ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL: GENDER WARS AND EXPERIMENTAL ADDICTION


Low-Income [high education] Mothers Without Custody:

Who Are They and Where Are Their Children?*

SUSAN ZURAVIN GEOFFREY GREIF

University of Maryland at Baltimore

The School of Social Work and Community Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

v o-lun-tar-i-l-y.  

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

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

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

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

 The p

—–u/r-

———–pose of this paper

———— is to  fur-the/r under-stand-ing

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

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

————————— we/l/fare

————————————— pro-g-rams   b-y    

———————————–exami n

————————————————i/n/g

——————–a su b——————————————-

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

—————————-  i  –  o-  n  -that

……………………….. has not been very  well–

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

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

——————been………………………….

———marr

………………i–e-d– may  not  

……………..be  white and  have 

 be/co-me . ……………………..

……………………..non

………………………………………cus-t-odi-al  

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

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

………………………………….during the 17-months

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

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

———————–for-m t/he  ba-s-I-S   four

…………………..o/u/r    di-s

….–  s –c-u-s –s  –i–o—n.

 

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale – mental  health  problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific objectives are:

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

     —     518 individuals,

     —     low-income, 

     —     urban,

     —     single

     —     parent

     —     mothers.

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

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

Study participants

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

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

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

     (a)      residents of Baltimore, Maryland,

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

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

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

The 518 were purposely selected to differ relative to

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

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

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

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

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

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

     —     receiving AFDC,

     —      but not child protective services during the sampling month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     —     “Where is she/he living now?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     —      on the day of the interview, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings

Objective 1:

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

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

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

Objective 2:

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

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

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

The remaining

      —nine were in formal foster care,

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

Of the 20 children who were with a relative,

     –seven were with their father and

     –13 were with either a maternal or paternal relative.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Low-Income [high education]Mothers Without Custody

Table 1

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

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

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

With childs father      24      (7)      37      (3)

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

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

Objective 3:

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

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

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

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

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Table 2

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

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

Age as of 1/84     26.1      28.3      27.7      25.9

Grade completed      9.1      9.8      10.4      11.1

Number of livebirths      3.6      3.9      3.0      1.9

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

Employment (percent never employed)

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

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

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

     –and two had been married,

     –quite a few less than the other three groups.

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

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

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

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

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

     –had less education,

     –were less likely to have ever been employed,

     –were less likely to have ever been married, and

     –had more children.

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

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

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

Table 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences are–

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

     —     least apparent with respect to depression.

Overall,

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

     —     least from custodial neglectful mothers,

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

All–

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

     —     “mental health problems”

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

     —     High percentages (87% and 82%)

          —     of the neglectful and abusive  mothers also

               —     reported one, 

               —     or more

                       —      of these three problems.

     —      Of the three (3)

          —     “mental health problems,

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

                        —     by far [ =  ] the most pre valent.

     —     All eight of the non-custodial mothers

            —     gave a positive response

                     —     to at least one

                    —     of the three (3)

                            —      “indicators of depressive symptoms:

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

                                                     —     moderately or severely

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

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

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

                                                      —     incidence of two or more weeks of depression; and

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

                                                     —     of at least one child even

                                                    —     though the child was “wanted and planned.”

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

            —    had serious enough

                   —     depressive symptoms to

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

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

                          —     and two (2)

                                 —      had received help

                              —     on an outpatient basis

                                         —     from a “mental health professional.”

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

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

                            —     Drinking and drug problems.

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

                   —     from the remaining “abusive and neglectful mothers.”

                         —     “Having periods

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

                —       being able to sober up

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

                               —       of 63% of the non-custodial mothers,

                                        —     as opposed to

                                               —     24% of the “neglectful,” and

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

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

                                              —     was characteristic

                       —       of 25% of  the non-custodial mothers

                                           —     compared to

                                                   —     11% of the neglectful,  and

                                                  —     6% of the abusive mothers.

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

                                                —     both of the women [ (wo) man }  

                                                        —     with drug problems

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

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

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

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

           —     care problems experienced by these women and the very high

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

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

     –Five wanted one more child and

     –one wanted two more children.

So, while

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

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

    –54% of the abusive (n = 59), and

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

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

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

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

     –all five answered “no.”

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

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

The story of Roberta.

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

All three are living with relatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

 

 

           The questions we sought . . .

 . . .answers . . . to . . .

 . . .and their findings–

. . .point

 . . .in many . . .

 . . .directions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these children at high risk for ‘maltreatment ?’

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

     –“runaway children and teenagers?” ? ? ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first direction centers on

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

For instance,

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

(a)      a less prevalent phenomenon?

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

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

(d)      more likely to want more children, and

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

The second direction centers on

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

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

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

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

And, finally,

     –the third direction centers on low-income fathers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Read,

Etiology of child maltreatment:   A developmental€cological analysis.

By Belsky, Jay

Psychological Bulletin

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

 Abstract

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

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

A CALL TO HOLD DFPS/CPS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CRIMES BY TEXAS’ OWN “PENAL” CODE


A CALL TO HOLD DFPS/CPS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CRIMES BY TEXAS’ OWN “PENAL” CODE

 

BUT FIRST, A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION:  GOOD LUCK GETTING A HARRIS COUNTY (HOUSTON), TEXAS D.A. OR SURROUNDING AREAS OR “TEST/DEMONSTRATION SITES”–PROFIT CENTERS– AND LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES, CITIES, AND COUNTIES TO TAKE A POLICE REPORT AS IT IS THEIR POLICY NOT TO ACCEPT THEM FROM (WO)MAN WITH SMALL, CUTE, HEALTHY, ADOPTABLE, CHILDREN WHO HAPPEN TO BE UNMARRIED WHERE PREVIOUSLY ABSENTEE FATHERS RECENTLY MARRIED, OR NOT, TERRORIZE MOTHER AND CHILD, EVEN IF FROM AFAR.  If a police officer does respond, who is at the command of a completely unqualified dispatcher most likely without a college degree and no children of her own who is most likely, pursuant to C.I.T./CAT grants from the government, trained by Nazi Socialist government pro-father’s rights sadists and their BAR member attorneys and judges needing to fill new Kids-for-Cash jails, kiddie prisons, over which the family court judges in Harris County preside as Board members (and the Harris County Commissioner’s Court for the Texas Supreme Court’s Children’s Commission), and the new “mental health ward” in the prison (experimentation tank) on the second floor, state-of-the-art, with a retina scanner, they will most likely call CPS and an on-duty “mental healthy deputy” and come out with a paddy wagon for those “delusional,” “borderline,” “protective,” hysterical, “lying” mothers and their private property–“children.”  So, for all those who propose that the “solution” to CPS abuse is to avoid them by calling police–Californians–you are wrong as the police are told they cannot make a report, but must instead call CPS pursuant to “Collaborative,” Memorandum of Understanding whereby everybody, police officer “vendors,” city, “mental health deputies,” CPS, county commissioners, judges, sheriffs, local children’s assessment centers who do the cover-up job that no sexual abuse or child abuse occurred, or even investigation to clear mother and child even where these allegations are not made, share in the “commission”–“stakeholders,” “community partners.”  Just find your city plan on line, compliments of I.C.L.E.I. an Agenda 21 and “Model” Cities and “unified” court and “holistic” systems–inherently, conspiratorial or collusive in nature and spirit of the word, and actually in effect.

For those of you who are of the action-oriented, “social activist” ilk who gets angry, rather strangely in my opinion, at others assuming that this is somehow their responsibility, pick up a book, start reading, do your homework, and demand that your alleged lawmakers (ha-ha-ha, as if we even have any as they aren’t even allowed to read the bills that “pass” without being read, signed, or voted on) decline to sign these inter-agency, coerced, incentiviezed Memorandum of Understanding that give police, “mental health deputies,” and state CPS licensed counselors and courts and judges and CPS scoundrel “throwaways,” themselves being the “inferior” beings (as that’s why they were chosen for their jobs) money and pensions and bonuses to STEAL OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND MOST LIKELY YOURS SOMEDAY.

Sec. 25.031. AGREEMENT TO ABDUCT FROM CUSTODY.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person agrees, for remuneration or the promise of remuneration, to abduct a child younger than 18 years of age by force, threat of force, misrepresentation, stealth, or unlawful entry, knowing that the child is under the care and control of a person having custody or physical possession of the child under a court order, including a temporary order, or under the care and control of another person who is exercising care and control with the consent of a person having custody or physical possession under a court order, including a temporary order.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 444, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.  Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 272 (H.B. 95), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

 

Sec. 25.03. INTERFERENCE WITH CHILD CUSTODY.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person takes or retains a child younger than 18 years of age:

(1) when the person knows that the person’s taking or retention violates the express terms of a judgment or order, including a temporary order, of a court disposing of the child’s custody;
(2) when the person has not been awarded custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, knows that a suit for divorce or a civil suit or application for habeas corpus to dispose of the child’s custody has been filed, and takes the child out of the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, without the permission of the court and with the intent to deprive the court of authority over the child; or

(3) outside of the United States with the intent to deprive a person entitled to possession of or access to the child of that possession or access and without the permission of that person.

(b) A noncustodial parent commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, the noncustodial parent knowingly entices or persuades the child to leave the custody of the custodial parent, guardian, or person standing in the stead of the custodial parent or guardian of the child.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the actor returned the child to the geographic area of the counties composing the judicial district if the court is a district court or the county if the court is a statutory county court, within three days after the date of the commission of the offense.

(c-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(3) that:

(1) the taking or retention of the child was pursuant to a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child; or

(2) notwithstanding any violation of a valid order providing for possession of or access to the child, the actor’s retention of the child was due only to circumstances beyond the actor’s control and the actor promptly provided notice or made reasonable attempts to provide notice of those circumstances to the other person entitled to possession of or access to the child.
(c-2) Subsection (a)(3) does not apply if, at the time of the offense, the person taking or retaining the child:
(1) was entitled to possession of or access to the child; and

(2) was fleeing the commission or attempted commission of family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, against the child or the person.

(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1111, ch. 527, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 444, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 830, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 332, Sec. 1, eff. May 24, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 272 (H.B. 95), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 840 (H.B. 3439), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2011. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1100 (S.B. 1551), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.

Sec. 25.04. ENTICING A CHILD.

(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, he knowingly entices, persuades, or takes the child from the custody of the parent or guardian or person standing in the stead of the parent or guardian of such child.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, unless it is shown on the trial of the offense that the actor intended to commit a felony against the child, in which event an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 685, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Sec. 25.10. INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS OF GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON.
(a) In this section:
(1) “Possessory right” means the right of a guardian of the person to have physical possession of a ward and to establish the ward’s legal domicile, as provided by Section 767(1), Texas Probate Code.
(2) “Ward” has the meaning assigned by Section 601, Texas Probate Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person takes, retains, or conceals a ward when the person knows that the person’s taking, retention, or concealment interferes with a possessory right with respect to the ward.
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) This section does not apply to a governmental entity where the taking, retention, or concealment of the ward was authorized by Subtitle E, Title 5, Family Code, or Chapter 48, Human Resources Code.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 549, Sec. 32, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

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


RE-POSTED/RE-BLOGGED AS DEPICTED BELOW,

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

Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

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

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

were drawn out over a decade, or more.

CT COURT CASES HISTORIES & SUMMARIES:

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

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

 

MAx-Liberti-Photo.jpg

Written by: keith harmon snow

Categories: ,

 

16 Comments

melissa harris | January 29, 2013 2:57 PM

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

adrienne mcglone | February 12, 2013 5:31 PM

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

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

Amy Andersen | February 14, 2013 1:39 PM

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

Jodi Baker | February 24, 2013 4:33 PM

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

Kendra | April 26, 2013 7:33 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours etc

________________________________

VERIFICATION

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

__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sworn to before me on this
day of April 2013

Notary Public, State of Connecticut

___________________

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

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

kendra | April 27, 2013 11:47 AM

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

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:01 PM

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

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:02 PM

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

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:03 PM

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

Colleen Kerwick | June 1, 2013 3:52 PM

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

Sara Burns | June 28, 2013 8:00 PM

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

Concerned Mother | August 23, 2013 9:41 PM

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

Ron | July 19, 2014 11:38 AM

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

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

Donate to this Project

Search

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


How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children

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

Fostering Profits

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

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

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

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

View original post 4,885 more words

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


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

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


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

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

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

Image result for PICS OF KIDS GOING TO JAIL

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL LAWS AGAIN? 

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

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

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

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

Image result for PICS OF KIDS GOING TO JAIL

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL LAWS AGAIN? 

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

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

Teachers to Diagnose Psychological Issues in Children then Report to Police

CORRUPT TEXAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at:

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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