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