passed each other in the hall.

Still, though I didn’t know you then, I feel like I know you now.

I’m writing this letter on a warm, wet day, unlike the cold day you knew last Feb. 4.

It has been one year since …

Well, let me tell you a story. I was once at one of those church programs in Clarksville on Halloween where you walk through the building and they show you a bad thing that happened — this time it was a wreck — and then take you to room that looks like where the devil lives. It was a terrible, hot and dark place that seemed to take your breath away.

Then they take you across the hall and there is this beautiful garden and a small bridge across a little fake stream. It was cool. And I don’t know how they did it (it might have been because I just came from the other room), but I have never felt more comfortable in my life.

Then a man dressed like Jesus, and I knew it wasn’t Jesus, and I knew that everything in the room was there just to prove a point about the afterlife, but when it came my turn to hug the man dressed like Jesus, I hugged him so hard. It was like I had come home.

I wish I could ask you questions, Amy. I wish we could talk. I’d have so much to ask you about, but the first thing I would ask is, “How is the hug when you get there?”

I would also ask what it was like to go into the darkness. Were you scared? And how quick did the light come? How soon did you know that everything would be OK?

Amy, after you left us, there was a great disturbance back here. There was justice. There were questions asked in your name and the answers caused a shift all the way up to the governor of Kentucky.

A lot has been said and a lot has been done in your name. And maybe, with your help and the help of the one who gave you that welcoming hug, no harm will come to little girls and boys anymore. Oh, I know that is a lot to ask, but changing the hearts and minds of people had to start somewhere and it started with you, Amy.

It started with you.

You wouldn’t know this, but you have changed me. I took up something because of you that has caused some very important people to squirm mightily.

It has also caused a great number of people to look at what we can do about better protecting those who can’t protect themselves.

There was a great battle between the little newspaper in your hometown and the State of Kentucky, and eventually truth prevailed and we were able to put pressure on those who would not seek to help other boys and girls like you.

I’ve said this before, but a little girl (that’s you) from a little place went on to cause great things to happen, things that have never happened before.

Still, in the past year, I have often thought about you, Amy. I have thought about you when I see a great sunset. I thought about you when the spring came and the flowers bloomed and the birds really started to sing. I thought about you, Amy, when I saw children playing in the park. I thought about you when the leaves fell and the chill of fall came. I thought of you when I watched children try to build a snowman even though there wasn’t enough snow to make a decent one.

I thought of you then and many times more, but as much sadness that I have for you not being able to see or do such wonderful things again, I’m also happy that even without you here, the world is better because of you.

I’m also confident that all the confusion, all the fear, all the pain stopped and all things became new when you came to the garden and got your hug.

So, take care and thank you for treading softly across my old hard heart.

Your friend,

Ryan”
Remembering Amy Dye, a little girl, abused
and unprotected; her death will drive change

[Kentucky Forward 2/13/12]

REFORM Puzzle Pieces

Update 4: “Saying his confession was coerced, the Kentucky Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the conviction of a Kentucky teenager sentenced to 50 years for killing his adopted sister.

The state’s highest court ordered a new trial for 19-year-old Garrett Thomas Dye, who w

as convicted in 2011 of beating to death 9-year-old Amy Dye.

Dye’s case received statewide attention after court records revealed that child-welfare officials had ignored, or dismissed as unfounded, repeated reports of suspected abuse in the girl’s home. For youth advocates, Amy’s death has symbolized the failures of Kentucky’s child welfare system.

With all justices concurring, Justice Will T. Scott wrote in the order that police forced a confession from Dye by repeatedly telling him that he would be sentenced to death if he didn’t admit to killing his sister. Dye, who was 17 at the time, was not eligible for the death penalty because he was younger than 18.

The case now goes back to Todd County for a new trial. Additionally, the Supreme Court said the trial court must determine whether evidence seized after Dye’s coerced confession will be admissible at trial.

Todd County Commonwealth’s Attorney Gail Guiling did not return a phone call seeking comment. An attorney for Dye could not be located.

Records showed that Amy repeatedly showed up at school with bruises and abrasions and had once been briefly left alone in a hotel parking lot as a punishment. During the same time, the records show that Garrett Dye had gotten in trouble for taking a gun to school and spent time in a state juvenile center for a drug violation.

Amy’s body was found in the early hours of Feb. 5, 2011 after she was reported missing. She had last been seen in the driveway with Garrett Dye, where the two had been sent to shovel gravel as punishment. The girl’s body was found in a nearby thicket with blunt-force trauma to the head and face.

According to Thursday’s Supreme Court order, it was the next day that Garrett Dye, while being questioned by four officers, confessed that he’d murdered his sister. While his trial attorney tried to get his confession suppressed at trial, that motion was denied by Todd County Circuit Court Judge Tyler Gill.

Dye later pleaded guilty, but did not waive his right to appeal. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison for murder.

Dye’s appeal to the Supreme Court argued that his confession should not have been used against him because he was improperly questioned and denied counsel. The court agreed and cited several examples of Kentucky State Police officers using coercive tactics while questioning Dye.

Trooper Stu Recke, spokesman for Kentucky State Police Post 2, which handled the investigation, declined to comment on the court’s ruling. He said no officers were ever disciplined for their tactics in the case.

According to the court’s review, police repeatedly and incorrectly told Dye that he could be executed and after each reference told him that his only way to avoid that was to confess.

In one exchange cited in the court’s ruling, an officer told Dye: “I hate to see you at 17 years old go to the (penitentiary) for the rest of your life or spend the next 15 or 20 years of your life on death row. This is the only way you’re going to avoid that.”

The court ruled that “repeatedly threatening a 17-year-old with the death penalty is ‘objectively coercive.’”

Police also made references during Dye’s interrogation that he could be subject to prison violence because he’d murdered a young girl.

And the court ruled that the officers “continually dissuaded (Dye) from invoking his right to counsel.” The court said Dye did mention an attorney, but officers indicated he’d lose his chance to confess if an attorney was involved.

The court also said evidence seized following the confession could be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” But since prosecutors argue that the evidence would have been discovered even without a confession, the Supreme Court said a trial judge must decide whether that evidence could be used during a second trial.”

 

CRIME VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE GRANTS| CORRUPT TX


CRIME VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE GRANTS

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE?

Oh, Texas, you have been very naughty little boys and girls, haven’t you?  The evidence below.

Thanks for helping nobody but the greedy crooks in government preying on innocent little children and their loving, fit mommies and daddies.

I think the public should know what really happens when they call to use your “services,” don’t you?

They get hung-up on after being yelled at and threatened with and actually have their children taken and their lives ruined by corrupt SS social worker, CPS, cops, and judges defendant individuals, and all of them.

CRIME VICTIMS ASSISTANCE GRANTS.TXOAG

 

REPRESENTING PARENTS IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES 2005


REPRESENTING PARENTS IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES 2005

WARNING:

Don’t fall for the “mediation” at a child protective services court hearing or trial.  It is nothing more than a con to try to get the parent to “voluntarily” relinquish parental rights and yield the courts, judges, lawyers, cps, and prospective adoptive or foster parents or kinship care providers taxpayer money, lots  of it!

There are probably updates to this manual that author of this post has not searched for, but she thought it was important for you to be familiar with its existence and the language used therein.

Good luck!  Keep fighting!

CPS.REPRESENTING PARENTS IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES.2005.CJAParentManual

Source:  http://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/cppdr/resources/publications/CJAParentManual.pdf