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


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






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

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


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2004

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

                           September 23, 2004

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

         TITLE I--HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

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

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

SEC. 102. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

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

``SEC. 117. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

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

               ```PART C--RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM

 ```SEC. 441. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            TITLE II--EXTENSION OF TANF AND RELATED PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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




                                                       Calendar No. 714

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2830

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 23, 2004

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

Emily Joy Lake: Interstate Child Protective Services Fraud and Abuse Case


Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

Emily Joy Lake:
Interstate Child Protective Services Fraud and Abuse CaseBy Susan Detlefsen <motherinterrupted@motherinterrupted.us>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/susandetlefsenupdatesonemilylake20agu05.shtml
August 20, 2005http://www.motherinterrupted.us/Emily.htmOn Wednesday, August 17, Portland Judge Nan G. Waller (Nan.G.Waller@state.or.us) ordered Emily Lake to be sent to Michigan citing the uniform commercial code (UCC) which proves, does it not, that Emily is an item for income?Someone pointed out UCC refers rather to the uniform child protection act, but I’m not sure of that yet. Anyway, the point is, Emily was ordered sent back to Michigan. However, I just spoke with Roger Weidner who says Judge Waller has not yet signed the order, and that Lynnae Lake stayed down in Salem last night to keep fighting for her daughter through the Oregon Supreme Court.In spite of irrefutable evidence of fraud, collusion and outright lies, Portland Judge Nan Waller, without ever hearing from Emily Lake, ordered her to be turned over to Michigan authorities.Emily’s mother, Lynnae Lake <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>, had a visit with Emily on Monday, and stated, for the record, that her daughter told her she had been asked to withhold information about the CPS strategy from her mother, that she had been offered various gifts for her cooperation. In spite of this, Emily told her mother that she had been crying for her and asked when she could come home to her mother.

Emily told her mother during the Monday visit that her eyes were hurting her, but that DHS refused to take her to the hospital or to see a doctor.

Emily’s so-called attorney Lynn Haxton declined to speak on Emily’s behalf, and since Emily was not there, I asked Judge Waller if I could read a letter from Emily. “I object” was the only thing I heard Paxton say during the hearing. She objected to anyone communicating anything from Emily to the court. Why? Because she is involved in criminal racketeering, fraud and child exploitation.

One of the court watchers present today agreed to be the principal plaintiff in a lawsuit against Ms. Paxton for failure to represent Emily Lake, and for violating her right to safety and to a permanent home, with the mother she has lived with since birth, except for the period when Emily was 4 years old and she had been snatched and put in foster care by Michigan CPS–which is the reason Emily and her mom left Michigan in the first place.

“Dear Susan, My name is MJ (Emily apparently became aware of the underground nature of her existence here in Oregon and made up a name for herself, as her mother had done). I am a child between the age of 7 and 10. CPS is chasing us. We had to leave our home. I heard you are trying to stop CPS. Please help us too by telling people we want to go home. I want this to end. Love, MJ” This was the letter I received from Emily back in February when I started getting to know her and her mom, whom I knew as “Anne”. The letter, as well as some of Emily’s artwork, were left with Judge Waller to go into Emily Lake’s Oregon file.

Lisa Kaufman, Ms. Lake’s court-appointed attorney, did a pretty good job arguing her case, and fighting to have Emily released. She pointed out the community Emily had developed around her since moving to Oregon, as evidenced by the number of Emily’s supporters present in the courtroom. She cited various statutes pointing to the court’s obligation to look at Emily’s current situation and needs, and that the Michigan petition was not valid, since at the time it was served in Oregon, it was outdated.

In spite of all this, and overwhelming evidence, that no one in charge of Emily’s custody here, neither the attorney general (or district attorney) Springer, nor Emily’s caseworker, JD Devros, nor the girl’s own attorney, Lynn Haxton, have done anything to protect this child from abuse by Portland Police or medical neglect, in failing to have Emily seen by a doctor since she has been complaining about the pepper mace sprayed in her eyes.

Lynnae Lake left the Portland Juvenile Courthouse today for the federal building to try to get an injunction on Emily’s extradition back to Michigan.

August 17, 2005

Dear Emily,

I wanted you to know that [my daughter} and I came to try to say goodbye to you tonight. You were a bright light in my life while you were in Portland. I will never forget our trip to Mt. Hood, the Oregon Coast and the hike up to Multnomah Falls, and the evening I did all those different hairdos on you. I think I have photos of that somewhere.

I have your paintings, which are so precious to me. Thank you for leaving them with me.

Emily, if you don’t want me to have photos or paintings by you on my MotherInterrupted Web site, just tell me, and I will take them down. I want to hear that from you though, because many times I have received emails from CPS workers claiming to be “child x” wanting me to take down their Web page, then later I find out that the kid did not even know about the Web site until the state worker coerced them into agreeing to cooperate with scolding me about exposing their story. I am telling you this because you are old enough and smart enough to figure out what CPS is really all about, right?

I put this Web site up to let the world know what CPS is doing to all you kids, but your privacy is very important, so just let me know. I would need to hear directly from you before I take anything down, ok?

So many people are talking about you and your mom. I just got off the phone with Roger Brown, a renowned sociologist who has taken great interest in your case. He has proof that CPS is hurting kids like you by taking them from their parents.

You will be so proud of your mother someday. I wish you could have heard her today, and last Monday, taking on DHS, CPS, the district attorney and even the judge, in her fight to get them to let go of you. Your mother is still working on paperwork, right now. She is down in Salem, filing motions with the Oregon Supreme Court to try to get you back. She reminded me of a mama lion–and a very smart lion–going after a predator.

Alas, CPS is a very powerful institution, and it will take a good hard fight to get them to lay off the kids. My dream is to free the children someday of CPS.

I tried to leave a special teddy bear from Oregon for you to take back to Michigan, and one of your paintings I thought you might want to take with you as a souvenir of your time here in Portland. Of course, your captors would have nothing to do with me and ordered me to leave the building immediately. They don’t like me because I am telling the truth about what they are doing to kids and families.

Emily, I will miss you, little angel. Send me an email sometime.

Your friend forever,
MotherInterrupted
Emily in Oregon, February 2005, with “Sgt Pepper”.

See how “endangered” she was while in the custody of her mother in Oregon?

Emily is an artist. When she came to our house, Emily loved to use my water colors. I eventually gave her some water colors of her own. Here is my favorite painting by Emily.

One of my other favorites is the “pear people” painting, which is hanging across from my own giant pear painting, which I painted myself with a friend a couple years ago.

In February of 2005, Emily Lake and her mother “Anne” moved to Oregon to avoid being destroyed by Michigan CPS. I did not know the full details of their story until they were apprehended last Wednesday, August 10, 2005.

Monday, August 15, 2005: Emily finally gets a visit with her mom. Details of the visit are being kept confidential for now, so as not to compromise Emily and her mother’s case.

Monday, August 15, 2005: Lynae Lake challenges Michigan jurisdiction and makes a record of abuses against her and her daughter in Portland, Oregon

Today, at 1 p.m., after much confusion about whether or not there was going to be a hearing, Judge Nan Waller was put on speaker phone in Multnomah County Juvenile Court. Lynae Lake, aka Anne White, gave the most outstanding courtroom performance I have witnessed to date. I hope to put a full transcript of the hearing on my Web site.

Laying out the fraud behind the Michigan petition to take 9 year old Emily, and the pattern of retaliation against her for being an outspoken advocate for children’s rights in Michigan, Lynae Lake convinced those present that she is a loving, protective mother, and that she and her daughter were brutalized, on groundless charges and a groundless pick-up order for Emily, by Portland Police on August 10, 2005.

“You are violating my right to due process and you’re violating my daughter’s rights. Where is Emily? Why is she not here to speak for herself?”

95 year old Frances Weidner, mother of former prosecutor Roger Weidner, who had to be in Bend today and missed Emily’s hearing, spoke on behalf of Emily. “Where’s my Emily, where’s my princess?” Mrs. Weidner has been asking since Emily was violently kidnapped last Wednesday from the Weidner residence by Portland Police Sgt Charlie Brown. When she got up to the speaker phone, Mrs. Weidner addressed Judge Waller and all of us in the courtroom: “I told Emily, you’re going to be the Rose Festival Princess someday if you stay in Portland”.

When Emily’s mom pointed out that, until last Wednesday, Emily, who has been a resident of Oregon for over 6 months now, was leading a happy healthy life here in Portland and that she has many friends here, those of us there supporting the family spontaneously broke out in applause and cheers for Emily. We were clearly in contempt of court, though Judge Waller did nothing but listen. The court clerk, however, a nasty-tempered bureaucrat, apparently felt it necessary at that point to bring the guards in.

When it became clear that Judge Waller had apparently already made a decision about Emily prior to the hearing, Lynae protested: “this is just a play isn’t it? The script has already been written. This no hearing”. Judge Waller hesitated, then asked to have one of the attorneys look at the pick-up order for Emily. She asked for the expiration date, which stated “June 2005”. So, the only documentation that anyone had justifying anything that had happened to Emily and her mom since August 10, was expired.

Judge Waller set another hearing, for this Wednesday, August 17, at 11:00 a.m. to find out whether or not Michigan can renew their petition (which was based on fraud in the first place, as Lynae has already shown). Only Emily’s testimony can corroborate what the mother is saying.

For anyone reading this, please urge Judge Waller (Nan.G.Waller@state.or.us) to bring Emily into court Wednesday to speak on her own behalf.

When I questioned Emily’s attorney, Haxton, about this, she refused to answer any questions, and quickly stole out of the courtroom.

Dave Nyhoff is making calls to Michigan authorities to urge them not to renew any pick up order on this child

Before leaving the courtroom, Lynae Lake insisted Judge Waller set up a visit for her and her daughter. The visit was to take place this afternoon in Portland. This was a relief as some had been told Emily might have already been sent back to Michigan.

Please attend Emily’s next hearing this Wednesday:

Emily Joy Lake Hearing
August 17, 11 a.m.
Juvenile Court
1401 NE 68th
Portland, Oregon

August 15: Calls from Portland Police Complaint Department

I received several calls today from Officer Hess regarding reports of police brutality against 9 year old Emily Lake. He said so many people have called to complain, that a special investigator has been assigned. Please address your complaints regarding the August 10 brutalization of Emily Joy Lake to:

Judy Taylor, Portland Police, 503-823-0905

If you don’t feel that pepper spraying and threatening with attack dogs is a good way to “protect” children and keep them “safe” as DHS says they are doing when they have the police go take kids like Emily away from the parents who love and protect them naturally, let Ms. Taylor know about it.

Please read synopsis by Nancy Luckhurst, President of Children’s Rights Foundation from Michigan, and personal friend to Emily Lake and her mother:

“Right now I am in such shock and mental anguish over this I am going to have to get my barings a bit. This one is very personal to me. I know the story and it is not pretty and it was all started several years ago by the oldest daughter who wanted to live move in with a boyfriend. She got a case started and the children were put in the care of the father who never had any interest in them. He dumped them on an aunt. The abuses in that home were horrendous. The little one was only 5 at the time. The children in that home were allowed to torture that child. She loved to pretend she was a dog or cat as so many children of that age do. The family allowed the other children to put a dog collar and leash on her and force her to eat dog food out of a dish on the floor. That was only part of it. The mother won the children back. In the process she made worker Dan Rogalny of Midland Co look like the ass he is on the stand as I understand it. He has had it in for her ever since. When she left there was no order in place to pick up the children there was no warrant. CPS in Midland Co had made no contact with this mother what so ever prior to her leaving. I am getting information coming in I am going to be making contact with the people she was living with and make arrangements to get her computer. I know there is tons of information that is needed there to show these turkeys for what they are. Will Gaston has agreed to help with this endeavor. If you do not know who he is get Randy’s survivor Flyer and see his picture. Go on the net and read his story. It was is late wife who wrote the book so many in this advocacy work swear by, Sui Juris. Oh and as a note. I had an occasion to talk with little Emmy. She had met Will. She told me she had just met the “real Santa Claus”. When you see the picture you will understand.”
August 16 Letter from C Myrick of Vermont

Reading of how Emily Lake and her mother were treated is very distressing. It unsettles me to know that there are so many actors out there just “doing their job” for the corrupt who seem to run the show. How is this allowed to happen? There aren’t many actors in our government with any decency, morality and sense of justice–and where are they who “protect and serve”? They have their priorities mixed up, it is US they are to protect and serve, not corruption.

Do the right thing, protect this little girl and her mom. No matter what instigated this event, there is no excuse whatsoever to treat fellow human beings in this manner. Disgusting! Evil. Bring charges against all who played a part in this travesty. Reunite Lynnae and Emily at once.

For the future, we need to unite and agree to never, NEVER, elect members of the bar to legislative or executive branches of government (boycott lawyers from public office); don’t keep reelecting anyone but put new blood in offices, and most important–hold accountable the judiciary, visit http://www.jail4judges.org for further information.

C. Myrick
Vermont JIC

*****

August 14 Message from Will Gaston, A Voice for Children:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/portalndpolicegestaporaid14aug05.shtml

Takeback mailing list
http://oregongov.us/mailman/listinfo/takeback_oregongov.us
HomePage: http://oregongov.us
Larger HomePage: christiancommonlaw-gov.org
Please Contribute to our Web-Log at: http://oregongov.us/TakeBback

***************************************************************************

August 15: Letter to Portland Mayor Tom Potter from Charles Stewart

Mr Potter;

You seem possibly an honorable man. I do not say this to many public servants in our area. I read about you in the news-paper. You do seem to have a rare functional conscience.

My un-orthodox legal skills might be of assistance in your battles with the un-thinking robots. If his is of interest to you; please contact me. There is getting less middle-ground for the fence-sitters. Those who truly seek the betterment of the common people must learn to work together against those who subvert our fundamental state & national system of constitutional government. Otherwise all will be lost. The enemy is simply to powerful.

This is a copy of a complain I lodged to your Portland police bureau. I believe it is with-in your power to do something about these abuses.

Sincerely,

Charles Bruce, Stewart

*****

On behalf of: Emily Joy,Lake; Leanne Lake; Roger Weidner; & the People of the State of Oregon; State-Ex-Rel/Quo-Warranto Felony Kinaping & Assault Criminal-Complaint.

I do not know these officers names. I believe you-all know the case I am speaking of. My complaint is for criminal assault & kidnapping by these officers & all attorney bar-members who conspired to proceeded with lawless force against this mother & child.

From the testimony before me of these honorable people, I believe that these officers acted beyond their constitutionally-lawful authority to abuse this child & her mother.

I used to run the “Multnomah County Common-Law Court”; as Elected “Chief Justice” there-in.

Our court was shut down in large part by lawless cointelpro-style abuses from the rico/babylonian-whore bar-monopoly attorneys & judges & the seeming mk-ultra mind-controlled police-officers robotically enforcing constitutionally-lawless malum-prohibitum based codes & regulations. Your officers physically beat one of our juror/judges, one James Bleakley; & harassed us in many other ways; all under the conspiratorial direction of these private criminally syndicated bar monopoly members.

We were no threat to you. We need good constitutionally-recognizable “Law Enforcement” Officers; if you still have any.

But we were a threat tho that constitutionally-lawless rico lawyers bar monopoly. If the common people can break that monopoly on the administration of justice, those social parasites will have to go out & find honest work. There will be very little use for their statutory-schooled law-school education. Like vampires in the daylight, they will dry up and wither away.

From the testimony of trusted friends, I believe this complaint is well-founded, & i am trying to add extra weight to already registered complaints similar to this. I do this because i know there is much corruption on your offices; & I fear if I & others do not speak, it will get shuffled away & this will just be another abuse similar to Kesandra James Murder by the satanically-lawless criminal syndicate members whom I believe infest & terrorize your ranks.

Also; I live in fear that these abuses can happen to me or anyone. This is Not a Nazi Police-State where Goons with Guns & Badges can lawlessly abuse the rights of common peaceable people.

Roger Weidner or Wilbur Gaston can provide more details. I am assisting all of these people in trying to being Conscionable Justice & Constitutional Law (same thing) to this matter.

We all proceed in the name of & on behalf of the common -people of this state; as is our recognized right under Oregon’s Constitution at Article 1 Section 10 & in ORS 30.510; State-Ex-Rel/Quo-Warranto. A crime against one, is a crime against all. We are an organic body-politic. We fell the pain of our fellow patriotic constitutionalists; in every abuse you hurl against us.

Since you-all terrorized us into shutting down our common-law court; please ask the Multnomah County Court Administrator for a Courtroom where “We the People” can assemble a Jury with Functional Consciences & the brains to follow the fundamental principles under-lying constitutional “Due-Process of Law”; to lawfully adjudicate this Kidnapping & Assault complaint against your nazi goons; & to Lawfully resolve any lingering entanglements concerning this mother & daughter.

Surprise the common people of Oregon. Show some respect for Constitutionally-Recognizable “Law” for a crying change.

Your form demanded a zip code. We know the nazi judges take star-chamber style “silent judicial notice” that zip-code use means we have consented to be slaves. Take notice, we do Not “consent to be slaves”.

Call or email if you desire more details. Email is very good.

Charles Bruce; Stewart

*****

August 13: Letter from Nancy Luckhurst to Judge Waller

Dear Judge Waller.

I am writing this in support for Emily Lake and her mother Lynnae Lake. This mom is a one of the most dedicated Mom’s I have ever seen. Emily is such a delightful little girl, so bright and loving. The devotion they have for each other is so apparent to any one who spends any time with them at all. This story is long and all you are going to get here is a short synopsis but it should tell you there is something that does not meet the eye. Every I have seen the documentation and I know that as a former Real Estate agent I am personally taking the documentation of wrong doing by this ag toain the Michigan licensing board on Monday morning. This woman is scum. I know this story is going to look and sound really bizarre but don’t ever forget that old saying truth can be stranger than fiction. And this is definitely one of those cases. There is going to be a complete legislative investigation into the actions of people in the Midland Co DHS office and the adult daughters who conspired with a DHS worker just to mention a couple.

Lynnae’s only concern is her daughters well being and safety. She would literally give up her own life to keep this child safe. That little girls is so close to her mother it would be a horrible travesty of justice to separate them. There are children out here in this world who are being abused in so many on Godly ways. Emily Lake is not one of them by any stretch of the imagination.

As President of the Foundation for Children’s Rights our advocates work everyday with families who have been falsely accused of child abuse. The one thing we demand before an consideration to advocate for anyone is we must be given absolute documentation by the client to show they are not guilty of what they have been accused of. I know Ms. Lake has been protrayed as some kind of vicious child beating lunatic. Nothing could be farther from the truth in this case. I ask you as not only as an advocate but as the mother of 8 and the grandmother of 18 search your heart and look into the eyes of this little girl and please don’t run to judgment in this case. Please do not send Emily back to the State of Michigan where we know she was abused while in the care of the state in the prior case. I am sure you know how manipulative a teenager can be when they decide they want to do something not in their best interest. It is a parent’s duty to guide and prevent them from doing something harmful to themselves. If this is a crime then that is the crime for which this mother is guilty certainly not of abusing this angel child you have in the custody in Oregon.

Please read the synopsis that follows and search your heart and mind on this case.

Thank you so much for your time and concern in this very delicate matter.

Nancy Luckhurst
(989) 261-1200

Lynnae Lake, the mom, called me today from the Multnomah Co jail in OR. She informed me they did not resist when the police came. She was beaten unmercifully and chunks of hair were yanked out of her head. This happened after arriving at the Jail. The officer said if she didn’t like that he could rip her head off. She thinks her foot is broken. Both she and the child were pepper sprayed twice and the little girl Emily got the worst of it. The Portland city police took attack dogs with them. She has not to this moment been given her rights. She has not been arraigned. She has not been officially arrested. She has requested a prisoners handbook and a complaint form and has been refused both. She has not had any medical treatment for her wounds. Are they waiting for the bruises to go away first.

She was told they were not going to hold her she was going to be let go no charges. Oh but wait then the Judge in Midland Co Michigan decided he wanted her held on a fugitive warrant.

This woman left this state one year ago with her daughter had not been contacted by DHS/CPS prior to leaving. There was not a case open that she knew of, there was no warrant. The worker entered a private school without a warrant, without a court order and interview her older daughter against orders left with the school office and placed in the school records. This has already been tested in the Federal courts it is a big NO NO. The mother arrived to pick her children up on the last day of school and was warned by a school employee that CPS was interviewing her teen age daughter. It falls under the 4th ammendment of our little used U.S. Constitution. Also there is a another amendment not often used by our the various states DHS offices it is called the 14th ammendment which covers due process. Oh but there is so much more.

There is so much more to this mother’s story. Her oldest daughter now married made a CPS complaint 4 years ago. The children were removed and were place with the father who left them with an aunt. The children there in that house tortured poor little Emily. They were allowed to put a dog collar on her and force her to eat dog food out of a dish on the floor. When Mom was again awarded custody of her family she was one child short. You see the oldest had been placed in Independent living in an apartment with her boyfriend. That is exactly what the Mom had been arguing about with this kid. Ok the kid got her way paid for by the state of Michigan with Federal Title IV funds. In other words the State of Michigan sanctioned a minor living with a member of the opposite sex against the mother’s wishes. Isn’t that special. Fast forward 3 years to 2004 and the exact same thing happened. This was the second in line a 17 year old who had met some guy online she has never met and is going to move in with him and live happily ever after. We have the e-mails to prove this folks. So over a 3-5 month period the oldest daughter who is by now married and the middle sister have decided to cook up a story and don’t forget they now know how to play the system. So after planning this, oh and did I forget to mention in these e-mails back and forth between the sisters there is mentioned a Dan R who is the worker who works for Midland Co CPS who is coaching them in how to put the story together so it will fly so he can take the the middle girl and the youngest girl, our little angel Emily.

Folks there is so much more to this story that you would not believe. There is the mysterious circumstances surrounding the sequestering of this woman’s terminally ill mother by a half sister and not letting other family members know where she was. Right after this happened the Will which covered a Million dollar estate was amended. Then the mother was placed on hospice with the half sister who just happens to be a nurse being the care taker. Upon the mother’s death the mother’s body is taken to a funeral home in South Haven MI with strict orders to the Director that no one is allowed to see the body. Anne was not supposed to be notified of her mother’s death. She did find out and called the funeral home and the Director told her he would let her and her sister and brother see the body if they would like to. The went to be with their mother.

After Anne left with her little girl Emily. She had asked her fiancee to please stay and care for her house. But all of a sudden he is served with eviction papers from a real estate woman Dana K. Maier, who had by the way bought several of the mother’s pieces of property in the past. She listed herself as Agent for the landlord and listed as reasons for the eviction he owed $10800 in back rent. And the house was inhabitable, but she was not the agent for anyone. In fact the statements were all lies. Anne had nothing to do with this woman. But her half sister Eileen Pearson of 1422 Homecrest in Kalamazoo did lots of business with this woman as administrator of her mothers affairs.

On December 7th 2004 Eileen Pearson the half sister contacted the Midland city assessors office and some how got them to change the address on the tax statement for Anne’s house to come to her address in Kalamazoo. When someone checked on this fact with the assessor’s office just recently it was found the address had been changed back (again by Eileen Pearson) but the website did not reflect that. How ever when Anne checked the website in April the address for the tax statement was hers. So that is a real puzzle. HMMM did the Midland City assessor back date that for some reason? oh yes that’s right this would nulify anne’s homestead property tax exemption wouldn’t it causing her taxes to be much higher and she would lose her house to the state of Michigan if she can’t pay the taxes. Gee is the loving half sister planning a little hostile take over of her home. Let’s see it has been reported by people looking after the house that a window in the front door has been broken out and now boarded up. the window next to that was then broken out and lights left on. But mysteriously now in the last few weeks it is discovered there is not electricity on but Consumers didn’t turn it off. And all the fuses are fine. This has just happened. Three lawnmowers have been stolen out of a shed one is a rider and the little girls trampoline is no longer there. Someone is still dumping junk and other materials on the land across the street in the flood plain and wetlands with no permit that has been an ongoing problem for years. This has been turned in by the way to DEQ in Lansing. This property is prime bottom land of the Tittibawassee River. The City of Midland has wanted it for years. The City along with Pomranky Construction has tried to get her off that land for about 20 years. She has been told she should give it to the City and she just needs to go away. It is all the poor woman got out of a Million dollar estate for God’s sake. The house is worth nothing but the land is worth a ton to the City or Pomranky who want to excavate the topsoil from it to sell to the City. That is valuable land. Not done yet folks. Some time in March or April of 2003 Anne who was working for a non profit as a bookeeper discovered there was something wrong with some of the accounts. She discovered there was money missing from some of the accounts controlled by the Director of the organization. She had not yet determined how much but it was in the 1000s. She finally collared the Director and after a bit the woman admitted she had made “some private loans to some people” Anne turned this in to the Board of Directors and the Michgan AGs office. For her efforts she was fired just one week before the whole CPS mess came down. She says the AGs office was starting an investigation but they would probably not be able to finish it without her being able to give them pertinent information after she left. The Director is still the Director of this organization and Anne was warned by other people within the organization this woman would not be above turning her in to CPS with false allegations.

So now as Paul Harvey would say you have the rest of the story. OH one last thing Anne’s name is really Lynnae Lake. Loving mother of Emily Joy Lake a beautiful angel child, who has never ever been abused by her mother but she has been abused by the State of Michigan DHS/CPS.

Dear God in heaven wil someone please help this woman and that beautiful baby. The mother had taught her that our organization would always help if something ever happened to her and to call us. Yesterday she called. That tiny little frightened voice was pleading with me to please help them. Then the mother came on the line. She was petrified. She knew there were there for her and little Emmy. I could hear the child in the background as the police were banging on windows screaming for them to come out. They were cowering in the basement. Then the phone went dead. A little later the phone rang and a man asked if I was Nancy. I said yes. He said he had a rather plucky little girl there who was demanding that he take my number and call me. The man is J.D. Devros Supervisor for CPS in Multnomah County. He asked if I would talk to her. What a silly question. He set the phone on speaker. And there was that tiny frightened little voice again begging for my help. Well folks now I am begging for your help. Don’t allow this outrageous sham to go on any longer. Hold the people who are responsible for their actions now. Go to the following link and scroll down until you come upon the face of that little angel. Look at her and tell her NO you will not help right now to expose the corruption of what has happened in Midland County Michigan. She is alone in a foster home in Portland Oregon. Wondering if her mom is Ok and wondering if anyone is ever going to help her?

http://www.fcr4kids.org/

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/national_fcr

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Indiana-Foundation-for-Childrens-Rights

http://groups-beta-google.com/group/Michigan-Foundation-for-Childrens-Rights

Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as “the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.” In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45, 54. Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.” Id.

Advocates for those falsely accused of child abuse and neglect. Statistics show children are 10 times more likely to be abused and and neglected in foster care and 6 times more likely to die than in the general population. National Clearing House for Child Abuse and Neglect. Reform Child Protective Services NOW.

URGENT:UPDATE they have changed the hearing as of Friday 5 pm PST to Monday at 1 pm whether the attorneys can come or not

*****

August 13: Open Letter from Leonard Henderson on Emily and Lynae Lake:
http://familyrights.us/news/archive/2005/aug/lake/

August 12, 2005: Letter from Lynae Lake <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>

To all of you that know me as Anne I first want to thank each and everyone of you for your prayers. For those that came out to the hearing and especially ***************** as I know this must have been extremely painful for her to go into court once again. Please keep praying as Emily is still in custody and I have not been able to find a way to communicate with her.

The horror and trauma that poor girl went through while the police threatened us to get bit by the attack dogs and tasered. They never called out one name nor identified who they were after. They tried to snatch her while she was outside on her bike and I was inside making lunch.

There were 12 police officers here and I had at least 5 on me for most of the time that I was in their custody. Emily had a couple on her too. As you know Emily was sprayed not once but twice by the pepper spray which literally burns your skin off and can blind you. I turned a shower on immediately for her to rinse and the police kept turning it off. I cried out she was a child for God’s sake and then they sprayed us again.

However I was not ever placed under arrest nor given in any way shape or form my rights (Miranda) they had no charge until late yesterday and that was custodial interference. Once I arrived at jail they beat and threatened me numerous times one screaming obscenities at me while he was ripping out my hair. (I told them they were all under arrest – lot of good that did me but I did)

I can’t tell you any more about Emily except she was throwing up from the pepper spray. Screaming for them not to hurt me. Crying and crying for her mama. (the cops were mad because she told them they were police and she didn’t trust them) and of course made her watch as they dragged me to the car and drove off.

The 95 year old lady I take care of also had to witness all this. She has dementia but this has so traumatized her. She goes around saying “this is a nightmare I am living – why would the police take Emily” “something has to be done how do we get Emily back?”and calling out for Emily her princess. This is 3 days later so you tell me. She also is concerned that the police are coming for her next.

What I did find out Thursday was that Emily had been allowed to call Nancy Luckhurst President of Foundation for Children’s Rights. She is also supposed to be at the new shelter hearing on Wed.

I am covered with bruises. I was beaten severely in jail both men and women. Just on walking into the jail very peacefully the one officer said “oh she got pepper sprayed – we got lots more here”

Another officer thought it was cute to watch me go to the bathroom and even commented on he liked the show and didn’t take much to entertain him.

I was for almost 24 hours moved from isolation cell to isolation cell. I repeatedly asked for the inmate manual which is the rules that prisoners and officers must abide by. I requested medical treatment for the injuries but was only asked if I was on any current medication (I was asked that repeatedly like they were sure I was supposed to be on something!).

At about 1 pm Thursday 11, all of a sudden they got really nice saying I had only a $500 bond to post – but lied when I asked about it being paid by credit card. They said no cash or money order only. Then said the judge my bond me out on my own. Arrainment was set for sometime after 2PM – surprisngly the same time as the shelter hearing I was not noticed for.

My guess is they did not count on the people showing up for my arrainment or the 20 people that went to the shelter hearing and testified on behalf of Emily and I. I thank God for each and everyone of them.

While I was waiting I was suddenly told I was released there was no charges pending but it would take a couple of hours. Now understand they had just started the arrainments and the men go first. At 1:30 the officer said I am being released on a no-complaint. That means no charges – period. She told that to Nancy Luckhurst who I had just gotten on the phone.

It would take a couple of hours to process me out.

Well I asked about the shelter hearing – how could I have possibly have known about that I said there were people waiting upstairs for me and there were people waiting over for a hearing that I was not noticed for and that was illegal.

Then 2 hours goes by and I am called off to one side to be told there was good news and bad news I was not going to be charged but I was not going to be released, a fugitive warrant was NOW out for me. I think this was also done to see how I would react I said oh o k .

ALL bogus and after the fact. So there were not ever any charges, I was just being kidnapped which is what I told them.

Now I’m taken (after strip search – my how fun) to a real jail cell this one is covered in food and I am not allowed to clean it up.

This morning I got told there was no warrant and I would be out in a few hours. However prior to being let out I now need to talk to a psychiatrist. I think I have b been hoaxed again and am now going to be stuffed in the looney bin. Oh yes and now I am finally given complaint forms and the inmates manual that I have been asking for from the instant I got there.

So now I sit and stew for a few more hours wondering at what cruel joke is going to happen now. So I begin to read the manual. Of which a bunch of things were violated and I found out I had been lied to about the bail a credit card would have done it..

But I did get released.

I got home to find that there were some people in the house and they took everything of value that I had including the $75 that belonged to Emily because she earned it. Over the summer she had earned over $130 of which she was so proud.

Some of what is gone is all the computer equipment that had all my legal docs on and all of a particular website I had been working on.

The attorney I have been assigned is out until Monday. Now the hearing is Monday instead of Wednesday so guess who will not be able to speak with the attorney? Also the attorney assistant says Emily WILL be going back to MI – does this sound PRE-DETERMINED???

PLEASE KEEP US IN YOUR PRAYERS – WE NEED ALL OF THEM AT THIS TIME

Lynae Lake <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>

*****

August 12, 2005

Mom is out she is at the home she was taken from. She is not in very good shape and tonight they are taking videos of the injuries. She was never allowed medical treatment and in 48 hours they did not feed her. they did ask her this morning if she wanted anything. The conditions were so bad where she was at she said she would no have eaten anything in there.. This is just outrageous. The kept moving her from one islolation cell to another and each got worse. She was never advised of her rights she was never charged. Michigan says they are not going to pay to extradite her.

*****

August 12, 2005 Letter to Oregon Judge Nan Waller from Lynae Lake <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>

The hearing held on Thursday was held improperly. I have not been noticed as required by law. And continue to not be noticed as required by law.

The underhanded changing of a hearing set for Weds Aug 17 to Mon Aug 15 with NO NOTICE and no oportunity to meet with the child’s attorney or the attorney appointed to me.

Also I question the legality of any attorney representing me in my absence when it would be perfectly possible to have me present. My whereabouts were certainly known.

I was contacted 5:05PM on Friday Aug 12 after all offices and agency office would be closed to be told about the case after making repeated calls to an office of my supposed attorney.

The court is fully aware that this attorney can not be met with prior to the court hearing. The Court knows that there is no possible way that this case can be prepared for thereby denying Emily and I our due process rights.

Because the police refused to present any warrant of valid court order I question the legality of the home invasion and molestation of Emily and I where Emily was PEPPER SPRAYED 2x ,threatened by attack dogs and a taser. The show of force went so over and and above reason to execute a supposed pickup order on a 9 year old child that my child was placed in real danger of her life from the Portland City police. The mental anguish and pure terror was clearly exhibited by my child is inconsistent with the safety and best interest of the child.

Once the adrenalin rush of the attack got started it was mob rule and not the actions of a professional police force.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.”

Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).

“There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation.” Judge Watson L. White, Superior Court Judge, Cobb County , Georgia

The mere possibility or risk of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)

The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice, i.e. the “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property

“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Brandeis.

The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington county, 10th Cir. (1997) Parent’s interest is of “the highest order.” And the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials.” Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc., 8th Cir. (1996)

Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority. Parents also have legal standing to sue if CPS violated their 4th and 14th Amendment rights. Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. (2000) A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents. Ward v. San Jose, 9th Cir. (1992) State employees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan, 7th Cir. (1990)

The 95 year old woman that I care for has been so traumatized by the event and the loss of a 2 critical members of her home. She alternately looks for Emily who is her “princess” and talks about the police removing her. She can’t not stop talking about it and falling to her knees to pray. Her mental anguish is acute. As her caregiver this situation has caused severe mental abuse to a fragile and ill elderly woman.

Lynae Lake <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>

*****

Susan Detlefsen’s August 12, 2005 Letter to Judge Waller, et al

Judge Waller, Judge Allen, attorneys general, others concerned regarding
Emily Joy Lake, DOB 8/31/95:

Emily has been residing in Oregon 6 months, as of August 11, 2005. She is now a resident. Do not send Emily Lake to Michigan without a full hearing on the matter of residency, jurisdiction and parental fitness. Emily also has the right to have a voice in what is going to happen to her.

I understand the hearing which was set for next Wednesday has not been moved up to Monday, which does not give the mom enough time to prepare her case. The court is closed and so it is impossible to file any motions or paperwork.

I saw the recent photo of Emily sent by her mother. There are lots of photos, some videos, and artwork by Emily, which all demonstrate Emily’s well-being while in her mother’s care here. Do not run this little girl roughshod through your court. Give her a fair chance. She is very attached to her mother and, according to everything I ever heard Emily say, has no wish to live anywhere except with her mother. She is afraid of the police and CPS and of going back to foster care where she was abused.

I am the mother of *************, who, as Emily’s mom pointed out, was at Emily’s hearing Thursday. She also left a card for Emily with Mr. Devros, which I hope DHS will not be allowed to confiscate, as they often do with things that belong to children, but which might contradict their agenda of severing the child’s ties with those who care about him/her. I also left a card for Emily, letting her know that I, and others, are thinking of her and doing what we can to help her and her mother through this traumatic time.

Please protect Emily Lake by keeping her here in Oregon long enough for an investigation into what is truly in her best interest.

Susan Detlefsen
Amicus curiae for Emily Lake and Lynae Lake

*****

August 13, 2005 Letters to DHS Caseworker Jeremy Devros

Mr. Devros,

It is not like Emily not to contact her mother, or those she knows care about her and her mom. Have you given her the cards from myself and my daughter as you said you would, or are you keeping little Emily isolated from the outside world? We are watching, and I am forwarding this to the judge.

Susan Detlefsen 503-239-9901

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: Emily Lake
From: “Anne White” <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, August 13, 2005 2:36 am
To: Jeremy.D.Devros@state.or.us

I accidently hit send without including the contact information again 503-232-6691

I want to repeat that I am gravely concerned for Emily’s well being. Also that she know how many people love her and are invovled for her. Tell her Mimi sends her love and misses her terribly. She has been unconsolable without her princess.

Of course it goes without saying that I want her to be given my love and that I am praying for her safety and her safe return to her mother where she belongs.

I will update this page as often as I can, hopefully once daily at least until Oregon case is settled. Email MotherInterrupted for more information on how to help this family.