[nineballgirl]

(FIA MAY MEAN DSS OR CPS OR WHATEVER YOUR AGENCY IS CALLED, THE FOLLOWING PERTAINS TO EVERY STATE IN THE COUNTRY)

THE FIA GAME

By Janet M. Frederick, Attorney and Counselor at Law

Many citizens in our great State of Michigan are unaware of Michigan's dirty little secret that falls under the guise of the Child Abuse and Child Welfare Protection Laws. The advertisements and literature surrounding this area seem to be doing a magnificent thing for the children of our state. We have been led to believe that the State of Michigan is saving thousands of children from severe physical abuse and neglect. This is far from the truth.

The truth is that this campaign is a giant money machine fueled by abuse of power of supervisors and case service workers employed by the Michigan Department of Family Independence Agency and private agencies that have contracted with FIA that we the tax payers are paying dearly for through our hard earned tax dollars. Basically it is "make work by creating a case and keep your job or contract with the state government." The current campaign to save the children is doing just the opposite. Parents and children are being permanently separated and families are being permanently destroyed under this new plan as a result of abuse of power in the name of more state and federal funding.

I have been working extensively in this area of law for approximately two (2) years. All of the cases that I am working on do not involve children suffering from broken bones, bruises or starvation. In fact, most of the cases that I am involved in regard parents that merely spanked their children by giving the children one or two swats on the clothed behind, parents who have physically defended themselves from a physically violent teenager, parents who argued in front of their children, recently divorced single parents, parents with low incomes, parents who have failed to take their child to a doctor for mere cold symptoms such as sniffles and mild congestion, or parents who owned pornographic materials stored in a safe place where the children broke into and viewed the materials.

According to FIA, the present state of law is that:

1) Parents cannot spank their child. Spanking, even with clothes covering the bottom, is severe physical abuse. Parents are only to use time out, reasoning and loss of privileges.

2) Parents cannot engage in physical self defense to protect themselves from a physically hostile teenager. An act of self defense by a parent is severe physical and emotional abuse. Parents are to use reasoning, time out and loss of privileges only and must sacrifice their physical safety for their violent teenager's safety.

3) Parents cannot argue or talk about adult subjects, such as family finances, in front of their children. These are subjects that the child has no control over and creates extreme emotional distress in the child. FIA has classified this area as emotional or environmental abuse and/or neglect of the child.

4) Parents with low income are neglecting their children's basic needs.

Low income parents cannot provide for the proper medical, physical or emotional needs of their children due to their limited income. The parents' failure to obtain middle income jobs means environmental, medical and emotional neglect.

5) Parents that fail to take their child to the family physician for colds, flu, sniffles and mild congestion, or parents who fail to obtain a family pediatrician are neglecting the medical needs of their children. FIA has classified this as medical neglect.

6) Parents who own pornographic materials, such as magazines, books, video tapes, and conceal such materials from their children have created environmental and emotional neglect of their children. Parents who own and hide such material run the risk that children will find these material and view them causing emotional harm to their children. FIA has classified this as environmental neglect.

7) Divorced, single parent families seem to be targeted by FIA as high risk environments for emotional and environmental neglect. Most single parent families are low income and of course, according to FIA, cannot provide for the basic needs of the children as measured against middle income standards.

Single parents work outside of the home, leaving their children unattended or with "inappropriate care takers" (neighbors, older siblings, grandparents, relatives) causing environmental and emotional neglect of the child. Single working parents are unable to clean their homes "appropriately" and leave their homes cluttered, disorganized, and untidy (i.e. beds unmade, dirty clothes on floors or hampers, dirty dishes in the sink from breakfast, unswept or unvacuumed floors and carpets, etc.) which the family must return to in the afternoon or evening that is classified as environmental neglect.

Basically, single parents tend more to their needs (i.e. working outside of the home) that to the needs of their children which is classified as emotional and environmental neglect.

Ironically, FIA complies a list of single parent households from the Friend of the Court, sends prevention workers to the homes of such families and initially offers the families free, voluntary services through their prevention program. Such services include free parenting classes, free nutrition programs, free household budgeting programs, free employment training programs, and WIC.

The social workers in these programs compile information on the family and home for FIA. Basically, when you allow these workers to enter your lives and your home, you are allowing FIA to build a PS (Protective Services) record against you for child neglect which leads to further child protective proceedings in the Probate/Family Court which will ultimately result in the removal of your children and the children being placed in foster care. These workers are not hired to help you, they are hired to make a case of child neglect against you.

Why are families being targeted by FIA. Most people have the misconception that concerned citizens report child neglect and abuse. This is untrue! A small percentage of my cases involve reports of neglect and abuse from neighbors, family members, friends and school officials. In fact, the majority of my cases involved the family receiving some form of voluntary services from FIA, such as the free programs listed above. In the majority of cases, school officials, such as teachers and counselors, never suspected child abuse or neglect in the families that were prosecuted. Moreover, in most cases the family physicians never suspected child abuse or neglect in the families prosecuted. Families are targeted because FIA must justify its need for State and Federal grants to keep its workers employed.

Currently, FIA receives, in Federal grants, $2,000 to $4,000 per month per child in foster care and $10,000 per child adopted out into permanent homes after the parent's rights have been terminated due to neglect and abuse. The State of Michigan provides matching funds to FIA. Bill Clinton recently signed new legislation providing for an additional $2,000 to $4,000 per month per child in foster care and $10,000 for adoption. FIA is making money hand over fist through our tax dollars. FIA social workers receive bonuses for removing children from their homes and for adoption. The incentive for abuse of power is extremely high and has occurred at alarming rates.

During 1996, Clare County removed 50% of the children in the county for neglect and abuse in the home. It is very hard to comprehend that 50% of the parents in Clare County are neglecting and abusing their children. Clare County is a "demonstration county" that is a pilot county for The Binsfield Laws supported by Federal Grants. These programs involve privatizing the foster care system. The foster care program hires private industry to service the foster care needs of the county children removed from the home.

Currently, Eagle Village in Hersey, Michigan holds the foster care contract for Clare County FIA.

How does the system work? FIA initially offers families free, voluntary services through prevention services to the families on the FOC (Friend of the Court files, AFDC files, Employment Security Commission files, Social Security files, etc.) such as free parenting classes, free nutrition programs, free homemaker services, free budgeting classes, free employment training programs, etc. The prevention worker works closely with the family to coordinate these free services by meeting with the family in their home on a regular basis, once or twice per week. While working with the family, the worker identifies problems areas that put the children at risk for abuse and neglect so as to qualify the family for these free services, such as poor parenting skills, homemaker skills, budgeting skills, and employment seeking skills.

The flip side of this arrangement is that the worker is building a case of neglect and abuse against the parents. Most problems identified are lack of bonding with the children and nurturing due to the parents' participation in these free programs. Basically, the parents are putting their needs before the children's needs by focusing on their problems as identified in their participation in these programs. Furthermore, workers in these programs work in tandem with FIA to identify other risk factors such as poor parenting skills, why else would a parent take a free parenting class if they themselves have admitted to having poor parenting skills. Voluntarily entering into these programs is an actual admission to poor parenting, nutrition, homemaker, budgeting, or employment seeking skills that put the child at risk for neglect and abuse that lay the foundation for child protective proceedings in the Probate/Family Court.

The Courts believe that the FIA workers are the professionals and take their word as gold. The parents cannot defend against FIA. The testimony and statements mean nothing in the Probate/Family Court. In fact the Court can issue an emergency pick up order for the children based on only FIA's statements in an ex-parte hearing conduct by the judge and the FIA worker.

The parents are not present during these hearings. The Court will issue an ex-parte emergency order allowing the FIA work to enter the home or child's school to remove the child from the parents custody. The parents do get a hearing approximately two weeks later after the removal of the child but FIA is only required to prove that probable cause exists that the children are at risk of neglect and abuse if they remain in the home.

Approximately 90 days later the parents may have a trial to determine whether by a preponderance of the evidence that the children are at risk to abuse or neglect if they are returned to the home. Most parents plea to abuse or neglect upon FIA's promise that if the parents plea and engage in services they will get their children back sooner. Most parents plea to charges that they have a temper, they have beaten their children by merely spanking them, they have failed to provide the child with medical attention when they had cold symptoms, or they are unable to provide for the basic needs of the child because they are temporarily unemployed. The Court then takes jurisdiction over the children, places them in foster care and orders the parents to follow the Parent/Agency Agreement to be drafted by FIA. FIA then engages in a lengthy and vague process of ordering the parents to engage in specific services, such as individual counseling, parenting classes again, anger management classes and counseling, psychological evaluations, drug and alcohol testing, classes and counseling, etc. Once parents complete these services, FIA informs the parents, usually during a court proceeding that they have not dealt with the proper issues in these programs that initially led to the removal of the children or the parents have not satisfactorily completed the programs because they will not or are not mentally able to comprehend their actions and the affect of their actions that have harmed their children. It is a no-win situation. FIA is in complete control of the interpretation of whether the parents have successfully completed the Parent/Agency Agreement.

Furthermore, if the parents elect to participate in FIA's services with their hired agencies, then the parents never successfully complete the Parent/Agency Agreement. These agencies are FIA's hired hands that build a case against the parents. If the parents elect to engage in services provided by professionals of their choice or referred by their HMO or other health care providers, then the parents must pay enormous amount of money for these services and for these professionals to come to court on their behalf to testify. More importantly, the Court views parents hired witnesses as hired hands and discounts any testimony given by these professionals as being adversarial, unbelievable and hired hands of the parents. FIA and some of the Court have gone as far as accusing the parents of failing to comply with the Parent/Agency Agreement by engaging their own professionals for service which has been deemed grounds for termination of parental rights. It is a no win situation that fails to focus on the best interest of the child.

During this whole process, Department of FIA is raking in the Federal and State grants to support its preventive, protective, and foster care programs.

These are our tax dollars at work and are being misappropriated and wasted to create a foster care and adoption industry in our state. I am not arguing that there are never cases of child abuse or neglect in this state. There are real case of such that must be meet with the proper social nets. But our current system is froth with abuse of power and waste of precious tax dollars that has created false child abuse and neglect cases for the purpose of creating employment for social workers and private industries providing foster care services, counseling agencies that provide individual therapy and psychological evaluations, and community education programs that provide anger management and parenting classes. All of these agencies are funded by our tax dollars which are being wasted on parents who are only less than perfect and children who are not abused or neglected in the legal sense.

Furthermore, all parents are court ordered to pay child support to the foster parents through the Friend of Court for the care of their children while in foster care. Parents pay on an average of $25.00 to $30.00 per week per child if FIA is providing the foster care family through it county agency. Parents pay approximately $150.00 to $2,000 per month if a private agency is hired by FIA to provide foster care services. Nobody is sure where this money goes once it is paid to the Friend of the Court.

The system of FIA needs to be restructured to make it workers accountable for their actions. Presently, FIA workers have complete immunity from civil actions in the State of Michigan unless a parent can prove that a worker was grossly negligent in the performance of his or her duties. Unfortunately this is impossible to prove. If a parent pleas or the Probate Court finds that its has jurisdiction over the child for neglect and abuse, FIA continues to have jurisdiction over the child and ultimately terminates the parents rights, this will bar any suit against the FIA worker under the immunity doctrine.

Once your child is in the system, FIA and its social workers are not accountable for the worker's actions. The word is gold and the court's accept the workers word as gold. The only recourse a parent has is to appeal the Probate/Family Court's decision which is very expensive. Most of my parents send approximately $10,000 to $20,000 in defending against FIA in child protection cases, even when they plea. Most of my parents end up losing their homes, vehicles, jobs because of court appearances and engagement of professional services, and savings. Most of my parents are forced into bankruptcy.



JANET M. FREDERICK 930 MASON DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48124 OFFICE: (313) 274-8955

EDUCATION: Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, Michigan Juris Doctor, May 1994 Board of Governors Scholarship: 1993-1994 Native American Law Student Organization: President 1993-1994, 1992-1993, Vice President 1991-1992

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan Bachelor of Science, magna cum laude, June 1990 Major: Public Law and Government Minor: Art Outstanding Senior of the Year Outstanding Junior of the Year Dean's List: 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 Recognition of Excellence Scholarships: 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 Recognition of Merit Scholarships: 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990 Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Sigma, Alpha, Mortar Board, Golden Key National Honor Society, Stoic Society, Outstanding College Students of America

EXPERIENCE Matt W. Zeigler & Associates, P.C., Troy, Michigan; Associate Attorney, January 2, 1996 to June 5, 1996

Crenshaw & McMahon, P.C., Detroit, Michigan; Associate Attorney, March 27, 1995 to December 31, 1995

Sarvis & Herrmann, P. C., Bingham Farms, Michigan; Law Clerk, 1992-1994

Washtenaw County Public Defenders Office, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Intern - Law Clerk, Summer 1991

Federal Civil Service, WG-5 Step 2, United States Naval Base, N.S.G.A., Homestead, Florida; Dietary Clerk, 1979-1980

Federal Civil Service; WG-5 Step 2, United States Naval Base, N.S.G.A., Homestead, Florida; Dietary Clerk, 1979-1980

Federal Civil Service; WG-5 Step 2, 4th C.E.C. Storage Facility, United States Army, Germersheim, West Germany; Warehouse Clerk, 1978-1979

[AlbanyKaren]

Anyone who feels the need to post that many "credentials" certainly feels she must defend herself.

Where did that whacko come from? Are you kidding me?

She is SO WRONG! I'm working on a list of everything that's wrong here! Stay tuned.

I hope someone in authority has read this and responded and shut her up.

[nineballgirl]

She is a family law attorney that hails from Michigan.

I see that she does have an extensive list of credentials, so I figured that maybe she knows what she's talking about. I'm not sure, that's why I asked for someone to prove it wrong. Thanks for your response and I'll look forward to your list of counterpoints.

[psds08]

I worked as a case worker for FIA for 30 yrs.
I have heard many stories from clients and co workers.I thought as most of you think,just stories from disgruntal clients who are wackcos,however then they did it to me and my son!!!!

NOW I'M A BELIEVER!!!!

Dennis

What do you think about this story?:

Dear Dr Moore
Dr Moore is responsible for exposing the wrong doing in Calf.in the State Adoption Mill.
My name is Dennis ____________.

I worked for Michigan FIA for 30 yrs here in ____________________.
I know fron the inside what goes on.

With people who knew me and my love for children for 30 yrs.

About 1992 the office did an investigation on myself.
It was so obvious that I had done nothing wrong that they kept it in house.
They even helped me adopt our little Amanda from China in 1996.

About 1996 My son _______ married his girlfriend because she was pregnant and was talking about aborting Amber Mae.

In 1998 Peter was born premature needing lots of extra care.

_______ his wife was not very good at caring for babies she needed lots of loving hands on help.
The health department ended up calling our office.
_______was working full time at a physically demanding and sometime dangerous job welding at the ship yard.
He needed our help,Peter needed our help.

FIA threatened me with my job if I "interfered" .
No explanation Just intimation.
They told me NO!NO!NO! to even holding Peter to keep him from loosing weight.

Come to find out.at the end of all this,that they now said their investigation of myself was "improper" and they wanted to cover it up.
They even covered it up from myself!

We were in shock!

Here we had a sick baby in the family with help available and FIA is forbidding my son to have the help needed to provide for Peter.

HIS wife wouldn't/didn't do the proper job.

But wait it gets better!

FIA sided with his wife!

Mainly because we were upset and rightly angry with FIA for endangering Peter by forcing_____ to rely only on his wife to care for Peter.

Aaron got bigotedly labeled the Perpetrator and FIA set their sights on him

Even when his wife ran off to the Sex/Drug House with Amber,leaving her alone there.

Even when my son warned FIA about what was happening,
they not only did-not check out his story with local police,
a simple 911 call,
they actually helped his wife take Amber there themselves several times!

Even when I "interfered" myself by calling the worker and telling her they were getting it wrong.I got a "Formal Reprimand" for terrorizing the worker!

Even when we,on two separated occasions,kept his wife from taking Amber to the Sex/Drug House finally exposing FIA's getting it wrong.

The worker then made up a story that we had kidnapped Amber and endangered her in a high speed police chase.
The state policeman said "I wish FIA would get it's act together" when he found out what FIA had done to Amber.
The police issued no tickets for any traffic violations.

There was no "high speed chase"

I got suspended from work for 3 months.

My son got written up for child abuse.
White gloved inspected my son
[I can send details]
with an inspection the they would not have let God himself pass.
And FIA had the Judge TPR my son because

"...even though he did everything we asked we don't believe he will do it on his own.
He just wants to get his property back"
after all
My son didn't provide for his children
when his wife ran out on him in the 1st place,
never mind the fact
that FIA wouldn't let him provide for his children
In the 1st place!!

WHT? BECAUSE FIA NEEDED IT'S BUTT COVERED!

During all this time FIA made no mention of their "improper investigation" of me not even to me and they even said nothing when we adopted our 2nd little girl from China while this was going on.

By the time we exposed FIA and got them to tell us why they wouldn't let my son have the help he needed from us.It was too late.
They said,because of his anger with them,he was a harm to his children.
And
I too was out of control for the same reasons and they now tried to stop the adoption our little boy from China.

I believe they did this to shut me up and to try and make up for their guilt.I don't know why they couldn't have stood by their 1st investigation of me or redo it so Peter could get the help just waiting to showered on him?
The only thing I can guess is because that would have uncovered their butt.

They were so anxious to keep things quite that they allowed Peter and Amber to suffer for it!

And when they got caught they retaliated against me by trying to take my children because I too was rightly angered with their selfishness and because I didn't have a job because they fired me because they were afraid of me.
Fotinately for our little boy Arthur the Judge saw through them and refused to handle Arthur's adoption and had another Judge do it.

But it was too late for for the Judge to change his ruling on Peter Amber and my son.

By the way after all this,even FIA's trying to take my children,FIA writes us and wants to know if we want to adopt Peter and Amber.

WHY WHY WHY DIDN'T FIA LET US PREVENT ALL THIS IN THE 1ST PLACE ???????

BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO COVER THEIR BUTT IN THE 1ST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!

As a side note:
When Peter and Amber were in foster care FIA wanted my son and/orhis wife sterilized as a condition for their return.

Something is very wrong

When good dads are threatened and prevented from providing for their children in the 1st place.

When authorities place children in "Harms Way"
[A quote from my immediate boss when he found out what happened]

And then when the dads defy FIA to protect their children
They are demonized and
They are severely punished
In the worst possible way.

PS
And now FIA is threatening me with jail for trying to tell this story.
Can you get me some kind of protection?
When are you professionals going to start policing yourselves
to take care of those of you that give a black eye to the good
God given work you do do?

[lewellen]

I can't prove her wrong, but I can't prove her right either. The only place I can find the 50% removal statistic is in this article. It seems that this article has been popping up since about 1999. It is featured on several "false accusation" and "child protection" web sites. How legit these sites are, I don't know. News searches turn nothing up in the author's name. I cannot find where this article was originally published and the poster does not include that information.

Don't have time to run the author through Lexus Nexus, but it might be interesting. Her name did pop up as representing a couple in Michigan on appeal of a child abuse charge.

Just because it can't be proved wrong does not make it true.



LewEllen

[wolflady22743]

The author is a practicing attorney in Macomb Co MI. Here is a link if that will help.
http://www.parentsforchildren.net/20fiagame.cfm


This wonderful woman spends her days working on these cases day in and day you. She spent this holiday weekend in my home. She is NOT a whacko.
Also you might want to try going to another site.

www.fcr4kids.org/ There you can find newsletters full of helpful information. I find it very interesting that you could not find anything to refute what she says but you are completely unwilling to believe it. There are 2 counties in MI where literally 50% of the children in the county are under the care of the state. These are low population counties. These figures come from the federal DHHS website. This is where figures come from but if you want to refute the federal governments figures be my guest.

[wolflady22743]

The Sad Facts

About the Child Protection Industry

One of the Child Protection Agency’s key incentives for receiving funding is by how many children are taken from parents and put into foster care. The minimum cost to the taxpayer in just the various providers who reap a harvest from the removal of a child from their parents and placement in foster care is $15,200.00 per child. The system can charge the state treasury up to $100,000 per year per child for various services.

Parents are falsely accused 60 – 80% of the time.

Parents are almost always presumed guilty until they can prove they are innocent.

Children are taken from their parents instantly without due process and without cause based on anonymous and erroneous phone calls from angry neighbors, abusive ex-spouses, unmarried ex-partners, and school officials because parents refuse to put children on psychotropic drugs for maladies such as ADHD.
The schools receive more government funds for children diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, OCD, ODD, and a whole alphabet of this type. It is not about what is good for the child. It is about the money. Always follow the money to find the culprit.

CPS and the Courts conduct trials behind a cloak of secrecy. The workers can commit perjury, defy court orders, used coerced and false testimony, hearsay testimony, and ignore Constitutional rights almost totally unchallenged. Arrogance is prominent among CPS agencies. Free from Constitutional restraints and outside oversight and accountability, these people enjoy a measure of power not given to any other segment of society.

½ of all child deaths happen in foster care!!!!!
Over 60% of all foster children become criminals. Tragically most of these children did not need to be abducted from their homes in the first place by CPS.

Child Protection has become a moneymaking cottage industry. A 200 billion dollar business nationwide.
Children are the commodity!!!
Children are 10 times more likely to suffer abuse and neglect and 6 times more likely to die in fostercare!!!
Foundation for Children’s Rights
http://www.fcr4kids.org/ (989) 261-1200
wolflady@cmsinter.net

[psds08]

The main reason nobody ever hears about any of this and therefore never believes it, is because:

Everything is all done in secret!

And if anyone tells
they can be sent to jail!

In effect they hide behind the children saying"

It will cause emotional harm to the children
if they find out they didn't need
to have been taken in the 1st place!

And it probably will!!!

And the worker knowthis secreacy is available and can use that to do and say anything.

In their training workers are told not to worry about getting it right
Why
because it's it judges job to sort out everything.
The problen is that the worker is the eyes and ears of the judge and he counts on their word being gold.
It's a viscious circle.

When the topic of railroading a client would come up
workers would change the subject because they knew just how easily this could and would and had been done!!!

When I 1st work of FIA I got to know that the judge would believe everything I told him.
My word was gold!
After that
I only took cased when eminent danger of death of the client was at stake.

Again can anyone get me some protection for telling secrets??

I'm a believer

[lewellen]

Here is a link to 2000 U.S. Cenus figures on household information for those under 18 in Michigan. You may scroll down to find Clare County figures, or that of any other county. They do not show 50% of children out of primary household. Are you going to argue with the U.S. cenus bureau?


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sup_co_29859_7.pdf


Checked out link to fcr4kids.org, here is a link to one of their pages, you decide. What does the Social Security fund have to do with child protection?

http://www.fcr4kids.org/about_us.htm


I might also mention this group links to the American Family Rights Assoc. on their website. When looking into a group of this nature, you usually look into contributors, as you can see this is not an issue with this orginization.

http://familyrightsassociation.com/


Oh, and you must check out their poster. Priceless.

http://familyrightsassociation.com/b...icketSigns.pdf


Thanks for the link to parentsfor children. net, I got Janet Frederick Wilsons full name. Here's a link you find intersting.

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chroni.../rainbow.shtml

Or how about this from Cannabis News:

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11502.shtml


The only links that wolflady would include, in my opinion, are small groups that are motivated by having their children removed, however justly or unjustly, I don't know. I will say that they have an agenda. You decide.

LewEllen

[psds08]

Dear LewEllen

What about this story?

http://keyetv.com/videolibrary/?cat=6&next=140

KEYE 42 Top News Stories (Seg.2) 2/25/04

What about my story??

Am I making all of this up??

This is my personal experience and has nothing to do with stats!
One of the reasons CPS is up so much is because of the way the state defines child abuse/neglect in order to cover themselves.

Remember
The state only has to show something might happen and that
I could do even to you!

Since anything might happen when raising children.

Unless you are a prefect parent.

Are you??

I find you too insensitive to our pain.

Forgive us putting you on the defensive

But this has to be done since the state does take children for trivual reasons as well as for the right reasons.

They do this because it's just the most easy and safest thing to do,
to cover themselves and and to cover the children.

After all they don't know for shure the children will be safe ????

Would you send your children to people you have had a bad report called in on?
NO!
You would allways see them in a suspious light and therefor wouldn't take the risk!
Especially if you are overworked.

So if there is any doubt.....and there is allways some doubt,

Take the kids.

As a matter of fact that is just why they do take the kids 1st in the 1st place.

Dennis

[lewellen]

PS,


Nice rant. Sorry the big bag of facts hit you so hard. I simply used the info you gave me. I beleive the challenge was to "prove her wrong". If you read carefully, I never made any statements as to the accuracy of your info, other than a statistic that you sighted.

If you want to tell your personal story, tell it. If you want to issue a challenge, back it up. Which way do you want it? In citing that your facts are at best weak, I am in no way disputing what happened to you personally.


The opinions on the groups that you choose to associate yourself with, were my own. I simply posted links to allow others to decide for themselves.

As to the threat, do you think that Delta County officals would be interested in this thread? I'd take it down a notch or two if I were you.

LewEllen

[psds08]

Dear LewEllen

What about this story?

http://keyetv.com/videolibrary/?cat=6&next=140

KEYE 42 Top News Stories (Seg.2) 2/25/04

Did you even go to see it???

I can't take it down any because that is what happened.

FIA and the judge will
"Allways "
"Error on the side of the child"
This is a quote from the judge when he took office 30 yrs ago and came to visit our office.

It was a Red Flag to me then because what has happened is that this has now come to mean that many parents are railroaded and even FIA knows it.

Why do you think they didn't do a proprer investigation on myself in the 1st place?

They even know that the worker was
"out of line",my bosses words,
in my son's case because:
With in months after they TPR
FIA took away his X wife's 3rd child ,conceived at the drug/sex house,
But didnot take away my son's 3rd child .

And the judge,when he found out what FIA did
didnot stop our adoption of our little boy from China.
The other judge, who did the adoption ,said FIA's judgement was "clouded"

So exactly when did my son and I become un-dangerious to children????

When FIA worker manipulated her win to cover her neglect and bad judgement and endangerment of our little girl.

When the foster mom who was a friend of the worker testfied against my son and adopted the children.

We were never dangerious to the children in the 1st place
but they didn't care about the children in the 1st place but their rules and butt came 1st ahead of the children
in the 1st place.

I'm sorry you find all this hard to believe .

Dennis

PS

I'd take it down a notch or two if I were you.

OK Please help me do this.

Rewrite our story taken down a notch or two and send it to me if you you want more info let me know.

[lewellen]

Again I say, "In citing that your facts are at best weak, I am in no way disputing what happened to you personally. " The comments I made were in reference to the article you posted and the organzations you point me to. Not your specific experience.

I never stated that your personal experience didn't happen. Are you even reading my replies?


Seems I'm not the only one, here is a lttle exchange compliments of our freinds at the catholic church. Love the reply.........



By Dennis Stacilauskas (psds08) on Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 4:45 pm: Edit Post
I just saw a movie on Hallmark about Ester.
I am interested in Old Testament Saints amd How they got to be saints.
Ester lived in sin.Married out side of church in sexual sin.The Law strictly forbids marrying a non Jew.
She probably died married to the king.
Is she in Heaven?
There are others in similar situations in the Old Testiment.Samson for instance. What about them?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Fr. Robert Auman (fr_auman) on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 1:24 pm: Edit Post
Dennis,

Your undersrtanding of, and interpretation of, the Old Testament remind me of some radio and TV preachers and their understanding of, and interpretation of, the New Testament.

Esther did not get married through the Church, because the Church did not exist until a number of centuries after her. She followed the Jewish law to the best of her ability. I don't know if she is in heaven, since God has not told us. But my guess is that she is there, together with many other saintly people in the Old Testament like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Daniel and his companions, David, etc. And if the 7 brothers mentioned in 2 Maccabees are not in heaven, there is little chance that you and I will ever get there.

With prayers,

Fr. Auman


TV preacher sounds pretty accurate to me.

Keep typing away like a cranked up gibbon, I'm sure someone is listening somewhere. For me, it would be cruel to continue. Good luck on that heaven thing.

LewEllen

[psds08]

Dear LewEllen

What about this story?

http://keyetv.com/videolibrary/?cat=6&next=140

KEYE 42 Top News Stories (Seg.2) 2/25/04


Please I beg you please at least go to the above NEWS REPORT
It is not by a TV Preacher
It is the truth

I am sorry that you don't want to listen to me .

Because I can prove,with my story, That

The FIA GAME is basicly true.

Bottom line for my Grandson Peter and Granddaughter Amber?:

If FIA had not threatened us and prevented Peter from getting the help he needed from his family he would never have
"Failed to Thrive"
In the 1st place

And all my friends of 30 yrs,who know of our love for children, at FIA know this!

And Amber would never have been taken to the Drug/Sex House.

And all my friends of 30 yrs,who know of our love for children, at FIA know this too!

Dennis

[wolflady22743]

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM



“Know your rights before you talk to anyone from CPS, they won’t tell you.

CPS can not do anything without your permission”





A guide to protect the constitutional rights of both parents and children.






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).







Written by:


Thomas Dutkiewicz
Connecticut DCF Watch



Aimee Dutkiewicz
New England Parent Advocacy Network


IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CPS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND INTERVIEW A CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR PROBABLE CAUSE.

The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted. 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.

The mere possibility 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 A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)

PREFACE

This is only a guide to your constitutional protections in the context of an investigation of alleged child abuse and neglect by Child Protective Services (“CPS”). Every state has variances of CPS in one form or another. Some are called DCF, DHS, DSS, DCYS, DCFS, HRS, CYS and FIA, collectively known as “CPS” for the purposes of this handbook. The material in this handbook should be supplemented by your own careful study of the 4th and 14th Amendment and other Constitutional protections that are guaranteed even in the context dealing with CPS.

The intent of this handbook is to inform parents, caregivers and their attorneys that they can stand up against CPS and Juvenile Judges when they infringe upon the rights of both parents and children. As you read this handbook, you will be amazed what your rights are and how CPS conspires with the Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) who then in turn has the Judge issue warrant/orders that are unlawful and unconstitutional under the law. Contrary what any CPS officials, the AAG, Juvenile Judge or any social workers may say, they are all subject to and must yield to the 4th and 14th Amendment just like police officers according to the Circuit and District Courts of the United States and the Supreme Court. CPS workers can be sued for violations of your 4th and 14th Amendments, they lose their “immunity” by those “Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law” and must be sued in their “Official and Individual” capacity in order to succeed in a §§ 1983 and 1985 civil rights lawsuit. If the police assisted CPS in that deprivation of rights, they also lose immunity and can be sued for assisting CPS in the violation of both yours and your child’s rights when they illegally abduct your children or enter your home without probable cause or exigent circumstances which are required under the warrant clause of the 14th Amendment.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

The authors of this book are not attorneys and do not pretend to be attorneys. The authors were victims of a false report and were falsely accused by DCF in Connecticut without conducting a proper investigation. The authors fought back for 8-months against this corrupt organization whose order of the day was to deny them their 4th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights and to fabricate false charges without evidence. DCF’s charges and petition to the court was nothing more than baseless allegations, never evidence. DCF withdrew the fraudulent petition on December 18, 2002 admitting they had no evidence. The fact of the matter is that they never had any evidence but abused the authors and their children for an 8-month period. As a direct result of the false charges and with manufacturing of evidence and violating the authors 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th and 14th Amendment rights, the authors filed a lawsuit in January 2003 in Federal Court in the District of Connecticut (3:03-cv-109AVC). There are 28 Defendants in this civil action and the authors are representing them selves Pro se. The authors have never been convicted of any child abuse or neglect nor are there any investigations on going. The authors have three children, a 15-year old and 10-year old twins.

The author’s goals are that not another child is illegally abducted from their family and that CPS and juvenile judges start using common sense before rushing to judgment and to conduct their investigations the same as do the police in order to be constitutionally correct and legal and that CPS MUST by law comply with the “Warrant Clause” as required by the Constitution and the Federal Courts whereas they are “governmental officials” and are subject to the Constitution as are the police. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitution for CPS.

INTRODUCTION

You as a parent or care giver MUST know your rights and be totally informed what you have a legal right to have and to express, whether you are a parent caught up in a very oppressive, abusive and many times unlawful actions of CPS or if you have never been investigated by CPS. Many individuals come to the wrong conclusion that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful in order for CPS to investigate, this is just a myth. The fact of the matter is that over 80% of the calls that are called in to CPS are false and bogus.

Another myth is that CPS can conduct an investigation in your home without your consent and speak to your child without your consent. CPS employees will lie to you and tell you they do not need your consent. The fact of the matter is they absolutely need your consent to come in your home and speak with your children. If there is no “exigent circumstances” (imminent danger) to your children with “probable cause” (credible witness) to support a warrant, CPS anywhere in the United States cannot lawfully enter your home and speak with you and your children. In fact it is illegal and you can sue the social worker and the police who assist them and they both lose immunity from being sued.

If CPS lies to the AAG and the Judge in order to get a warrant/order and you can prove it, that also is a 4th and 14th Amendment rights violation which is a civil rights violation under § 1983 and conspiracy against rights covered under § 1985. If a CPS official knocks on your door and has no legal warrant and you refuse them entry and the worker then threatens you with calling the police, this is also illegal and unlawful and both lose immunity. This is coercion, threatening and intimidation tactics even if the police only got the door open so CPS official can gain entry. Both can be sued.

Remember, CPS officials will not tell you your rights; in fact they are going to do everything in their power including lying to you, threatening you with police presence telling you that you have to let them in. The police may even threaten you to let CPS in because you are obstructing an investigation. Many police officers do not realize that CPS MUST comply with the warrant clause of the 14th Amendment or be sued for violating it.

CPS does not have a legal right to conduct an investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect in a private home without your consent. In fact removing a child from your home without your consent even for several hours is a “seizure” under federal law. Speaking to your children without your consent is also a “seizure” under the law. If CPS cannot support a warrant and show that the child is in immanent danger along with probable cause, CPS cannot enter your home and speak with your children. Remember, anonymous calls into CPS are NEVER probable cause under the Warrant Clause. And even if they got a name and number from the reporter on the end of the phone, that also does not support probable cause under the law. CPS must by law, investigate the caller to determine to see if he or she is the person who they say they are and that what they said is credible. The call alone, standing by itself, is insufficient to support probable cause under the law. Many bogus calls are made by disgruntle neighbors, ex spouses, someone wanting to get revenge so CPS needs to show due diligence as do police to get sworn statements. All CPS agencies all across the country have a much exaggerated view of their power. And what you think is abuse or neglect is or is not, CPS has a totally different definition. That definition is what ever they want it to be. DCF will lie to you, mark my word, they will tell you they can do anything they want and they have total immunity. Tell that to the half dozen social workers sitting in jail in California, they lied to the judge. We will discuss this in further detail on what CPS and the police can do and not do.

SECTION 1

NEVER EVER TRUST ANYONE FROM CPS

You have to under stand that CPS will not give you or your spouse a Miranda warning nor do they have to. If CPS shows up at your door and tells you they need to speak with you and your children, you have the legal right to deny them entry. But before they leave, you should bring your children to the door but never open it, instead show them the children are not in imminent danger and that they are fine. If you do not at least show them your children, they could come back with an unlawful and unconstitutional warrant even though your children are not in imminent danger.

Every thing CPS sees and hears is written down and eventually given to the AAG for your possible prosecution. You also need to know if the focus of the investigation is on your spouse or significant other you may think you may not be charged with anything and that you are the non-offending spouse, wrong. If your spouse gets charged with anything, you are probable going to get charged with allowing it to happen. So if a spouse gets the bright idea and lies and makes things up, he/she is also confessing that he allowed what ever he/she alleges.

What you say will more then likely not be written down the way you said it or meant it. For example, the CPS worker asks the wife, “Does your husband yell at the children?” your response could be once in a while. Then they ask, “Does he yell at you and argue with you. Your response could be “yes we argue sometimes and he may raise his voice.” The next question is, “Does your husband drink alcohol?” Your response could be “yes he has several drinks a week.” Now let’s translate those benign responses and see what CPS may right in her paperwork. “When the father drinks, he yells at children and wife and wife is a victim of domestic violence.” This is a far cry on what really took place in that conversation. CPS routinely will take what you say out of context and actually lie in their reports in order to have a successful prosecution of their case. They have an end game in mine and they will misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding what may or may not have happened.

Something similar happened to the authors where DCF employees lied in front of the judge and said the husband was a victim of domestic violence even though all 5 members of the family stated clearly that there was never any domestic violence. The husband would like to know when this occurred because he wasn’t there. They will also misrepresent the condition of your home, as did DCF with us. Even if you were sick or injured and hadn’t had a chance to straighten anything out. CPS will not put anything exculpatory in the record so any one that reads her notes will read that the house was a mess and cluttered. Never give them a chance to falsify the record or twist your words. The best advice we can offer is before letting any CPS official in if you choose to do so is to tell them you want your attorney there when they come and schedule a time for that.

Remember, CPS could care less about your rights or your children’s constitutional rights. Removing a child from a safe home is more harmful then most alleged allegation as stated by many judges. They will lie and say they have to come in or you have to comply. Remember CPS has no statutory authority to enter your home when no crime has been committed. They are trained to lie to you in order to get in any way they can and this comes from interviewing employees at DCF. Do not sign anything or agree to anything. Even if your not guilty and you agree to go through some horse and pony show. That is used against you as if you admitted to it.

SECTION 2

ARE ALL CPS WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES
SUBJECT TO THE 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT?

Yes they are, the 4th Amendment is applicable to DCF investigators in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all “government officials.” This issue is brought out best in Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588.

The social workers argued, “the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to the activities of their social worker employees.” The social workers claimed, “entries into private homes by child welfare workers involve neither searches nor seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and thus can be conducted without either a warrant or probable cause to believe that a child is at risk of imminent harm.”

The court disagreed and ruled: “Despite the defendant’s exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose request to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.” The Court also stated “The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCFS employee, or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of child abuse, neglect, or dependency.” (Emphasis added) The social worker’s first argument, shot down by the court. The social workers then argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and that the situation was an “emergency.” They state, the “Defendants argue their entry into the home, even absent voluntary consent, was reasonable under the circumstances. They point to: the anonymous complaint about clutter on the front porch; and the plaintiff’s attempt to leave.

These circumstances, the defendants argue, created an ‘emergency situation’ that led Darnold and Brown reasonably to believe the Walsh children were in danger of imminent harm. (Thus is the old “emergency” excuse that has been used for years by social workers.) The Court again disagreed and ruled: “There is nothing inherently unusual or dangerous about cluttered premises, much less anything about such vaguely described conditions that could manifest imminent or even possible danger or harm to young children. If household ‘clutter’ justifies warrant less entry and threats of removal of children and arrest or citation of their parents, few families are secure and few homes are safe from unwelcome and unjustified intrusion by state officials and officers.” The Court went on to rule, “They have failed to show that any exigency that justifies warrantless entry was necessary to protect the welfare of the plaintiff’s children. In this case a rational jury could find that ‘not evidence points to the opposite conclusion’ and a lack of ‘sufficient exigent circumstances to relieve the state actors here of the burden of obtaining a warrant.” The social worker’s second argument, shot down by the court.

The social workers then argued that they are obligated under law to investigate any reported case of child abuse, and that supersedes the Fourth Amendment. They argued, “Against these fundamental rights, the defendants contend that Ohio’s statutory framework for learning about and investigation allegations of child abuse and neglect supersede their obligations under the Fourth Amendment. They point principally to § 2151.421 of the Ohio Revised code as authority for their warrantless entry into and search of the plaintiff’s home. That statute imposes a duty on certain designated professionals and persons who work with children or provide child care to report instances of apparent child abuse or neglect.” This is the old “mandatory reporter” excuse.

The Court disagreed and ruled: “The defendant’s argument that the duty to investigate created by § 2151.421(F)(1) exempts them from the Fourth Amendment misses the mark because, not having received a report described in § 2151.421(A)(1)(b), they were not, and could not have been, conducting an investigation pursuant to § 2151.421(F)(1).” The social worker’s third argument, shot down by the court.

The Court continues with their chastisement of the social workers: “There can be no doubt that the state can and should protect the welfare of children who are at risk from acts of abuse and neglect. There likewise can be no doubt that occasions arise calling for immediate response, even without prior judicial approval. But those instances are the exception. Other wise child welfare workers would have a free pass into any home in which they have an anonymous report or poor housekeeping, overcrowding, and insufficient medical care and, thus perception that children may be at some risk.” The Court continues: “The anonymous phone call in this case did not constitute a ‘report’ of child abuse or neglect.” The social workers, Darnold and Brown, claimed that they were immune from liability, claiming qualified immunity because “they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law.” In other words, because they thought the Fourth Amendment did not bind them, they couldn’t be sued for their “mistake.”

The police officers, Chandler and Kish, claimed that they couldn’t be sued because they thought the social workers were not subject to the Fourth Amendment, and they were just helping the social workers. The Court disagreed and ruled: “That subjective basis for their ignorance about and actions in violation of the fourth Amendment does not relieve them of the consequences of that ignorance and those actions.” The Court then lowers the boom by stating: “The claims of defendants Darnold, Brown, Chandler and Kish of qualified immunity are therefore denied.”

THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT SAID, PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO BE LEFT ALONE BY CPS AND THE POLICE.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd, 9th Cir. (1999) “involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency.”

The court did not agree that the social worker and the police officer had “qualified immunity” and said, “the facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency.” No one was in distress. “The police officer was there to back up the social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will, not because he perceived any imminent danger of harm.” And he should have known better. Furthermore, “had the information been more alarming, had the social worker or police officer been alarmed, had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child, this would be a different case, one to which we have no occasion to speak. A reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant.”

And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law: “In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. Any government official (CPS) can be held to know that their office does not give them unrestricted right to enter people’s homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce county (797 F. 2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986)), a child welfare investigation case, that ‘it was settled constitutional law that, absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.’ The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.”

And there we have it: “Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. … The fourth Amendment preserves the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses … ‘without limiting that right to one kind of government official.”

In other words, the parents have the constitutional right to exercise their children’s and their 4th and 5th Amendment protections and should just say no to social workers especially when they attempt to coerce or threaten to call the police so they can conduct their investigation. “A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.” (The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect the people from the government, not to protect the government from the people. And within those documents, the people have the constitutional right to hold the government accountable when is does deny its citizens their rights under the law even if it is CPS, the police, or government agency, or local, state, or federal government.)

The Court’s reasoning for this ruling was simple and straight forward: “The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent’s and the child’s interest in the privacy of the relationship with each other.”