Raped by the State

Mom wins substantial award against CPS abuse of power

2011-09-26T15:56:00.000-07:00

The following link details a case where a mother was awarded a substantial award against CPS for abuse of power in her case. If this mother won a case against a social services agency, there are many thousands more mothers out there who can do the same thing because the circumstances in all of the cases are similar if not identical. The only difference in most cases is the names of the people involved and the location of the cases.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogarty-Hardwick/social_services/prweb4157254.htm

Article describing the coercive nature of CPS

2011-09-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

The following link will lead you to an article that explains the coercive nature of CPS. They use coercion and intimidation tactics to get parents to relinquish their parental rights so the child can be adopted out to strangers for profit. The article is authored by Jan Smith on Facebook.

http://washingtonstateextendedfamilies.com/COERSION.htm

CPS Live Buzz Interviews Doctor About Psych Evaluations

2011-03-23T22:49:00.000-07:00

Is this an accurate depiction of CPS or what?! So very many parents are railroaded by CPS social workers by way of their contracted parrots-- I mean 'treatment providers'.

HAPPY 6TH BIRTHDAY MICAH! Your Mama Denise will always love you.

2011-03-15T20:36:00.000-07:00

I must graciously thank KHQ news for airing my son's photo during their morning birthday announcements. I also thank KXLY news for doing the same. It is one of the very few crumbs of joy that the State of Washington and foster-adopt industry can not snatch back from me. Making birthdays a part of their newscasts and websites has brought joy to my heart and I am very grateful for it.

I submitted my photo and request to KHQ on time, however, somehow mine was missed on March 14th (Micah's birthdate.) KHQ was kind enough to air my birthday greeting the next day... following my notifying them of the mistake.

Railroad: The road traveled most by parents involved with CPS

2011-03-15T19:59:00.000-07:00

Nothing can be more heart-wrenching than the loss of a child. For that reason, kidnappings mobilize entire communities to search for the missing and comfort the victimized families. In high-profile cases, such as that of Elizabeth Smart, the entire nation watches. Amber Alert systems notify police and private citizens to watch for the perpetrators. Yet, when CPS is the culprit/criminal, nothing is done to rescue the child from its kidnappers. It is merely assumed that the parent has committed some kind of abuse or neglect toward their children. If that can't be proven or even asserted, CPS and its cohorts just assert what they refer to as "risk of harm" by the parent/caregiver of the child. Then, its Department contracted 'treatment providers' parrot what CPS wants to accomplish. The parent is generally 'diagnosed' with a fake mental or personality disorder. Given the fact that they are allowed to drag the innocent parents into a fake court that provides nearly zero Due Process, the parents are afforded no justice.

The fact of the matter is that child abuse or purposeful neglect is a crime, however, parents are often times not charged with a crime because they are truly innocent of wrongdoing and there is no evidence of such a charge. CPS and family courts get away with bringing a civil case against the parent and drumming up the hanky defense: that the child is at risk of harm due to allegations that he/she has mental health problems severe enough to warrant the permanent termination of parental rights. They bring the civil case because it requires considerably less evidence or reason to separate parents from their children. That is all it takes in order for CPS to accomplish the permanent traumatizing of an entire family... all for the sake of the almighty dollar. (and generally with the assistance of Court Appointed lawyers that do NOT aggressively defend their clients against the abuses committed by CPS and judges.) Most of the 'professionals' within the CPS and family court system make their living by processing children like cattle. Doctors, therapists, social workers, supervisors, lawyers, AAG's, Gaurdian ad litems, visitation note takers, visitation transporters, judges, court commissioners, even foster parents seeking to adopt the children they are paid to care for while the parents desperately try to rescue their children from foster-incarceration. It is the foster-adopt industry. Yes, I said industry, because that is exactly what it is. The list seems never ending. The bureaucratic bully CPS will never cease this horrific and criminal behavior if they are never held accountable for their deeds. Listen people... kidnapping and fraudulent testimony are criminal. Why are state agents and fake court commissioners and judges allowed to commit such crimes and escape punishment? They are criminals. This needs to be remedied. Parents everywhere need to wake up and yell until we are heard. CPS is an unconstitutional financial empire built on separating loving, non abusive families in order to receive government financial bonuses and to sell the children like merchandise to foster-adopt couples desiring to adopt. CPS even has its own state contracted lawyers specifically to represent and facilitate these adoptions directly out of the foster care pool. Thus, it is much less expensive if not free to the perspective adoptive parents to file for the adoptions. Certainly less expensive than applying to a private adoption agency.

Please view the following videos of former Senator Nancy Schaefer regarding the corrupt business of Child Protective Services.

Below are the links to the videos on YouTube...

Part 1 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOx5Q5ekPxk&feature=player_embedded

Part 2 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfWEQEm9GJk&feature=player_embedded

Part 3 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1HnWqy_0yM&feature=player_embedded

Part 4 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg-N9tT6OtY&feature=player_embedded

Feel free to pass along - we need to get the word out!!!!

CPS: A FINANCIAL EMPIRE

2011-02-07T17:24:00.000-08:00

Sunday Reading: The Money Behind State Adoptions

POLITICS

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness...DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore

Massachusetts News

Child "protection" is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it.

The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more "evaluators" , junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back.

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a "business" in dealing with children.

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting…

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children.

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned.

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.

How DSS Is Helped

The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.

For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.

But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."

In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.

A report from a private think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis, reads: "The way the federal government reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program instead of the effective care of children." Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet site to "link children in foster care with adoptive families." So we will be able to window shop for children on a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like there, you can surf on over to the "Adopt Shoppe."

If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking." The incentives for government child snatching are so good that I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples you don’t chop down your apple trees.

Benefits for Foster Parents

That covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is finalized.

After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can.

According to the NAATRIN State Subsidy profile from DSS, "special needs" may be defined as: "Physical disability, mental disability, emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the foster parents where the child has resided with the foster parents for one or more years and separation would adversely affect the child’s development if not adopted by them." [But their significant emotional ties with their parents, since birth, never enter the equation.]

Additional "special needs" designations are: a child twelve years of age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: "In part because the States can garner extra federal funds for special needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to become meaningless. " "Special needs" children may also get an additional Social Security check.

The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and "reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process." Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are also entitled to post adoption services "that may be helpful in keeping the family intact," including "daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services". [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!]

The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the "innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption" section. The subsidy regulations read that "adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family." What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: "We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills."

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place? According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child protective cases "do not involve child maltreatment. " The largest percentage of CPS/DSS cases are for "deprivation of necessities" due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.

That’s just a fantasy, of course. The reality is that maybe we will see Kathleen Crowley’s children on the government home-shopping- for-children web site and some one out there can buy them.

Posted by State Senator Pam Roach

This blogs author Denise Dopkins says "Thank you Mrs. Roach for providing the above article. How abundantly truthful it really is! The Foster Adopt industry continues to thrive due to the fact that DCFS/CPS continues to be allowed to destroy innocent loving families simply in order to receive funding. The funding that pays foster parents and adoptive parents alike. The funding also continues to go to CPS contracted providers (therapists, doctors, visitation monitors, lawyers, commissioners, judges, social workers and the list goes on and on."

Just another child protection racket (scheme)

2011-01-07T18:45:00.000-08:00

The following article was authored by Pam Roach and can be located on her own blog as well. Just click on her name above and it will take you to her blog. Lots of wonderful and eye opening information there too.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

CPS: Escapes Budget Cuts

Citing the need to protect children, Gov. Gregoire recently told the press that CPS would not take budget cuts. I am the first to agree that not enough is being done to protect children. Just read the headlines to see how many cases are gone neglected by the department. (CPS) But, on the other end of the spectrum, children are being taken without cause. No budget cuts means the system of taking children for adoption will continue, unabated, during the budget shortage. Here is a grandma comment just posted. This story is one repeated often.

Loving Grandma Writes:
"The job of the CPS worker is to build the most damning report she can to justify the removal of the children. I have read the report on my son and his wife, who were not allowed to bring their newborn home from the hospital because of the alleged possibility of neglect. The descriptions in the CPS report bear only a vague resemblance to my real-life son and daughter-in-law. The report paints such a misleading picture of the situation that it would be no help to Senator Roach or to anyone who wanted to know the true story."

Senator Pam Roach states the following:

"Today in Olympia I received two calls from CPS involved families. All were pleading for help from a government that has lied to take children. I am sure there are some cases where the department is correct in their actions....I wonder if Secretary Denise Revels Robinson has gotten the "taking rate" down like she said she would."

"Session starts Janurary 10th. I will be ready."

The Financial Empire CPS

2010-12-23T16:22:00.000-08:00

This blog's author Denise Dopkins posts the following video in which a heartbroken mother describes the agenda and motives of CPS and family courts. I personally have experienced the same heartache and sorrow in my life due to this bureaucratic bullies. I suffered the severe absence of Due Process found in the family and appellate courts. Please click on the following link to hear the absolute truth about the financial empire CPS and family courts... not to forget the foster-adopt industry. Yes-- I said industry.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/child-abduction-by-the-state

State of Missouri Leaves out the Timeline to the case that shows how they set the child up for adoption by using their own first hand knowledge.

State officials on the case, left out information in order to obtain an unlawful termination.

Time line shows their knowledge of their own actions and predated intentions to procure an unlawful adoption. Timeline was never allowed or used during court procedures that would show the judges deliberate ignorance and intentions to hide their own acts of child endangerment and fraud to obtain an unlawful adoption.

Courts Rule on Parental Bonding To Separate Mother& Daughter while collecting federal funds, bonuses and rewards. Missouri state officials have taken the right to claim that a parent or child has no bond between them in order to establish a termination of parental rights act of law. See petition, Child Abduction By The State more

© 2010 YouTube, LLC

901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

CPS criminal activity

2010-12-01T06:55:00.000-08:00

Independent Media Source

THE CHILD PROTECTION RACKET

http://tinyurl.com/omubc

Critics compare CPS to Frankenstein's monster, out of control, destroying children and parents alike. Child handed pills A PROTECTIVE SYSTEM GONE AWRY. The Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act of 1974 was aimed at protecting children; instead, it enabled psychiatry to pervert the system for its own enrichment. As psychiatrist Bertram Brown (above), then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, proclaimed in 1977, "the tough role — that of change agentry vis a vis the family — has devolved upon the mental health system." In the decades since, psychiatry's role in the "child abuse" arena has mushroomed — with catastrophic effects for families and children.

In the cases of Rusty and Jessica, however, no one activated an Amber Alert. There was no news media blitz.

Why?

Because these children were but two of the thousands forcibly separated from their families each year by the Child Protective Services (CPS) system.

Help Becomes Betrayal

Child Protective Services, in the eyes of many parents and advocacy groups, is a cruel misnomer.

One prominent children's rights advocate whose efforts were instrumental in bringing about the legislation that created the CPS system in the 1970s is Walter Mondale, former vice president and senator. Subsequently, Mondale reportedly feared that the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act he introduced in the Senate in 1974 "could lead to systemic abuse in that the state agencies might overprocess children into the system unnecessarily to keep, and increase, the flow of federal dollars."1

That, the record shows, is exactly what has happened, with critics today comparing the system to Dr. Frankenstein's monster — out of control, destroying children and parents alike.

But how did this transformation of a system originally intended to help children come about? Freedom's investigation found the psychiatric industry to be at the core of this perversion, as documented in this report.

As early as 1977, a formative year for the CPS system, psychiatrist Bertram S. Brown, then director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), revealed the self-appointed mission of his profession to gain control of this territory. "The tough role — that of change agentry vis a vis the family — has devolved upon the mental health system," he wrote in the foreword to a 200-page NIMH publication, Child Abuse and Neglect Programs: Practice and Theory.

Subsequently, over the decades, psychiatry's role in bringing about such change has burgeoned — including the vesting of more and more public funds in wasteful and destructive psychiatric drugs and other "solutions." At the same time, psychiatric control of the child-protection system has been detrimental to the system's stated goal of keeping families together, with Rusty and Jessica being but two of an untold number of tragedies.

In interviews with Freedom, mothers described the serious abuse of their children under Child Protective Services programs.

A Mind-Altering Potpourri

In 1995, after her daughter Jessica, then 5, was molested, Audrey Serrano turned to the Massachusetts Department of Social Services for help.

Referred to psychiatrists, including Elliott Pittel at the Herbert Lipton Community Mental Health Center in Leominster, young Jessica was, by age 6, placed on a potpourri of mind-altering pharmaceuticals while still living at home. These included an amphetamine-type drug and three different antidepressants. All three antidepressants prescribed to Jessica are among the drugs that have recently been the subject of multiple warnings from health authorities in numerous nations, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Their labels bear the FDA's most serious "black box" admonition — that they will "increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior." The FDA indicated that the manufacturer of the amphetamine-type drug Jessica had been prescribed would be forced to alter the drug's label to reflect problems "such as visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior, as well as aggression or violent behavior."

By 1998, when Jessica was 8, other powerful drugs had been added to her daily regimen, including two powerful amphetamines.

While on these potent drugs, Jessica began to hear voices, a side effect of amphetamine usage. The voices told Jessica, in her mother's words, "to do bad things, to kill people." They also warned that someone was coming to kill her, so Jessica began to sleep with knives under her pillow and under the bed for protection. She talked openly about wanting to kill herself, a side effect of her antidepressants.

She banged her head against walls, dug at her skin with her fingernails, and began to be cruel to animals — tying one cat up in a bag and stuffing another into a toilet.

This array of bizarre behavior bewildered her mother. "This never happened before the drugs," Serrano said. "They Would Slam Her to the Floor"

Serrano became so concerned about escalating medication and worsening problems that she gradually weaned Jessica, then nearly 9, off the drugs. Jessica stopped hearing voices. Her behavior improved. She no longer thought about killing herself. "I feel much better," Jessica told Pittel during an office visit. "My head doesn't hurt anymore."

Pittel berated Serrano, however, insisting that Jessica go back on psychiatric drugs. "I'm a doctor and I know what's best," he reportedly said. "You don't have a degree."

When Serrano informed Pittel of the many adverse effects Jessica had suffered on the drugs, the psychiatrist, in Serrano's words, got "beet-red" and "highly upset." "He told me that I had to put her back on them or he would file a 51A* for medical neglect," Serrano said, an action that would bring about loss of her daughter to the CPS system. "So I put her back on."

Not long after the meeting with Pittel, Jessica was abducted anyway — taken directly from school by CPS personnel, who claimed Serrano was unfit to be a mother because she had tested positive for HIV — a test later shown to be false.

Almost unbelievably, with Jessica held in the CPS system at Hillcrest Education Center in Lennox, Massachusetts, psychiatrist Theodore Lindauer recommended still additional drugs, including up to 500 milligrams daily of Thorazine, described by the man who pioneered its use as a "pharmacological substitute for lobotomy." (See "The Littlest Guinea Pigs".)

Separated from her mother for a span of 23 months between the ages of 9 and 11, Jessica ultimately endured six foster homes and a residential care center. At two homes, she allegedly was molested. Powerful, mind-ravaging drugs were injected against her will. According to information presented to Freedom by Serrano, Thorazine was given without court order or parental permission, as required by law. COERCIVE DRUGGING

Audrey Serrano with Jessica and attorney Gregory A. Hession. TAKING IT TO THE COURTS: After daughter Jessica was given such dangerous drugs as Thorazine and brutalized within the system, Audrey Serrano (center, with Jessica and attorney Gregory A. Hession) filed suit.

In Massachusetts, before anyone can be administered a neuroleptic ("nerve-seizing") drug against their will, a hearing to authorize it must be held before a judge. According to Audrey Serrano, and her attorney, Gregory A. Hession, no such hearing took place before the neuroleptic drug Zyprexa was administered to Serrano's daughter, Jessica (inset, at age 6), while in Massachusetts Department of Social Services' custody. Psychiatrist Theodore Lindauer authorized giving Jessica up to 500 milligrams daily of one neuroleptic, Thorazine, and doses of two others as well. In an interview with Freedom, Lindauer described the Thorazine dosage as "ridiculous." After Freedom obtained documentation of Jessica's "treatment plan" in which Lindauer prescribed the life-threatening regimen for the young girl (right), he refused to answer additional questions. As early as age 6, while under "treatment" at the Herbert Lipton Community Mental Health Center in Leominster by psychiatrist Elliott Pittel and others, Jessica was subjected to drugs that, according to recent government warnings, can trigger violent and suicidal behavior, or sudden death.

"All she had to do was say 'no' to them and they would slam her to the floor; someone would place a knee in her back and tie her hands," Serrano said. "There was so much emotional damage I can't even begin to tell you." Jessica's little body bore bruises from forcible injections, she said.

Far from "helping," these drugs created her daughter's severe problems, according to Serrano. She finally got Jessica back, but scars from the ordeal remain. To help inform others of her experiences, Serrano formed an organization, Families Against Abuse, which today has a nationwide membership (www.FamiliesAgainstAbuse.org).

Death of a Patient

When telephoned by Freedom, psychiatrist Pittel refused to answer questions. His colleague, Theodore Lindauer, denied that he had recommended 500 milligrams daily of Thorazine, calling that high a dosage "ridiculous." But after Freedom obtained documentation of Jessica's "Treatment Plan" in which Lindauer authorized up to 500 milligrams daily of Thorazine, he declined to answer additional questions.

In the course of its probe, Freedom learned that Lindauer was disciplined in January 2004 by the New Hampshire State Board of Medicine, following the 1998 death of a patient at a New Hampshire facility at which Lindauer then served as medical director.

According to information received from the board, the man had been admitted to Beech Hill Hospital in Dublin, New Hampshire, with a substance abuse problem. Due to the seriousness of his condition, he was to be monitored every 30 minutes. During a periodic check, the man was found to be "unresponsive." Rushed to another hospital, he was pronounced dead.

Dori Todd Hill of the Board of Medicine told Freedom that Lindauer "was responsible for making sure that the hospital was equipped to handle these emergencies and that patients were properly monitored." In its published findings, the Board of Medicine stated, "Dr. Lindauer is reprimanded and his license to practice in the area of substance abuse is restricted until he has completed 80 hours of continuing medical education in the assessment and treatment of substance abuse."

More trouble looms for Lindauer, as Audrey Serrano told Freedom she intends to add him as a party in the lawsuit she has pending against the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Hillcrest and others.

EXPERTS DECRY Mental Health Profiteering Ben Raimer, M.D. "The more the medications or diagnoses that a child is on, the more the reimbursement per child is for a foster parent," —Ben Raimer, M.D. Eddie Farnsworth, Arizona State Rep. "The heavy reliance on psychiatric drugs has had a very negative effect on the children in our society across the board." —Eddie Farnsworth Arizona State Rep.

The Child Protective Services system has become an object of psychiatric industry greed, say experts who track, expose and seek to eliminate this brand of child abuse. A "gangster racket": that's how New York author and psychologist Seth Farber, Ph.D., describes Child Protective Services. "It's a corrupt system," he says, "with psychiatrists and their behavioral classifications at the heart of it." Outraged by the high doses and multiple prescriptions of psychiatric drugs rampant throughout the CPS system, physicians like Ben Raimer and legislators like Arizona House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Eddie Farnsworth are speaking out to help curb the abuses. Chris Garrison, director, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Massachusetts "Mental health vendors are using children ... as a commodity by billing for lethal drugs and needless, harmful psychiatric procedures." — Chris Garrison, director, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Massachusetts

More Foster Children, More Profit

As established by federal law, every state has an agency to combat child abuse. Usually located within the state's Social Services department and commonly called Child Protective Services, the network comprises an expanding, multibillion-dollar empire, with offices in every county — and with each child representing tens of thousands of taxpayer-funded dollars per year funneled to the psychiatric machine controlling the child's fate.

A major source of CPS revenue, nearly $5 billion a year, comes from the federal government through Social Security, under a provision allowing open-ended* funding. By the nature of such a system, the more children placed in foster care, the more money a state gets, producing a psychiatrically centered system that, instead of working to keep families together, strives to capture more and more kids, and to put more and more of them on drugs.

As the California Child Welfare Services (CWS) Stakeholders Group, an organization under the state Department of Social Services, explained: "The federal system of funding child welfare services at the state and county levels creates a 'perverse incentive factor' by providing open-ended funding for children and youth who are in the CWS system vs. providing capped funds for prevention and early intervention efforts.

"This 'perverse incentive factor' results in the state and counties earning the most revenue by having more children in the system as opposed to their receiving the funding necessary to reduce the need for Child Protective Services in the first place."2

Audrey Serrano noted the incentives include bonuses for CPS employees who bring children into the system — with quotas issued to make sure they do so. New York author and psychologist Seth Farber, Ph.D., told Freedom that such abuses make him consider the CPS system a "gangster racket," with psychiatrists and psychologists at its core.

"They take children away from their mothers and bounce them around in the system," Farber explained. "It's a corrupt system, with psychiatrists and their behavioral classifications at the heart of it."

Falsely Labeling Innocent, Normal Kids

In New York, Farber said, psychiatrists and psychologists appointed by the courts to evaluate children or parents are paid at least $500 an hour. These "evaluations" all too often result in the separation of parents and children — particularly, Farber said, when there is a single mother and she happens to be African-American.

Nearly all of the victims of the CPS system in New York, he said, are poor black women.

Once a child has been removed from the family, frequently on the nebulous charge of "neglect," the systematic milking of funding streams begins. Sources include Medicaid, the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, Social Security Disability Insurance and others.

Some states automatically issue Medicaid cards to children removed from their homes, making it easier to tap into federal funds.

One social worker informed Freedom that once a child receives a psychiatric label, his or her foster home immediately becomes eligible for roughly double the amount of money for that child.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, this source noted that the system has become geared toward giving children psychiatric labels and drugs because such "treatment" brings far greater income to foster parents and those administering group homes. "It's a dishonest system that falsely labels innocent, normal kids on a wholesale basis, condemning them to a life with a phony psychiatric diagnosis," she said. The WAR on Families Rafe ABUSE WITHIN THE SYSTEM Taken from his mother for "abuse" she bitterly denies, young Rafe reportedly suffered three head injuries and cuts on his leg during one week in CPS custody.

A review of state child welfare hand-books reveals that, empowered by psychiatrists, Child Protective Services (CPS) agents wield the power to label any parent "unfit" and to take away his or her children.

Based on these guides, genuine objectivity becomes difficult to impossible, leading to injustice even in the hands of well-intentioned employees. New York's manual, for example, contains a chart regarding physical and behavioral signs of abuse or neglect. It includes any type of physical injury, even though contact sports, bicycle or skateboard accidents, and so forth, could be actual causes of injury. This chart contains such catch-all terms as aggressiveness, withdrawal, low self-esteem, failure to thrive, speech disorders and fatigue.

Colorado's points for determining "abuse" and "neglect" include eating disorders, bed-wetting, early arrival or late departure from school, poor communication and PR skills, inappropriate height or weight, and parents unsupportive of school personnel or disdainful of public schools/teachers. According to this, a child who happens to be shorter and skinnier or, perhaps, taller and heavier than average and who shows up to school early may well be in need of state intervention.

According to author and foster mother Mary Callahan, birth parents are up against a stacked deck when they deal with the CPS system. "They tell the parents if they go and get a parent capacity evaluation, this will help them get their children back," she told Freedom. However, she said, "95 percent of the parents that they see end up with a psychiatric diagnosis."

Callahan said that when she challenged a doctor who enjoyed a lucrative contract with the Maine Department of Human Services to give such evaluations, he winked at her and said, "They send them to me for a reason."

Money and Dangerous Drugs Drive the System

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR*) in Massachusetts revealed that an incredible 64 percent of the children in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) had been labeled with at least one "mental illness." Virtually all those so diagnosed are typically placed on one or more drugs with serious and even deadly side effects.

Chris Garrison, director of CCHR Massachusetts, said, "These documents and reports from whistleblowers and parents of children taken away by Social Services make it evident that DSS and its mental health vendors are using children like Jessica as a commodity by billing for lethal drugs and needless, harmful psychiatric procedures."

Not the least of psychiatric evils is the sanctioning of forced abduction and the drugging of children. Experts note that such labels as "Separation Anxiety Disorder," "Adjustment Disorder" or "Mood Disorder" could well describe normal responses to an abrupt, enforced removal from the child's home and family and into the clutches of a cold and abusive system. These tags are then employed to force children to take powerful drugs.

At a hearing of the Human Services Committee of the Texas House of Representatives in October 2004, Ben Raimer, M.D., a pediatrician, testified that he had seen children in foster homes on "as many as 11 psychotropic meds."

Raimer described visiting one foster home where four children, aged 2, 3, 5 and 6, were all on large numbers of drugs, with heavy doses of each. "The more the medications or diagnoses that a child is on, the more the reimbursement per child is for a foster parent," Raimer explained.

The drugs pouring into the nation's foster children come at a high price. As Arizona State Representative Eddie Farnsworth told Freedom, "The heavy reliance on psychiatric drugs has had a very negative effect on the children in our society across the board." The omnipresent ADHD label, he said, has created an epidemic of child drugging across all facets of society.

Psychologists and many people who are not medical doctors have labeled countless children with so-called mental disorders to promote the psychiatry-controlled CPS money machine. Neurologist Fred Baughman, M.D., told Freedom, "There have been amazing stories of diagnoses made in schools of ADHD, 'conduct disorder' and 'oppositional defiant disorder.' Then the schools turn to CPS to coerce the parents or take them to court to enforce the treatment of these things as though they were actual diseases, which they are not." The "treatment," he said, comes in the form of dangerous and sometimes fatal drugs. Money is the Driving Force Money is the Driving Force

Children from the foster care system — dominated by psychiatry and its drugs — tend to do worse in life than those raised by their own parents or families, with study after study confirming that Child Protective Services (CPS) failed those it claimed to help.

Statistics on educational performance, drug abuse, crime and homelessness reveal how the system has been crippled by psychiatric influences.

A research team, for example, conducted an evaluation of 749 17-year-olds leaving the foster care system in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. Their report, issued in 2004 by the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center for Children, showed "nearly two-thirds of the male and half the female foster children had been arrested, convicted of a crime, or sent to a correctional facility." Over half of these 17-year-olds were not yet reading at seventh-grade level.1

The Urban Institute found that children aged 12 to 17 in the child welfare system had been suspended or expelled from school in 32 percent of the cases, compared to 13 percent in parental care.2

A U.S. Senate measure from 2003, the Improving Education for Homeless and Foster Children with Disabilities Act, included alarming statistics: "In a number of states, more than 60 percent of children and youth in foster care drop out of school before graduation; a rate that is twice as high as the dropout rate for all students."

A 2002 study by Child Trends, a research center in Washington, D.C., found that 48 percent of all former foster youths had graduated from high school,3 compared to 71 percent that year for all public school students.4 A 1996 University of Wisconsin study found that one-third of those exiting foster care became homeless,5 compared to less than one percent in the general population.

"Money is a driving force" in the CPS system, author Mary Callahan told Freedom. More money is given by the state for ever more psychiatric diagnoses and ever-increasing amounts of psychiatric drugs.

"If money only flows if kids get worse, somehow, they just keep getting worse," Callahan said. The heart of the matter, she noted, is to change the system so success, not further failure, is rewarded. FAILING GRADES FOR FOSTER CARE

Percentage of children obtaining their high school diploma or general equivalency diploma:

A 2005 study* by the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center for Children found that 37.1 percent of those from foster care failed to get a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma, compared with only 9.4 percent of other Americans their age. This study, the most extensive of its kind in decades, also documented how those caught in the foster care system encounter higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, violence and crime.

References:

* Mark E. Courtney et al., "Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19," May 2005.

1 Mark E. Courtney, Sherri Terao and Noel Bost, "Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care," Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, February 22, 2004.

2 Katherine Kortenkamp and Jennifer Ehrle, "Well-Being of Children Involved with the Child Welfare System: A National Overview," The Urban Institute, January 15, 2002.

Falsely Labeling Parents

Rusty Roska and his mother, Connie HARD-WON VICTORY Rusty Roska was forcibly removed from his family's home in 1999 after his mother, Connie, was assigned a psychiatric label that has since been widely discredited. The family fought back and won a landmark legal victory against Utah's Division of Child and Family Services. Regarding the violent separation, Connie (shown with Rusty in 2006) said, "To this day, my daughter cries when she remembers it."

Psychiatric labels are also slapped on parents by psychiatrists and psychologists. Seth Farber explained that one means by which the New York child welfare system obtains more children is "to have their psychologists say the parent has a 'psychosis' or 'personality disorder.' If that parent doesn't want to give up his or her child, or doesn't trust the psychologist on the agency's payroll, that data is used to 'prove' that a 'mental disorder' exists.

"Once that parent has been labeled 'mentally disordered' by a psychologist, child welfare doesn't have to prove the parent actually did anything wrong. In the complete absence of any evidence of parental wrongdoing, that psychiatric label is sufficient justification to seize the child." (See "The War on Families," page 11.)

Farber noted, "You're not going to find a psychologist or psychiatrist say anybody is mentally healthy — except for themselves and their friends and buddies."

Rusty Roska was plagued by serious physical problems, but those problems went undiagnosed and untreated, while Salt Lake City psychologist Eric Yelsa reportedly badgered him with such comments as "We know you're psychotic" and such questions as "You want to kill your family, don't you?"

When Utah's Division of Child and Family Services seized Rusty, it invoked the psychiatric label of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP), which asserts a parent intentionally made his or her own child sick in order to gain attention.

In affixing the MSBP label, psychiatrists have targeted mothers in particular. Sometimes, as in Rusty's case, doctors encounter medical problems difficult to diagnose or treat; in many cases, psychiatrists have frequently and inaccurately blamed a parent, using the MSBP diagnosis.

Condemnation of this particular trumped-up "disorder" is not limited to the United States. In Australia, Dr. Helen Hayward-Brown, a sociologist, said, "Ordinary mothers and fathers are being accused of child abuse because their children have an illness that some pediatricians cannot diagnose, or the parents strongly question the doctor over the child's treatment.

"The parents are refused the opportunity to obtain a second medical opinion as this is labeled 'doctor shopping,' part of the MSBP child abuse profile — even though doctors are ethically obliged to allow it and it is a patient's right to obtain a second medical opinion."3

In the United Kingdom, Lord Geoffrey Howe, shadow spokesman for health in the House of Lords, blasted MSBP as "one of the most pernicious and ill-founded theories to have gained currency in childcare services over the past 10 to 15 years. It is a theory without science.... It rests instead on the assertions of its inventor (Dr. Roy Meadow).... When challenged to produce his research papers to justify his original findings, the inventor of MSBP stated, if you please, that he had destroyed them."4 (For news on a similar case of destruction of psychiatric research, see "Swedish Drugging Advocate Slapped Down by Courts," page 17.)

Although the MSBP diagnosis has no more scientific validity than the accusation of witchcraft did in its day, mothers such as Connie Roska have lost their children when a psychiatrist or psychologist assigned the label.

According to Roska, after the family sought medical help from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Brenda Bursch, a psychologist at UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Institute, went so far as to accuse her of slaughtering a small animal and putting the blood into Rusty's urine sample.

But after Rusty's abduction, the Roskas utilized the legal system, sued the state, and won — a triumph of justice over phony labeling. (See "Fighting Back," next page.) Fighting Back Parents are taking action to protect their children Abbey Chaplin with her fiance ESCAPE FROM AN ABUSIVE SYSTEM After being freed from unwanted psychiatric "assistance" through the action of her parents, Abbey Chaplin (with her fiancé above) is doing well in college, supporting herself and regularly making the dean's list.

I have helped many families get their children back — probably 13 in the last few years, and have made sure their constitutional rights were met," said Connie Roska, whose son, Rusty, was abducted from their home after she was assigned a false psychiatric label.

Roska sued the state of Utah after getting Rusty back. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, except when immediate danger exists, children could not be removed from their parents without a warrant from the court.

Following the verdict, the Utah legislature incorporated this principle into state law. "If you look at the standards in the law now," said the Roskas' attorney, Steve Russell, "the language is right out of the Roska decision."

Asked why he took on the case in 1999 and pursued it for years with no promise of payment, Russell said, "I have had clients who had been abused by the system and I was looking for a case that is so rock solid that I could really make a difference. I have eight children. I did this for my own family and for everybody else, so they could be free."

The trial judge ruled the case would go to a jury to decide, not whether the Roskas' rights had been violated since that was not in dispute, but how much they should be awarded in damages. On February 9, 2006, the 10th Circuit upheld this ruling. As Freedom went to press, the case was slated for a federal jury trial to determine the amount of damages.

Many besides the Roskas and Steve Russell have fought the system and made a difference. As reported in an earlier issue of Freedom, Butch and Kitral Chaplin faced charges of "medical neglect" for refusing to put their then 14-year-old daughter, Abbey, on a mix of dangerous drugs. Although Abbey was taken from them and locked in a mental institution, the Chaplins fought successfully to get her back and have had all charges against them dropped.

Five years later and free from psychiatric "assistance," Abbey is supporting herself through college and making the dean's list, her father told Freedom.

Butch Chaplin has spoken to other parents threatened with loss of their children. He tells them the only way to win is to stand up for their rights and not to back down. "People say, 'Why is it like that? Why doesn't it change?'" Chaplin said. "Well, this is the absolute truth: it is because good people say and do nothing."

Saving the Family

Big Brother does not make a good parent. The psychiatrist-dominated CPS system, which places labeling and drugs above responsibility and accountability, proves this.

Many decision-makers now realize that government will not love and nurture a child the way a parent will. Hence, some states are changing their programs to emphasize keeping families together. Although these changes may not "maximize federal reimbursements" in the short run, viewed from a larger perspective, such reforms are best for children and families and for society as well.

In Utah, for example, following the Roska family's victory in the courts, the legislature considered nearly 20 bills intended to reform the treatment children received at the hands of CPS and mental health professionals in that state. By the end of the 2004 legislative session, 10 of the measures had been signed into law.

In California, the state with the largest number of foster children, Governor Schwarzenegger made it part of a budgetary plan to change how private foster care contractors get paid. Rather than funding solely on the number of children in the system, payment would be based on positive outcomes.

Shirley Washington of California's Department of Social Services told Freedom the state implemented a measure that "will provide additional foster care funds to help keep children out of high-level care through family-centered, home-based services."

"We need to raise the threshold for taking children from their families to begin with so fewer children get into the system," Gregory Hession said. "Then they won't be drugged and ruined and crushed and killed and raped and murdered and everything else that happens to them. That is the starting point: take fewer kids."

Walter Mondale told Freedom that the original intent of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was to accomplish several objectives to stem child abuse.

"It enacted for the first time federal legislation that recognized the horrors and the persistence of child abuse," he said. "It tried to look at child abuse not just as a law enforcement problem — although sometimes it is — but in the context of troubled families, of the phenomenon of inter-generational repetition of abuse, which was reported to be quite common, and it tried to engage the local governments in reaching out and trying to spot these problems before they worsened."

But today, while many well-intentioned people work in the system CAPTA created, the problem is that the system has been subverted by the psychiatric industry into a revenue-generating entity more important than the children and the families it was formed to serve.

"The abuse my daughter suffered at the hands of psychiatrists tells me that the system would be far better off without them," Audrey Serrano said.

To revamp the system, the first step is to once again prioritize the family and to work to keep families together.

As the former vice president said, "If a family isn't so important, if a husband and wife taking care of kids isn't so important, why is it that every society, all over the world, for nearly a million years has ended up with essentially that system for raising children? Family life is indispensable."

Mark Stout contributed to this article. RESEARCH EVIDENCE DESTROYED Swedish Drugging Advocate Slapped Down by Courts CHRISTOPHER GILLBERG CHRISTOPHER GILLBERG and two other psychiatrists were fined for destroying some 100,000 pages of records that may have shown a childhood "disorder" spawned by Gillberg to be based upon questionable or even fraudulent research.

The lack of science to support psychiatry's mental disorders has become the focus of a storm of controversy — particularly so after a series of warnings from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the hazards posed by drugs that psychiatrists use to "treat" those alleged disorders.

Diagnosis is the crux of the matter, and child advocate and author John Breeding, Ph.D., is one of many authorities passionate on the subject.

"It is not just that people are misdiagnosed, but that the psychiatric diagnoses themselves are fraudulent," he told Freedom. "There is no real disease, no physical or chemical abnormality; there is only a subjective observation of behavior they call a disease."

Psychiatrist Christopher Gillberg's recent legal troubles in Europe has only added fuel to the fire.

An international pundit on childhood "disorders," Gillberg has been widely promoted by psychiatric front groups in the United States, such as Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD).

Shredding Vital Evidence

When a sociologist and a pediatrician challenged Gillberg to produce his research into "Deficits in Attention, Motor control and Perception (DAMP), which is similar to ADHD, he refused to do so voluntarily. After a Swedish court ordered him to turn over the records, Gillberg appealed and lost.

Rather than surrender the papers, two colleagues and a staff assistant shredded two decades of state-funded research — some 100,000 pages — that formed the basis for Gillberg's plans to put tens of thousands of children on drugs. The perpetrators included Gillberg's wife, psychiatrist Carina Gillberg. On June 27, 2005, Christopher Gillberg was found guilty of official misconduct and fined 37,500 kronor (roughly $4,800), ordered to pay court costs of 75,000 kronor ($9,600) and given a suspended jail sentence. His colleagues were also fined.

Today, scientists and other authorities continue to point out the highly questionable, if not fraudulent, nature of Gillberg's papers, books, doctoral theses and journal articles.

British attorney and physicist Clifford G. Miller, for example, asked, "Where does this place any scientific papers published on the basis of this now non-existent evidence? Papers which were being, it seems, challenged for inconsistencies in litigation? Will these papers now have to be withdrawn by the journals which published them? Will the journals do so voluntarily? How many papers are concerned? In which journals are they published? Will the journals publish any caveat about reliance on the papers concerned?"

"The most rational, albeit very cumbersome, course of action would be to withdraw all research relying on the data," said Sociology Professor Thomas Brante of Lund University in Sweden. "Just like Volvo revokes its cars when a construction fault is discovered, a faulty (or non-existent) scientific diagnosis and its implications must be possible to revoke."

"Virtually All His Research Reports Were Bogus"

Gillberg's American counterpart in "popularizing" speed-type drugs for children, psychologist Stephen Breuning of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, was convicted in federal court on charges of research fraud.

"Virtually all his research reports were bogus — nearly all the experiments they purported to report had not been conducted; there was no basis for believing that what they 'reported' was true. These specific research reports, moreover, had provoked frightening consequences," wrote author Robert Bell in the book, Impure Science. Bell noted that "the reports had been relied on nationwide in determining drug therapy" for many children and that Breuning had contributed "24 out of the 70 papers published on the subject between 1979 and 1983."1

Breuning was sentenced to five years on probation, ordered to 60 days in a halfway house and 250 hours of community service, and had to repay $77,352 to the federal government. The University of Pittsburgh reimbursed the federal government more than $163,000 it had received for Breuning's research. But, tragically, the use of dangerous drug "solutions" for our children — based to a degree on that same bogus research — only increased.

Breuning's and Gillberg's light sentences send a disturbing message: when it comes to doping our vulnerable children, manipulated and even fraudulent research presents low risks to the perpetrators.

This decades-long charade thus begs the question: Whose interests are forwarded by slanted, pseudo-scientific studies of unproven "behavior disorders," with side effects ignored or minimized?

The pattern is clear: with researchers like Gillberg and Breuning tied to the marketers of dangerous psychiatric drugs, the consumer is getting more fiction than fact.

1. Robert Bell, Impure Science, (New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1992), pages 105 — 106 The APA: An Ignoble Tradition Former American Psychiatric Association Presidents Past APA leading lights caused their patients great suffering and anguish with their 'desperate cures.' Some things never change. A LEGACY OF ABUSE: Past APA Presidents Jules Masserman (left) and Ewen Cameron (center), and today's APA head Steven Sharfstein (right) exemplify the brutal nature of psychiatry, victimizing the most vulnerable at great profit. Masserman surrendered his medical license in disgrace after patients accused him of sexual abuse. Cameron destroyed people's minds with combinations of drugs, including LSD, and electric shocks. Sharfstein's coercive arsenal also includes electric shocks; human rights violations at facilities he controls are under investigation by Freedom.

The American Psychiatric Association changes presidents every year; with characters like these comprising the APA's "elite," it's not hard to see why.

Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, puffed with pride on the subject of his appearance on "The Today Show," calling it his "15 minutes of fame."

Unfortunately for him, that exposure produced far more than 15 minutes of acute embarrassment for psychiatry, as questions raised during the show forced him to admit that no test exists for a "chemical imbalance" as the cause of mental disorders. Indeed, in less than 15 seconds, he repudiated the mainstay of modern psychiatric "treatment" with his statement, "We do not have a clean-cut lab test" for such disorders.

The heavily promoted but thoroughly discredited "chemical imbalance" theory underlies psychiatry's high-volume administration of drugs to children and adults — even those given against their will.

As Freedom has learned, Sharfstein has no qualms about administering drugs, electro-convulsive shock "therapy" and other treatments that people do not want (or need), calling such "compassionate coercion."

Such an arrogant, uncaring attitude is traditional at the APA. Ewen Cameron (APA president from 1952 to 1953) had men and women alike chased down by burly attendants and dragged back to their beds, kicking and screaming, for more of what he called "depatterning" — drug-induced "deep sleep" for weeks on end, combined with brain-damaging electric shocks. Many of Cameron's victims and surviving relatives have since collected damages for the great suffering caused by his intelligence agency-funded experiments. But, as revealed in this edition, some of his victims may have been children with no parents, no relatives and no one to report them missing, abused or dead. (See "The Dark Mystery of the Duplessis Orphans," page 22.)

Jules Masserman, APA president from 1979 to 1980, sexually abused female patients drugged with sodium amytal he administered under the pretext of helping them to delve into their "subconscious," billing in the thousands for his "services." In her book, You Must Be Dreaming, singer and actress Barbara Noel described being drugged unconscious by Masserman and awakening to find him, naked, on top of her. After she sued, Masserman settled with her in October 1986 for $200,000, with $50,000 more paid to three other female patients who came forward. Yet, in November 1986, at the 11th World Congress for Social Psychiatry in Rio de Janeiro, the organization's president praised Masserman as "the most prominent psychiatrist in the world." In 1987, evidently fearing a probe by an Illinois agency of his misconduct, Masserman surrendered his medical license.

"Run as Fast as You Can"

Today, a Sharfstein contemporary, APA distinguished fellow Harold Koplewicz, promotes himself as "being recognized as one of the nation's premier child and adolescent psychiatrists." Koplewicz, of Bellevue Hospital and New York Uni-versity's School of Medicine, has appeared on national TV, expounding upon what he viewed as the necessity for intervention by Child Protective Services (CPS) if a family declines to drug a child after a psychiatric diagnosis.

In the context of abuses as described in this edition of Freedom, advocacy of coercive acts against children and families is chilling, and one more example of the APA's arrogance and perverse view of individual rights.

One parent with experience in this regard is Patty Weathers. Appearing at the October 2004 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing that directly preceded issuance of an agency order regarding black-box warning labels — the FDA's most severe cautionary note — Weathers testified that her son hallucinated, heard voices, and became violent and psychotic while on an "antidepressant."

Now the head of AbleChild: Parents for Label and Drug Free Education, a nationally recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to the support of children's and parents' rights, Weathers told Freedom that Koplewicz's endorsement of that same drug as "safe and effective" was "beyond irresponsible."

"I would tell all parents never to contact him," she said. If you have kids, she added, don't walk away from him, "Run as fast as you can!"

Unfortunately, all too many of psychiatry's victims — young and old alike — never had that chance.

Methodology of CPS social workers

2010-11-29T12:53:00.000-08:00

Though done in a rather sarcastic tone...this video very accurately portrays the way CPS operates when 'investigating' alleged reports of abuse or neglect of children. It happened in precisely the same manner to this blog's author Denise Dopkins. Spokane social worker Melly Keith jumped me in the hospital room only 12 hours after I gave cesarean birth to my son and while I was still very affected by the medicines the doctor administered during and following the birth. (The doctor and nurses will claim that I was not still affected by the medication from the cesarean birth, however, I know better. After all-- I was the one taking the medicines and I know how I felt.) There was also the issue of the post birth pain medicines that made me dileriously sleepy. I was in no condition to be so suddenly confronted with this emotional and psychological attack, and still-- the social worker could not stand to wait another day for me to better recover in the hospital. I was in the hospital for another two days after Ms. Keith left the room on March 15, 2005.

Just another cover up effort by DSHS/DCFS/CPS

2010-11-21T19:18:00.000-08:00

A Must Read: Click on the following highlighted link

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/5270-how_to_compound_the_problems_within_dshs_privatize_children_s_services.htm

Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 10:46 AM 0 comments

How to deal with CPS invasion of your family

2010-11-17T09:34:00.000-08:00

November 8, 2010
Authored by Linda Martin

CPS Problems? Here Are 7 Ways to Fight CPS…

If you’re appalled by the actions of CPS, here are some ideas for correcting the injustices:

1. Write a letter to each and every member of your county board of supervisors detailing actions that show illegal activities or injustice on the part of local caseworkers. Suggest that they cut the CPS budget if caseworkers are taking children who shouldn’t be separated from their parents. Suggest that these illegal and unjust activities could cause the county to have to deal with expensive lawsuits. Follow this up by regularly attending meetings of the county board of supervisors and by getting up to share during community participation time; use your three minutes to tell people what’s going on.

2. Write a letter to your state legislators (don’t bother with the federal legislators – they’re usually worthless and corrupt unless they’re Ron Paul or someone exactly like him.) Go for the state level legislators. Tell them that child welfare is mismanaged in your county. Then follow up by going to the capitol to try to have a face to face encounter with these legislators. Take with you a gift-offering of a folder you’ve prepared with lots of information about how corrupt and evil CPS is. Tell them you support the State Sovereignty Movement and that federal child welfare laws are a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

3. Study your state’s social services regulations. You should be able to find a copy at your local county law library. Ask the librarian there for help finding them. If you have an open CPS case take notes on every regulation that’s being violated by your caseworker. Get photocopies of the regulations that are violated. Next, review your court order to see what orders may be violated by the caseworker. If you find discrepancies you can file for a state administrative hearing.

4. Does your county have a Grand Jury? If so, write them a letter, not about your personal case so much as about the problems of CPS injustice in general. Ask them to investigate CPS in your county.

5. If you haven’t already, write a Legal Declaration to clarify each point of malfeasance by caseworkers and others involved in your case. As when writing any letter or legal document, NEVER include any self-incriminating type of statement. Give this to your attorney. If he won’t see you in person, mail it to him and request (1) a response, and (2) that it be presented to the judge for the next hearing.

6. If your caseworker’s report to the court contains inaccurate statements, misrepresentations, or lies, create a legal document called “Objections and Corrections to the Report of the Social Worker” and as with the Legal Declaration, send it to your lawyer to be presented to the court.

Links to legal documents samples are here: Legal Document and Information Library.

7. If your caseworker is violating your court order or state social service regulations, treating you disrespectfully, or in any other way doing something you believe is wrong, write a letter to the county personnel department with a detailed complaint about the person. This will probably keep the caseworker from ever getting a promotion in that county. He or she might also get demoted, or fired.

I hope you find some solutions that will work for you.

cps child protective services social workers

Filed under: http://www.fightcps.com/

CPS corruption

2010-11-11T12:16:00.000-08:00

The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services

By Nancy Schaefer

Georgia State Senate, 50th District
revised September 25, 2008

My introduction into Child Protective Service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.

The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parent’s children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with a caseworker. In the courtroom, the juvenile judge acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them.

After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in “adult entertainment”. His girlfriend worked as an “escort” and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.

Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmother’s door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.

The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved to the southeast. The foster parents began driving to the father’s residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.

To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are, in my opinion, permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has never completely recovered. The mother has rights but the father still has custody of the children.

Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I have worked with other desperate parents across the state of Georgia and in many other States because their children were taken for no cause and they have no one with whom to turn. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers, social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who “pick up” the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all across this land.

In this report, I have focused mainly on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.

The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) in Georgia and other titles in other states, has become a “protected empire” built on taking children and separating families. This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection.

However, this report is concerned with the children and parents caught up in “legal kidnapping,” ineffective policies, and an agency that on certain occasions would not remove a child (or children) when the child was enduring torment and abuse.

In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did not know where their children were and had not seen them in years. I had witnessed the “Gestapo” at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off of school buses, and out of homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the agency’s department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. It has already made over $100,000.

Due to being exposed, several employees in this particular office were fired. However, they have now been rehired either in neighboring counties or in the same county again. According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the same practices that they had before the light was shown on their evil deeds.

Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, and now hundreds and hundreds across this nation and in nearly every state, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in Child Protective Services system.

I have come to the conclusion:

· that poor parents very often are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;

· that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;

· that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while the parents are at work and while their children are separated from them. (some times parents are required to pay for the programs) This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children to their parents;

· that caseworkers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. However, when charges are made against Child Protective Services, the charges are ignored;

· that the separation of families and the “snatching of children” is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having these taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;

· that Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that the social workers are the glue that hold “the system” together that funds the court, funds the court appointed attorneys, and the multiple other jobs including the “system’s” psychiatrists, therapists, their own attorneys and others.

· that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondale and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 to $6,000 bonus for each child adopted out to strangers and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;

· State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or maybe $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.

· that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. There is funding for foster care then when a child is placed with a new family, then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved and so is Medicaid;

· As you can see this program is ordered from the very top and run by Health and Human Resources. This is why victims of CPS get no help from their legislators. It explains why my bill, SB 415 suffered such defeat in the Judicial Committee, why I was cut off at every juncture. Legislators and Governors must remember who funds their paychecks.

· that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together or provide effective care;

· that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Just look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;

· that the “Policy Manual” is considered “the last word” for CPS/DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;

· that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today children are not safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care;

· It is a known fact that children are in much more danger in foster care than they are in their own home even though home may not be perfect;

· that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them. However, when the parents cooperate with Child Protective Services, their behavior is interpreted as guilt when nothing could be further from the truth;

· Fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to visit or even see their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;

· that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not stress that a foster parent is there temporarily to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many foster parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights as a means to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child placed in their care from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system. Recently in Atlanta, a young couple learning to be new parents and loving it, were told that because of an anonymous complaint, their daughter would be taken into custody by the State DFCS. The couple was devastated and then was required by DFCS to take parenting classes, alcohol counseling and psychological evaluations if they wanted to get their child back. All of the courses cost money for which most parents are required to pay. While in their anxiety and turmoil to get their child home, the baby was left for hours in a car to die in the heat in her car seat by a foster parent who forgot about the child. This should never have happened. It is tragic. In many cases after the parents have jumped through all the hoops, they still do not get their child. As long as the child is not returned, there is money for the agency, for foster parents, for adoptive parents, and for the State;

· that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system’s services;

· that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia and from other states trying to get custody of their grandchildren. CPS claims relatives are contacted, but there are many many cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs;

· that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!

· That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Call for an independent audit of all State Child Protective Services (CPS) and for a Federal Congressional hearing on Child Protective Services nationwide.

2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage and their lives destroyed.

3. Abolish the Federal and State financial incentives that have turned Child Protective Services into a business that separate families for money.

4. Grant to parents their rights verbally and in writing.

5. Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives if children need to be removed permanently.

6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before permanently removing a child from his or her parents. Open family court. Remove the secrecy. Allow the press and family members access. Give parents the opportunity in court to speak and be a part of their children’s future.

7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that “except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.”)

8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence made available to parents.

FINAL REMARKS

On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and terrified children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and beaten down individuals. We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become an adult centered business to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be or with whom, or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for the social workers.

I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to so many families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so.

Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It’s time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.

Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy” Proverbs 31:8-9

Prosecute CPS and CASA agents for perjury!

2010-11-07T16:00:00.000-08:00

Lies Should Be Prosecuted
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach

This whole thing reminds me of an Ibsen novel.

Here is a letter from a family that I have been following. PRR Readers are like all true Americans...we want our government telling the truth in court and we think people in agencies (CPS or CASAs) who lie in court should lose their jobs and be punished through perjury laws. Right now, in CPS, agents are not being held accountable and, therefore, they continue the lying. I have been told by the highest levels at DSHS that people who lie will not be tolerated. I took that to mean that they would be held accountable. I have yet to see that that has been the case. The lies continue.

Dear Senator,

I get so frustrated reading on your blog because more
horrible things are being brought to the forefront about cps. It makes my
husband and I want so much more for things to change with cps. I am hoping for some help to try for a bill to stop the perjury, which I am seeing mentioned more and more. With us and others that was our main problem. No matter what the state said in court, it was believed without any facts having been
presented. If they had to present any evidence of anything said in our case, Ariel
would never have been taken in the first place. I am so grateful she is coming
home but other families will suffer if it continues to be allowed. We had a
lot of people backing us on our case and because of that, no matter how
many times we felt like giving up someone was always there to remind us what we were fighting for. Please let me know if you can help us to become a part
of stopping the evil system tearing the families apart. I can still picture
the day Ariel was taken and that caseworker walking away with her and smiling
an evil smile at us. I think rather than going after the state in general,
it would be a good thing to be able to hold individuals accountable for the
emotional abuse they themselves are causing for these tiny children.

Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 3:25 AM

Senator Nancy Schaefer's death

2010-11-03T19:04:00.000-07:00

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Child Exploitation (Nancy Shaefer) Found Killed in Home

Joined: 12 Aug 2008

Posts: 1118 Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: Child Exploitation Investigator Found Killed in Home

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/child_exploitation_investigato.html
Child Exploitation Investigator Found Killed in Home

By Victor Thorn

Child trafficking, pedophile rings, sexual exploitation, teenage pornography and even organ harvesting: These types of crimes make Washington politicians recoil in horror. But when these terrible acts involve some of their own, it also drives the elites to silence those who attempt to expose their dirty deeds.

Nancy Schaefer served two terms as a Georgia state senator, in addition to being a highly respected family rights advocate, founder of the Eagle Forum and Sunday school teacher. Mrs. Schaefer spoke out against abortion and sought legislation to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

On March 26, a sleeping Mrs. Schaefer was found shot to death from behind in her bed, along with her husband, who also perished after receiving a gunshot wound to the chest.

Local authorities immediately ruled it a “murder-suicide” instigated by her husband of 52 years, but there is much more to the story than law enforcement is telling. Initially, Georgia’s Bureau of Investigation claimed the couple formed a death pact due to poor health and financial woes.

However, family members fervently disagreed with these attempts to create a motive by floating fabricated stories. Neither of the deceased had a terminal illness, their bank accounts were sound, and, as committed Christians, they opposed suicide.

During an April 22 interview with this writer, Ohio radio talk show host Paul Drockton presented a shocking alternative to the official version.

“I heard from a couple of different sources that Mrs. Schaefer was working on a documentary, and intended to go public by exposing a high-level pedophilia ring,” said Drockton.

When asked if people would be familiar with the politicians named, Drockton replied in the affirmative, although he wouldn’t divulge their identities. This writer assumed they were nationally known figures.

Drockton added, “Mrs. Schaefer was extremely nervous about being assassinated. On a recent trip to Washington, she booked three rooms at her hotel—one on each side of her own, for security purposes. Mrs. Schaefer also started using disposable cell phones because she felt her lines were being tapped.”

In hindsight, these concerns most certainly appear justified. Over the past few years, Mrs. Schaefer engaged in a high-profile campaign against Georgia’s Child Protective Services (CPS). During an April 14, 2009, presentation, Mrs. Schaefer called CPS “a protected empire built on taking children and separating families. It is one of the most evil and corrupt branches of government in America.”

She also accused them of “legally kidnapping” the children of poor families who couldn’t afford attorneys in order to fill bureaucratic quotas under Bill Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Mrs. Schaefer provided the grisly details. “Cash bonuses are paid to the state for every child that is adopted out of foster care. Oftentimes, the amount is $4,000 to $6,000, with an extra $2,000 for special-needs children.”

Mrs. Schaefer continued: “To make more money, they need more merchandise; and children equal merchandise. They also need a large selection of children for potential adoptions so that buyers have more to choose from.”

CPS therefore acts as a facilitator, using the court system to snatch children from their parents, then feeding them into foster care for eventual adoption. Mrs. Schaefer cited numerous dangers to this corrupt arrangement. A 1998 study by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect stated that six times more youths die in foster care than in the general public. They are also more prone to sexual molestation by pedophiles in the foster care system. Many children simply disappear.

Considering the monetary incentives surrounding a business of trafficking in children by converting them into cash, did CPS open the floodgates to even more widespread wrong doing—one that resembled the notorious “Franklin Affair”?

Did powerful politicians operating a high-level child pedophilia ring clean house to prevent Mrs. Schaefer’s film from seeing the light of day?

Online commentator Steven Erickson offered this response on April 2, noting that Mrs. Schaefer attended a special hearing in the Netherlands.

“Nancy was recently the victim of murder,” wrote Erickson. “Her husband is said to have been the killer in a murder-suicide. Some may think it is a murder-for-hire, paid for by police or insiders in Georgia government allegedly involved in official kidnapping for federal tax dollars. Are children being trafficked for white slavery, sex exploitation, for bogus adoption, and to give political insiders six-figure salaries paid for with taxes? Are the police in some states involved in drug dealing, prostitution, racketeering, obstruction of justice, murder, rape, extortion and other crimes? Are American courts a scam? Nancy was pretty high profile, making serious allegations, and she ends up dead. Do the math.”

The broader question remains: Did corruption end at the Georgia state level, or were Mrs. Schaefer’s sights set even higher?

During her Netherlands World Congress of Families speech last year, Mrs. Schaefer specifically described U.S. government involvement in human trafficking.

Considering the huge amounts of bloodstained dollars at stake, not to mention the lengthy prison sentences awaiting each guilty party, it’s clear she may have been a prime target for retaliation.

Washington politicians have long concealed a cesspool of child “call boys.” A few names that come to mind include Paul Bonacci, who was kidnapped and sold as a sex slave; Barney Frank’s homosexual lover, who operated a prostitution service, Larry King of the Franklin Cover-Up; and Jeff Gannon, a planted White House “reporter” who operated a homosexual escort service. Then, of course, The Washington Times ran the following headline on June 29, 1989: “Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush.”

Former Nebraska state patrolman Gary Caradori, during an investigation of the Franklin Cover-Up case, was murdered on June 11, 1990, after having his airplane sabotaged. Mrs. Schaefer seems to have suffered the same fate, except her cowardly killers used a bullet in her back to ensure her silence.

http://www.ajc.com/news/what-really-took-2-430563.html

What really took 2 lives in Schaefer case? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

8:32 a.m. Sunday, April 4, 2010
By Mark Davis mrdavis@ajc.com

TOCCOA — It is a mystery that may never get a satisfactory answer.

It will be discussed a while longer at kitchen tables, in chat rooms and other places where people ask questions. The names of the dead will resurface when cops discuss cases that stick with them. The funeral programs will be tucked away for someone else to find.

And when they turn up, so will the old questions. What happened? Why did he kill his wife of 52 years? What did the notes say?

Here’s what police say:

On March 26, Bruce Schaefer, 74, a longtime Atlanta stockbroker who’d retired to his boyhood mountain haunts, shot his sleeping wife, Nancy Schaefer, 73, a former state senator and a conservative political activist. Then he turned the .38-caliber handgun on himself.

The Schaefers were dead when their daughter found them in the bedroom of their Habersham County home. Investigators discovered a suicide note, as well as notes to each of the couple’s five children.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is investigating the case, is emphatic.

“This is as clear-cut a case of murder-suicide as you’ll see,” said spokesman John Bankhead. The state agency will close out its investigation after doing a few more interviews and running some toxicology tests — standard procedure in death cases, said Bankhead.

So case closed — or nearly.

And yet, people talk. They talk about a twosome that was rarely apart, about a woman who achieved renown for her unapologetic stands against abortion and overzealous child protective services. They talk about her husband, who tried, but never managed, to ignore his wife’s critics as effectively as she.

People talk, and they wonder.

A conservative voice

Nancy Schaefer was a multitasker before the term was coined. Married and living in Buckhead, she was busy with five children. But activism tugged.

In 1985, she organized an Atlanta rally for constitutional liberties. A year later, she created the nonprofit Family Concerns Inc., a foundation that champions display of the Ten Commandments, fights abortion and opposes what it considers overly aggressive child-custody agencies.

In 1988, she worked for Jack Kemp’s failed bid for the GOP presidential nomination. In subsequent years, she ran, unsuccessfully, for mayor of Atlanta and lieutenant governor and governor of Georgia.

Those campaigns raised her profile as a conservative capable of an elegant reply. In 2002, she was a regular in “Woman to Woman,” a weekly feature representing views from the left and right in the Sunday Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Bruce retired in 1996. Like so many other well-heeled Atlantans, he and his wife left Georgia’s capital for the mountains. There, her political tenacity paid off.

In 2004, Nancy Schaefer won the first of two elections to the state Senate. In 2008, she lost to Jim Butterworth, who holds that seat now. In between, she remained active in other causes. She represented the Southern Baptist Convention at United Nations conferences. She started more nonprofit organizations and became a trustee at Toccoa Falls College. She sang in the choir at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Toccoa. She made devoted friends, and some bitter enemies.

Bruce? He was her amiable shadow. Photos depict a tall man with an athlete’s build — he played football at Clemson, then served in the Army — with a smile nearly as big as he.

“You hardly ever saw one without the other,” said Robert “Buster” Smith, whom Bruce often visited when Nancy came to town from their Clarkesville home to get her hair done.

A Toccoa native, Smith saw Bruce Schaefer on the last Tuesday of his life when he stopped by Smith’s furniture store. “He seemed like his old self,” said Smith. “I have a hard time believing it happened like it happened.”

‘Life happened’

The Schaefers lived in The Orchard, a gated country club community about 15 miles northwest of Toccoa in Habersham County. It’s located off a twisty road where ancient wooden barns silver in the sun.

Their home served as headquarters for some of Nancy’s activities. There she wrote frequent online articles on topics as diverse as the Obama administration’s health care program to the possible biblical significance of solar eclipses. Her last, decrying implanting microchips in humans, appeared Feb. 17.

Cleaning out the house won’t be easy for the Schaefers’ children, said Habersham Sheriff Joey Terrell, whose officers were first on the scene after the shootings. “There’s a house that’s full of stuff to take care of,” he said.

Full of memories, too.

“They were a part of life,” said Terrell, “and life happened to them.”

Mourners, memories

Ushers counted more than 800 people at the couple’s funeral service Wednesday afternoon. Mourners filled Ebenezer Baptist’s sanctuary, two choir rooms and an adjacent building. Thirty state senators came on a chartered bus from Atlanta.

They watched a slide show of family photos that highlighted happy times: Bruce in his Army uniform; Bruce and Nancy swirling across a dance floor; children; grandchildren. The images bestowed on her a calm dignity that comes from decades of living; he got a little wider, his hair a little whiter, but the smile remained the same.

The Rev. Andy Childs urged people to focus on how the Schaefers lived, not how they died.

“The tragedy of the last several days ... does not erase the testimony of their lives,” he said.

Charlie Wysong, a family friend, drove three hours from Chattanooga to attend the 70-minute service. “When I heard about it, I couldn’t believe it at first,” he said. “I said, ‘How out of character.’”

The news also brought the business of state lawmaking to a temporary stop.

“It’s just a terrible tragedy,” said Rep. Rick Austin, a Republican from Demorest. “I don’t think anybody will ever really understand what happened.”

Not what it seems?

That doesn’t stop people from trying. Rev. Childs, speaking during the funeral service, mentioned Bruce taking medication. Others talk about possible financial misfortune.

Conspiracy-mongers have been busy, too. The Schaefers, they suggest, paid the price for their conservative convictions and were silenced by shadowy forces. Whoever shot Nancy, they maintain, also shot Bruce.

Web sites buzz with comments about a reputed cover-up. A Facebook page, “We Demand An Extensive Investigation On The Death of Senator Nancy Schaefer,” had 988 fans Thursday afternoon. Friday morning, it had 1,116.

The people who may have the best idea of what happened, the couple’s children, are remaining quiet. Police won’t say much, either.

So people wonder, and talk. Mysteries with no satisfactory answers, like empty rooms, attract odd things.

CPS defined

2010-10-27T09:16:00.000-07:00

(From Dictionary.com)

OPPRESSIVE
op·pres·sive /əˈprɛsɪv/ Show Spelled
[uh-pres-iv] Show IPA

–adjective

1. burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: an oppressive king; oppressive laws.
2. causing discomfort by being excessive, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat.
3. distressing or grievous: oppressive sorrows.

Opposites of oppressive: cool, mild, temperate

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(From Yourdictionary.com)
Definition of COERCE

COERCE (coercive)
co·erce vt \kō-ˈərs\

co·ercedco·erc·ing

1: to restrain or dominate by force
2: to compel to an act or choice
3: to achieve by force or threat

— co·erc·ible\-ˈər-sə-bəl\ adjective
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TERRORIZE
ter·ror·ize (ter′ər īz′)

transitive verb terrorized -·ized′, terrorizing -·iz′·ing

1.to fill with terror; terrify
2.to coerce, make submit, etc. by filling with terror, as by the use or threat of violence

Related Forms:
•terrorization ter′·rori·za′·tion noun

Opposites of Terrorize: assuage, calm, help, please, encourage, hearten, inspirit

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(From Yourdictionary.com)

TYRANNICAL
ty·ran·ni·cal (tə ran′i kəl, ti-, tī-)

adjective

1.of or suited to a tyrant; arbitrary; despotic
2.harsh, cruel, unjust, oppressive, etc.

Origin: L tyrannicus < Gr tyrannikos
Also tyrannic ty·ran′·nic

Related Forms:
•tyrannically ty·ran′·ni·cally adverb

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(From Yourdictionary.com)

ABUSE (abusive)

transitive verb abused abused′, abusing abus′·ing

1.to use wrongly; misuse: to abuse a privilege
2.a.to hurt by treating badly; mistreat
b.to inflict physical, sexual, or psychological harm upon
3.to use insulting, coarse, or bad language about or to; revile

Origin: ME abusen < OFr abuser < L abusus, pp. of abuti, misuse < ab-, away, from + uti, to use

noun

1.wrong, bad, or excessive use
2.mistreatment, esp. by the infliction of physical, sexual, or psychological harm; injury
3.a bad, unjust, or corrupt custom or practice
4.insulting or coarse language
5.Obsolete deception

Abuse antonyms: aid, help, preservation, respect
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAUD (fraudulent)

World English Dictionary
fraud (frɔːd)
— n

1. deliberate deception, trickery, or cheating intended to gain an advantage
2. an act or instance of such deception
3. something false or spurious: his explanation was a fraud
4. informal a person who acts in a false or deceitful way

[C14: from Old French fraude , from Latin fraus deception]

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

Cite This Source
Word Origin; History

fraud
"criminal deception," mid-14c., from O.Fr. fraude , from L. fraudem (nom. fraus ) "deceit, injury." The noun meaning "impostor, humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose" is from 1560s.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: fraud

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin fraud - fraus

1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud

2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud fraud > —see also MISREPRESENTATION

NOTE: A tort action based on fraud is also referred to as an action of deceit.

actual fraud

fraud committed with the actual intent to deceive and thereby injure another called also fraud in fact —compare CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD in this entry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISHONEST
dis·hon·est (ds-nst)

adj.

1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

[Middle English dishoneste, dishonorable, from Old French deshoneste, probably from Medieval Latin *dishonestus : Latin dis-, dis- + Latin honestus, honorable; see honest.]
dis·honest·ly adv.

Synonyms: dishonest, lying, untruthful, deceitful, mendacious

These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest business executive.

Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth: a lying witness giving inconsistent testimony.

Untruthful is a softer term and suggests lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement.

Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising.

Mendacious is more formal than lying, and suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth: a mendacious and troublesome employee.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(From Dictionary.com)

KIDNAPPERS
kid·nap /ˈkɪdnæp/ Show Spelled
[kid-nap] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -napped or -naped, -nap·ping or -nap·ing.

to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(From Dictionary.com)

CRUEL
/ˈkruəl/ Show Spelled
[kroo-uhl] Show IPA

–adjective, -er, -est.

1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2. enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3. causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
4. rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.

Origin:
1175–1225; ME < AF, OF < L crūdēlis, equiv. to crūd ( us ) ( see crude) + -ēlis adj. suffix

—Related forms

cru·el·ly, adverb
cru·el·ness, noun
un·cru·el, adjective
un·cru·el·ly, adverb
un·cru·el·ness, noun

—Synonyms
1. bloodthirsty, ferocious, merciless, relentless. Cruel, pitiless, ruthless, brutal, savage imply readiness to cause pain to others. Cruel implies willingness to cause pain, and indifference to suffering: a cruel stepfather. Pitiless adds the idea of refusal to show compassion: pitiless to captives. Ruthless implies cruelty and unscrupulousness, letting nothing stand in one's way: ruthless greed. Brutal implies cruelty that takes the form of physical violence: a brutal master. Savage suggests fierceness and brutality: savage battles.

Antonym: Kind or kindness
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(From Yourdictionary.com)
DESTROY (destructive)
de·stroy (di stro̵i′)

transitive verb

1.to tear down; demolish
2.to break up or spoil completely; ruin
3.to bring to total defeat; crush
4.to put an end to; do away with
5.to kill
6.to neutralize the effect of
7.to make useless

Origin: ME destroien < OFr destruire < L destruere < de-, down + struere, to build: see structure

Antonyms: Build, conserve, sustain

Denise Dopkins' legal battle with her son's adoptive parents

2010-10-26T14:13:00.000-07:00

LEGALITIES RE MY SON’S ADOPTIVE PARENTS DEMANDS

by Denise Dopkins on Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 2:15pm

I received a letter from my son's adoptive parents via their attorney. Meegan and James Ware are threatening me with legal action if I do not comply with their demands. My son's natural father receives letters and photos from the adoptive parents as per an Open Adoption Agreement they entered into. I refused to write my son off to the state, so I am not offered any visits, photos or letters. However, I receive copies of photos and letters from Micah's natural father. The adoptive parents are demanding that I remove said photos from any website I am connected with. They are also demanding that I stop using my son's legal name in any of my Internet writings. They inform me that if I do not comply with their demands, they will seek a court's order to force me to comply. They also say they will seek a restraining order against me for 'invasion of privacy'. The fact of the matter is-- I have not invaded anyone's privacy. I learned the last name of the adoptive family because it was not deleted from the DSHS social file when it was given to me. I have merely granted my son the common decency of referring to him by his legal name. I also claim him as my own flesh and blood because I am his natural mother and nobody can change that fact. Even the law states that it is the right of all children to know who their natural parents are. It occurs to me that the adoptive parents wish to hide my identity from my son. (Birth name Micah Barrett-- adopted name Austin Ware.) Oddly enough, though... the adoptive parents clearly informed the natural father that they would not hide from Micah the fact that he is adopted. Hmmm.

I have never approached, called or emailed the adoptive family. I have not attempted any form of contact with them or my son. Furthermore, Micah is only 5 years of age, so likely does not see any of the Internet sites that I am connected with.

I must point out the fact that the adoptive parents, Meegan and James Ware began coaching Micah to refer to himself as Austin prior to the initiation of the adoption procedure. I know this to be a fact because during my last visit with Micah, he informed me in no uncertain terms that "No, I not Micah... I Austin!" There was about two weeks that passed between the end of the termination trial and my last visit with my son. Therefore, the coaching may have started directly after my rights were terminated, however, I believe it began the very day my trial started. It occurs to me that CPS authorized the changing of my son's name prior to the initiation of the adoption... and likely at least 6 weeks prior to my last visit with him. (At the start of my "trial" and prior to the termination of my parental rights.) The very fact that the adoptive parents would not wait until after my last visit with Micah shows (a) unbelievable cruelty and (b) they participated in illegal activity. How hurtful it was to see my son for the last time and have him inform me that his name was not the name I gave him at birth. It caught me completely off gaurd-- which I suspect was part of the adoptive parents agenda. It was very alarming to me, however, I let it slide for the remainder of the visit, so as not to upset Micah.

Following is the email correspondene between the adoptive parent's attorney and me. Note the fact that Mr. Iverson changed his mind about speaking or corresponding with me only when he received my list of questions. I have to wonder if the adoptive mother's threats are even legally enforceable.

Tue, June 8, 2010 3:02:09 PM Letter from Wares From: Denise Dopkins View Contact To: mriverson@earthlink.net

Dear Mr. Iverson,

I am contacting you to make a request regarding the letter I received from Meegan Ware. Is there any chance you could send me a copy of that letter via email attachment? I'd sure appreciate it if you could do that for me. Please let me know one way or the other whether or not you can fulfill this request.

Thank you in advance,Denise Dopkins

dd4066@yahoo.com

Thu, June 10, 2010 1:16:28 PM Letter From: Mark R. Iverson View Contact To: dd4066@yahoo.com

Ms. Dopkins:

You sent an email to Mr. Iverson regarding a letter you received from Meegan Ware. That letter was not sent through this office and therefore we do not have a copy of it.

Sincerely,

LeAnn F. BlairLegal Assistant to:

Mark R. Iverson, P.S.921 West Broadway, Suite 301Spokane, WA 99201

1-509-462-3678 1-509-462-3700 (Fax)

http://www.adoptionwa.com/

Fri, June 11, 2010 2:55:09 PM Re: Letter From: Denise Dopkins View Contact To: Mark R. Iverson mriverson@earthlink.net

Dear Ms. Blair, Thank you for your response to my email. I am though confused at your answer-- given that Mr. Iverson is the adoption attorney for the Wares and that Mrs. Ware instructed me to contact Mr. Iverson with any questions regarding the letter in question. Also, the letter was sent from Mr. Iverson's law office address, so I assumed he was aware of its content. Should I assume that Mr. Iverson is not open to communications with me regarding Mrs. Ware's letter? Please respond at your soonest convenience and I thank you in advance. Sincerely,Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com

Sat, June 12, 2010 6:13:42 AM Re: Letter From: Mark R. Iverson View Contact To: Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com

I am out of the office until early July. I will speak with you then. You do not have an open adoption agreement with the adoptive parents. They will not be sending you any communication or pictures.

Mark Iverson

Sat, June 12, 2010 5:13:47 PM Re: Letter From: Denise Dopkins View Contact To: Mark R. Iverson mriverson@earthlink.net

Dear Mr. Iverson, Thank you for your email. Just to clarify-- regarding your comment, I have always been with the understanding that the adoptive parents do not communicate with me or send me photos. This has never been a misunderstanding on my part... so I am confused as to why you make the comment regarding it. I have further never attempted contact with the adoptive family or my son in any way, form or matter, so the comment is really misplaced on your part. My intent in contacting you was in regards to the letter I received from Mrs. Ware. She contacted me. Interestingly enough, she has personal contact information. I wonder how she located it. Your assistant, LeAnn F. Blair informed me that the letter Mrs. Ware sent me did not come from your office, even though the return address indicates that it did. I look forward to speaking with you. Please contact me upon your return to your office. I actually just need to clarify a few points regarding Mrs. Ware's letter. I will not respond directly to her. Sincerely,Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com 509-216-8885

Sun, June 13, 2010 6:52:33 AM Fw: Letter From: Denise Dopkins View Contact To: mriverson@earthlink.net

Dear Mr. Iverson, Regarding my most recent email to you, I must correct a statement I made. I stated that "I have always been with the understanding that the adoptive parents do not communicate with me or send me photos." What I meant to say was "I have always been with the understanding that the adoptive parents do not have to communicate with me or send me photos." It is a fact that I have asked them to reconsider sending me photos. That, however, was quite some time ago. I believe the last time I requested photos from the adoptive parents was November 2008. I now receive copies of photos and letters from my son's natural father, so it is no longer a desperate request. Just as I stated in the email I have forwarded to you today... I have never attempted direct contact with the adoptive family in the sense of visiting, calling or emailing them. I asked the social workers to communicate with the adoptive family for me by passing along the request for photos. I felt I had the right to ask-- even though I refused to write my son off to the state prior to receiving what I was led to believe was a fair trial. I received my answer and have not since asked the adoptive parents for anything. Sincerely,Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com 509-216-8885

Tue, June 29, 2010 1:06:49 PM Legal questions re the Ware's letter From: Denise Dopkins View Contact To: mriverson@earthlink.net

Dear Mr. Iverson, Given the fact that July is fast approaching, I opted to compose this letter to you. I thought it might be simpler to compile my questions and send them to you for your consideration. Please reply to this email with the answers to my questions. I can then simply keep the email in my personal file and refer to it-- should I again need to refresh my memory regarding the correspondence about the adoptive parent's demands.

1. Regarding the accusation of Meegan Ware, how have I 'invaded the privacy' of the adoptive family?
2. Is it illegal for me to have the common decency to acknowledge my son by his legal name?
3. Is it illegal for me to post photographs of my son and me on my blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.?
4. How exactly do the adoptive parents intend to punish Mr. Barrett for something he is not responsible for?
5. Isn't it true that there has to be a valid reason to persuade a judge to amend a court order?
6. Do I not have any rights to the freedom of speech, expression and press?

7. As my son's natural mother, do I not have the right to claim his as my own flesh and blood? Please reply to this email with answers to my very legitimate questions and concerns within 10 working days of the date of this email if at all possible. Thank you in advance.Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com

Tue, August 17, 2010 8:45:43 AM Re: Legal questions re the Ware's letter From: Mark R Iverson View Contact To: Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com

You may want to seek the advice of an attorney. I do not believe that any answers I give will be sufficient for you. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Tue, August 17, 2010 4:57:07 PM Re: Legal questions re the Ware's letter From: Denise Dopkins View Contact To: mriverson@earthlink.net Cc: cc@tillett.com; Melinda Bocook ; Jane Boyer ; Barbara Mowrey

Dear Mr. Iverson, Thank you for your response to my email. In response to your comment, I am under the impression that you are an attorney. Furthermore, as I previously informed you, Mrs. Ware directed me to contact you with any questions I have concerning her letter. I further do not understand what you mean when you say that any answers you give wouldn't be sufficient for me. I am merely contacting you because you are an attorney and would of course have the legal answers to the questions I presented to you. Whether or not the answers please me is not the issue here. I am merely seeking the accurate answers... period. I will assume Mrs. Ware was mistaken when she informed me that you would be the appropriate person to contact concerning her letter, unless of course, you proceed to assist her as your client. I will also proceed to contact several other attorneys who offer consultations-- in order to present the same questions to them. I would then compare notes and decide how to proceed. I am not necessarily convinced that it is mandatory that I abide by the adoptive parents demands. Mr. Iverson, I still encourage you to come forth with the answers to my very legitimate questions. (Regardless of whether or not those answers would make me happy.) After all, there are often things in life that do not make people particularly happy. Sincerely, Denise Dopkins dd4066@yahoo.com

Governmental tyranny

2010-10-19T13:32:00.000-07:00

GOD GUNS AND GUTS

Protecting your family under tyranny

By Jan Smith

I can’t think of a more violent government act against residents, then to send in government agents to take one’s children and place them in stranger’s homes and for all kinds of erroneous reasons determined by the psychiatric and legislative professions. Once removed those in power have devised a system so overwhelmingly corrupt and expansive, the average person is crippled under its auspices. From start to finish, the child protection system under a concept called Parens Patriae ensures that all involved parents and relatives are void of any rights. Most rights presented are nothing more than an illusion and the targets are usually very vulnerable.

The concept of Parens Patriae (government control of vulnerable children) came from English/British legal schools of thought and was implemented by the judicial system here in the US. However, this concept has gone way past the judiciary and encompasses the federal government and agencies, state government and agencies, contracted agencies and mandated reporters. Then there are all the “volunteer” agents (neighbors, friends, relatives, etc.) whose perception of a person’s parenting leads to government intervention. These too, are a part of the Parens Patriae system by choice. What they don’t realize is what they are subjecting the whole family to (including extended) when they pick up that phone and begin the process of removal.

So, what are they being subjected to? Poorly trained attorneys who are part of a “team” and may or may not represent their clients but the state. Then there is a massive Attorney General’s office and assigned assistant AGs who represent each government stakeholder at significant tax payer expense. The courts aren’t really courts at all, but a devised method of child removal and adoption with supportive rules, regulations and laws designed to give Parens the ability to make any type of decision – right or wrong – without consequence. Then there are the case workers and their big ideas of how to save the world through removal and adoption, leaving the entire lineage devastated with their mouths hanging open at the experience.

The targets are anyone whose income is at the poverty level. This includes those families who do not accept any type of government assistance but could if they applied. Most are having babies like crazy and completely unaware they are under government radar and gun scopes of medical, educational, and social worker opinion. Those who fall under ADA categories are disproportionately attacked to include the blind and disabled in wheel chairs. People with diagnosed mental health problems are a “shoe in” for removal and adoption for government agents. Depression is the government’s weapon of choice. They will use this diagnose to divide families and seek out any information that would suggest a parent or extended family has depression issues. Quietly, the government is taking children away from family after family under these categories and only recently, is there becoming an awareness of the plot.

There are several things families need to start doing. The first and most important is practicing the 2nd Amendment rights of gun ownership. All families at or below poverty levels need to own a gun and know how to use it safely by taking the required courses. If this means buying a gun on time payments then do it. Many hand guns are below $200 used. Nine millimeters have the cheapest ammo for practice. Talk to local gun firing ranges about developing a system of affordable shooting. They need to start supporting ALL Americans so they can practice their gun owner rights, not just those of higher incomes. The NRA should start allowing membership based on income because their membership fee is too high. Attend gun shows. Most are only about $5 to get in. You need to get a gun before international law goes into place with the Obama administration who would like to take the guns away from every American.

The second is educating yourself if you are going to have a child. Know who are mandatory reporters and under what circumstances your state allows removal. Know what the evidence standards are and how to dispute accusations. Families need to educate themselves on family law if they are going to have children. Know that marriage, holding down a job, and maintaining a stable environment are important factors in a court room setting. So are fighting in front of children, domestic violence, failing to show up for medical appointments, drug/alcohol abuse and a messy house will get agents involved with court support. Spanking with objects (belt, switch, etc.) is never allowed. Know what your rights are when agents show up at the door investigating your family and how to state those rights.

For activist/system victims who want to know what to do, consider developing groups in your area to do the following:

Develop fliers to hand out at maternity wards in hospitals to vulnerable parents and clinics who take government medical

Find out about all HUD housing apartment complexes and give community lectures on family law and child protection on site. If they won’t let you do that, hand out fliers and set up community meetings. Find a free place to have community meetings. Libraries are one source.

Go to your local ADA and express your concern about their lack of support regarding families. Picket if necessary to get your point across.

Develop a solid volunteer base. Memberships in family rights organizations fail if there is a fee. Most people won’t pay to have advocacy.

Educate those with money like foundations. This is important because they are funding foster care systems but don’t realize what is happening to families in the legal system. We need backers to help.

Work at night if you can, so that your schedule is free during the day to attend court hearings and public legislation. Get to know all the legislators in your state.

Pool resources with others to get training. Pick out members in your groups to attend important functions and meetings then collect the funds to get them that training. Once trained the trainees can come back and train the group.

Hand out fliers at DSHS offices where families are signing up for money/food/medical.

Organize parent groups in school systems that may be a little too excited about government involvement with families. There is safety in numbers.

Make lists of doctors and forensic experts where families are losing their rights because of their testimonies and examine the validity of their arguments. Some of these quacks go for years with false testimony before getting discovered.

Own a gun and practice good safety.

I could continue listing, but if these items get accomplished, great gains will be made. People lack power because of isolation and an absence of critical thinking. It will take some time and effort in the beginning, but once you become an established entity, the ripple effect will take over and have some impact.

A Woman with 20 different personalities

2010-10-10T18:17:00.001-07:00

Kim Noble: A woman divided

This blog's author Denise Dopkins first comments on the following article post. I post the article because it demonstrates how cruel and unjust the system really is. CPS succeeded at convincing a judge to permanently terminate the relationship between my precious baby boy and me. Their reason: They assert that I am so emotionally disturbed that it precludes me from the right to raise my son and live the joy that comes from the mother-child bonding experience. (Read more of my story "My Nightmare with CPS" located on this blog site. It is the May 31st entry under the blog archives.)

I wish for everyone to know that I was not diagnosed with any serious mental health problems... and certainly not as profoundly disturbing as the woman in the following article. Yet, social services allowed her to have custody and care of her daughter despite her serious mental health condition. Social services refused to allow my son to continue on in his relationship and bonding experience with his natural mother for no legitiamate reason and absent the provision of in home services. The woman in the following article was granted the in home services and ongoing therapy while her daughter remained in her custody and care-- where she remains to this day. I on the other hand was deprived of any in home services or ongoing therapy with my son in my care and custody. I wasn't so much as given the chance to fail or succeed with my son.

KIM NOBLE: A woman devided

There are 20 people living inside Kim Noble, including an alpha female called Patricia; an anorexic teenager called Judy; and a bloke called Ken. She has the most extreme form of dissociative identity disorder that psychiatrists have seen - and a unique artistic talent, too, as Katy Weitz reports.

Sunday, 27 August 2006

This is my first interview with Kim Noble, and I confess that I am a little apprehensive myself - what does a woman with 20 personalities look like? What if she "switches" midway through the interview? Kim's appearance gives nothing away; she is a tiny, almost frail-looking woman with a thick mane of copper hair framing the most startlingly clear blue eyes. The rest of her face is almost incidental, but high cheekbones and delicate features under clear bronze skin all make the picture quite lovely.

There is no trace of disturbance in her voice either - she is breezy and animated. She could even pass for normal if you met her on the street but Kim, 45, has spent the last 10 years coming to terms with the condition dissociative identity disorder (DID) and in the last two, she and 12 of her "alters" have started
painting in acrylics after a short time with an art therapist.

Despite no formal training, all the artists have developed their own distinctive styles, colours and themes and she has had seven successful solo and seven group exhibitions. She is now artist in residence at Springfield University Hospital in Tooting, south London, and wants to show the positive side of her condition to explain her art. This is the reason for our meeting.

"We're doing something really worthwhile and we've also brought up a healthy, well-loved daughter," she says. The use of the plural personal pronoun is strange but Kim talks so quickly, I don't have time to reflect.

"Being diagnosed with DID was the best thing that ever happened to us," she says. "From the age of 14 I'd had spells in psychiatric hospitals and had been diagnosed with everything from schizophrenia to depression, hysterical amnesia, anorexia and bulimia. It's a lot to take in when you're first told - I used to think I just had a bad memory because of all the blank periods. Or I put it down to drinking. I was sectioned many times and told I'd have to take medication for the rest of my life.

"Now I don't take any medication and haven't been in hospital for a decade. I just have therapy twice a week and a support team who come over occasionally to help out. One was an art therapist. That's how I got into painting. We just started out doing it on the back of wallpaper two years ago and we loved it."

In just two years, Kim has painted over 200 canvasses, getting up at 3am to start work so that she has time alone in her art room before daughter Aimee wakes up at 6.30am. Of course, it's not always Kim doing the painting.

"I have no memory at all between the personalities so when I come back, I don't always know who's been around. The best way to tell is to look at what painting is out at the time. Or Aimee will tell me. Since we started the artwork, there's actually been a lot more control in my life. If they're painting, they're achieving something and when they don't, they get very restless."

To all intents and purposes, each of Kim's personalities is an artist in their own right: Patricia paints the solitary desert landscapes, Bonny's pictures often feature robotic dancing figures or "frieze people", Suzy repeatedly paints a kneeling mother, Judy's canvasses are large, conceptual pieces while Ria's work reveals deeply traumatic events involving children.

These disturbing images are at the root of Kim's extraordinary condition; DID is a creative mental survival strategy whereby the personality splits at a young age due to severe and chronic trauma. The number of personalities that exist often depends on how long the trauma lasts. But Kim herself has no memory of being abused as a child; she has been protected over the years by her alters.

"I've been told I was abused and to me at this moment in time, it's too much. It goes in one ear and out the other. It's no good retraumatising me and telling me something I don't want to know - in any case, there

would be a switch."

Kim has good reason to fear learning about her past as it's possible that if she acquires too much information, she won't be able to cope and will "disappear". It's happened twice before. (omega)

This is where it gets really weird - for Kim isn't Kim at all. The personality I am interviewing is Patricia and it is she who manages her and Aimee's lives, but Patricia wasn't always the dominant personality. Before Patricia took over, Bonny held the fort and two years previous to Bonny, it was Hayley.

Kim watches me closely as she explains: "You see Kim is just the 'house', the body. There isn't a 'Kim' at all - she has completely split. So we answer to the name Kim but really I am Patricia. When people call us 'Kim' I suppose many of us just assume it's a nickname, but once people know you they don't use your name very often in conversation."

Of the 20 or so personalities who share "Kim", some are easily identifiable: there is 15-year-old Judy who is and bulimic, maternal Bonny, religious Salome, depressed Ken, sensible Hayley, Dawn, Patricia and elective mute MJ. There are also a handful of children "frozen" in time. A few of the alters know about the DID but many are unaware - or refuse to accept it.

"Judy doesn't believe in the DID," explains Kim. "She's only a teenager and she calls our therapist a nutter when she tries to explain it to her. She's so young, she doesn't even think Aimee is her daughter. She knows about me and she thinks that I'm a terrible mother because I'm always leaving Aimee. To her, it's totally normal to keep coming and going. She probably thinks that you come and go too."

There are certain "triggers" that can force a change and gradually Kim has learnt what they are in order to avoid them - but it doesn't stop her switching up to three or four times a day.

"I don't really get any idea when I'm about to go except occasionally a feeling of drifting. Mostly it's instantaneous. I can lose six or seven hours but if you were asking another personality now, of course they'd say they lose days. So we haven't got much of a sense of time - I'm always in a panic to get things done.

"It means that Aimee's time gets interrupted. If a younger one comes out they can be playing for hours and nothing will get done. Aimee can get me back again but if she's on to a good thing she won't. I came to in the hallway once and there was paint spattered everywhere. Aimee just looked at me and said: 'Well, it wasn't my fault, was it?'

"To Aimee, all of this is normal. She's grown up with it and she knows all the personalities better than anyone. She misses Bonny quite a lot because Bonny used to be her main carer and now she's not around so much. Sometimes she asks if she can speak to her and I let her. Now that she's older she's getting a bit cheeky. She asked me for a kitten yesterday and I said no, then she asked Judy and she said yes. But it's me that has the final say, so she's not getting one."

This playing-off between the personalities mimics the actions of a child trying to manipulate two parents to their advantage. "Oh, I think Aimee's very lucky in some ways," says Kim. "There's always plenty of people for her to talk to and have fun with and we never get angry at her. If we're beginning to get frustrated then someone else will take over. I'm not saying (omega) it's always easy for Aimee - she gets stressed about getting to school on time because if I'm not around, maybe one of the other personalities won't know they have to get her ready. But the school are aware of the DID and are very supportive."

It is a testament to Kim's strength that she is a mother at all as Aimee was taken away by social services at birth to be put up for adoption. Kim took her fight all the way to the High Court and was assessed by two independent psychiatrists in the process - they both confirmed she was no danger to her child.

"DID is all about protection so I know that Aimee will always be safe - we all love her and take care of her together," says Kim. "At first, social services were worried I wouldn't remember to feed Aimee, or overfeed her. But luckily the trend was to feed on demand so we just fed her when she was hungry. It's the same for me - I tend to just snack as I don't know who's been out recently or whether they've eaten. I have to listen to my body. I let Judy do the eating."

Kim lets out a loud, throaty laugh - despite the day-to-day difficulties, she is the first to point out the ludicrous nature of her situation. "All the personalities have different taste in clothes so sometimes I can end up in five different outfits in one morning. And I lose things all the time because another personality might move my mobile and I'll have no idea where it's gone. I lost the computer once! It was broken and I was taking it in to be fixed but then I lost time and when I came back there was no computer. I went to the repair shop and just sort of hung around, waiting for them to say, 'We've got your computer.' I didn't want to just ask them - it would have seemed crazy."

Can she not communicate with the other personalities? "I leave notes for them sometimes but usually get rude replies back like: 'Mind your own business.'"

According to leading psychology professor at UCL, Professor John Morton, Kim has the misfortune to represent the British "gold standard" over genuine dissociation. In the last four years he has conducted extensive tests on Kim and found there is no memory at all between the different personalities.

"Even when DID patients reported no memory between the different personalities, our tests usually showed massive leakage between them," he says. "Kim shows no leakage at all. She is proving existing memory theories wrong. She's doing things which we would say are impossible."

On our second meeting, I discover more about Aimee's origins. "One of us was seeing a guy and got pregnant but he wasn't everybody's choice so he left. It was Dawn who had Aimee. But because she was taken away at birth and we only got her back when she was six months old, Dawn didn't recognise her, so she's always looking for her baby."

For all the personalities, this appears to have been a major trauma in their lives. Now single, Kim says she doesn't want a relationship as it would be too complicated and she couldn't imagine all of them marrying one man.

I ask where the treatment is leading - could the personalities one day integrate, allowing Kim to lead a more "normal" life? "That always used to be the aim with DID sufferers, but not anymore," she says. "And I wouldn't want it. It's a bit like killing someone else, isn't it? Perhaps it will be me who's never around and Bonny will take over again. Apparently that doesn't happen but I can't even imagine what it's like. Also, if I integrated I'd lose the artists too. We'd all mould into one style and which style would that be? No, I don't want integration at all - my goal is managing it."

For our third interview, Kim's therapist is present at her request - it means I can meet the other personalities under controlled and safe conditions. Judy comes out at lunch so that she can eat. The change occurs almost immediately - Patricia closes her eyes for a second and then when she opens them again she looks bewildered and a little embarrassed. The therapist explains who I am and Judy grunts in greeting then starts picking at the white trousers she is wearing. "What's these?" she says to no one in particular. Her therapist replies: "You don't like them?" Judy snaps back: "I don't like white. It makes me look fat." She pulls a cushion over her legs then we carry on a halting conversation while she pokes at her chicken in lentil sauce.

Judy is sullen and defensive - she's never seen lentils before and announces they look like "rabbit poop".

Eventually, we get onto the subject of DID. "Did? I did what? I did it! What Katy did," Judy plays with the words. I ask her if she believes in DID. "No!" she scoffs. "What? When I'm not there, somebody else is there talking to me? Eh?" So how is it she's wearing trousers she doesn't like? "I've always got bizarre clothes on that belongs to some other idiot," she says. When her therapist tries to point out that this isn't usual for most people, Judy shoots back: "I've just got a bad memory. I probably put these on."

I ask: "How old are you, Judy?" "Old enough to know better! I'm 15." The therapist gently says that she was 15 when they met 10 years ago. "But you've never been good at maths. You told me that."

Judy seems to have a brilliant arsenal of weapons to protect her from the truth: she has a bad memory, or her therapist is a terrible mathematician. As the meal ends, Judy leaves the sofa and in the middle of crossing the room, she stops, there's a jerk in her spine and she slowly turns around. It is Patricia again - she smiles warily. She has no idea what has just happened and looks at the empty plate: "So she ate all her food then? Was she all right?"

Later on, Bonny comes out - Patricia's head bows for a second then she looks up slowly and shyly. Bonny is altogether different from Patricia and this is reflected in the tension in her face - she is a softer, more serene character and even begins to cry when she talks about missing Aimee. "I just don't get to see her," she says sadly.

When Patricia is back again, we tell her what Bonny has said. She is resentful: "Yeah, but I don't get enough time with Aimee."

I leave the interview tired and amazed; there was no trace of Kim/Patricia in either of the two alters. Though I cannot even begin to imagine horrors Kim faced as a child, I am struck that neither the abuse nor its devastating consequences have destroyed this woman's spirit, humour or capacity to love. She may not have 50 heads but there is nothing normal about Kim Noble; she is one terrible, exquisite and beautiful work of art.

Kim Noble will be exhibiting at the Raw Arts Festival in Valencia in October and at the London Art House, Islington, in January. To find out more about her work visit www.kimnoble.com

Washington Families United organization

2010-09-25T13:29:00.000-07:00

The person speaking in the following post is this blog's author Denise Dopkins. It speaks of my personal experience with Washington Families United and Elaine Wolcott.

There was a time when I took a very negative view of Washington Families United. I was upset with the organization and its Presidents/leaders because they seemingly would not help me to resolve my issues with CPS and family court. I was attacked by CPS, as are so many thousands of others nationwide. I also lost my parental rights and relationship with my little boy due to false and flimsy allegations, which the courts rubber stamped. Sadly, this is an epidemic issue all over the United States of America.

I have since learned and have been willing to understand that NOBODY can stop the horrific doings of the so called child protective system by themselves. Even with people in political positions and the many organizations that work tirelessly to curtail the illegalities of CPS and 'family courts'... change is extremely slow in happening. Thankfully, with the assistance of Washington Families United, as well as many other people, some cases have been victorious and the families reunited. However, this is a rare happening, I believe due to the fact that there are so many thousands of families attacked and because State agents are seemingly accountable to no other authority or department. They do not fear punishment for their perjury and fraudulent ways, so they continue on in the illegal actions they commit. Laws that are already in place are violated every day by State agent, CPS contracted service providers, lawyers, doctors, Guardian ad litems etc. Even foster care providers participate in the illegal, cruel and unjust actions involved in the CPS and family court arena. I am speaking of the foster-adopt industry, where foster care providers look to the State as a less expensive or free ticket to adopting children, especially babies. That is where the majority of children in state care go.

In short, my point in composing this document is to explain my reasoning for removing the post containing some correspondence between a Washington Families United member and myself. The email correspondence I posted was unnecessary and inappropriate for this forum. It was derived from a misunderstanding I had regarding the motive of WFU. I publicly apologize to Elaine Wolcott for accusing her of not intending to help CPS victims. Truth be known-- she is not able to assist every person that comes to her for help because she is only one person. I simply misunderstood her intentions due to my own refusal to hear what she really stated to me.

Mom wins lawsuit against CPS

2010-09-19T16:21:00.000-07:00

California Court of Appeal Affirms Mom's $4.9 Million Award Against Social Services Agency

RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103)

In 2007 an Orange County jury returned a $4.9 million verdict in favor of Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick finding that county social workers had lied to the juvenile court in order to cause the removal of Fogarty-Hardwick's young children - 6 and 9 years old at the time. In a unanimous scathing opinion issued Monday, June 14, 2010, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted that the evidence presented at trial led both the judge and jury to conclude that "something seriously wrong had been done to Fogarty-Hardwick" and that the conduct of the social workers was not "an isolated incident." The Court of Appeal went on to chastise the County saying "This conclusion is something that should be taken very seriously.
In this case, the jury specifically concluded that Vreeken and Dwojak lied, falsified evidence, and suppressed exculpatory evidence...There was no error in rejecting qualified immunity in this case.

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2010

A California Appellate Court found this week against Orange County and its Social Services Agency, and Affirmed what is called a “Substantial” damages award arising from a Civil Rights Verdict obtained in May 2007.

After in depth review of extensive briefs and a complex record, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issues its opinion today affirming an Orange County jury’s verdict awarding Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick approximately $4.9 million against the County of Orange, and two of its social workers.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: “Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously.”

The underlying case was filed by Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick against the County of Orange in February 2001. The suit alleged that Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken and her supervisor Helen Dwojak violated Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick’s constitutional rights to raise and associate with her children free from governmental interference.

On March 23,2007 an Orange County Jury found against Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken, and social worker supervisor Helen Dwojak and awarded monetary damages of $4.9 million. A third social worker, Elaine Wilkins was found not liable.

Lead attorney Shawn A. McMillan states: “Ms. Fogarty is very pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the verdict. This case encompasses extremely important issues for the people of Orange County, and the People of the State of California. Allegations of social worker misconduct of the type proven in this case is "ubiquitous" as admitted in an Amicus Brief filed by the California Association of Counties. Hopefully, the 52 counties that belong to the association will take note of the outcome of this case and promulgate policies to prevent their social workers from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.”

San Diego Lawyer Shawn A. McMillan, of the Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan, was lead trial counsel in the case and the lead appellate attorney. Attorney Sondra Sutherland was co-counsel at trial and assisted on the appeal.

For additional information, contact:

Shawn A. McMillan, Esq.
The Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan, A.P.C.
4955 Via Lapiz
San Diego, California 92122

Telephone: (858) 646-0069
Facsimile: (206) 600-4582
Website: www.mcmillan-law.com

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogarty-Hardwick/social_services/prweb4157254.htm

This needs to be applied nation-wide, because CPS agents operate in the same identical manner EVERYWHERE. This agency needs to be sued out of existence and the agents tried for their Capital Crimes against American families.

Corrupt Government

2010-09-05T21:55:00.000-07:00

BELIEFS V FACTS ON CHILD PROTECTION

HOW THE GOVERNMENT IS USING SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION IN POOR COMMUNITIES

By Jan Smith

Words. It is all about words that create images and emotions to provoke some type of response leading to action. Advertisers use underhanded and enticing strategies continuously in the marketplace manipulating the consumer into believing that the presented offerings are a “must have.” Once purchased, the consumer may very quickly realize that what they bought and what was advertised are two different things. In sales, the enticement is often referred to as a carrot and the same principle is applied with convincing the general public that the current child protection system is in the “best interest” of the children. The carrot is supposed child safety using images of suffering children eliciting fear and the natural need to protect them from harm. Is the system set up protecting or exploiting children and now that 30 years have gone by since CAPTA, what are the results? In order to understand what we are experiencing now, it is critical to know what was happening that created this trend. Many factors enter into the picture including and not limited to government research into mind control and social construction theories. Psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, historians, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies all participated in discussions and experiments regarding individual and community control during the time that child protection federal public policy was being requested.

As early as the 50s, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company began handing out LSD like it was candy to unsuspecting victims to determine its ability to get information out of resistant people and whether it was reliable in mind control. Many doctors were guilty of putting implants in their client’s brains attempting to manipulate emotions then tracking them unbeknownst to them. Nobody was immune to that era’s determination to commit human rights violations to include military personnel, children, and mentally handicapped people.

Yale and Harvard doctors participated and set up top secret mind control experimental stations of all types and varieties at the request of government paid for with tax dollars. It was in this spirit and social climate at Yale that the child protection federal public policy was developed then implemented across the nation without public input. Three scholars from Yale, Goldstein, Solnit and Freud, wrote a book, “Beyond the Best Interest of the Child” that is the bible of family dependency court to this day. The book encourages fast, reckless and uninformed removal and adoption out of children. The authors further suggest that judges should have no human sensitivities to the victims they may create and to plow forth ignoring any and all objections. Horrified, parents and extended families finding their children removed and adopted out needlessly, discover deaf ears in every direction. Let the philosophy taught in the pages of that book be the reason. All court related persons are taught to kick family to the curb and treat them accordingly.

The book, which was bought into wholesale by the legal and legislative communities, then formed the basis for court room and agency development. Legal minds worked overtime constructing specialized courts that violate every Constitutional principle. Again, using the emotional imaging of children, the educated public along with legislators ignored the dangerous ideas brought forth believing that the only way to protect children was by committing rights violations of parents and families.

Social constructionists including the authors of Beyond the Best Interest of the Child, began to introduce the idea that children aren’t really bonded with family through genetics and can be bonded to anyone. They taught that the younger the child, the greater the success with stranger placement. The authors encouraged the removal of babies then adopting them out quickly without due process to facilitate bonding with strangers instead of prolonged litigation.

During the time all this was going on, the United States was also working with the United Nations to develop international policy on children’s rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty was written with the US being primarily responsible for the contents. The treaty gives children all kinds of rights over and above parents and attempts to ensure their protection through government control. This is interesting, because at the same time the US was writing the treaty, indigenous Native American children were being removed from tribes, put in boarding homes, raped, sodomized, tortured and killed at the hands of our government. Fifty percent died from starvation and disease because of neglect. This went on to 1984.

Just recently, Florida had to enact a law that makes experimental drug use on foster children illegal. This is now 2010. Why, one might ask, is it necessary to have a law like this? Don’t fundamental human rights suggest that those ethics should already be in place? As child after child has died at the hands of pharmaceutical companies without consequence, our nation continues its propaganda that children are best protected by government control and intervention. A popular quote is that “nothing changes if nothing changes.” Simple, yet seems to apply here. The same issues of human rights violations from the 50s are still alive today.

Children are not faring better in foster care and it is unclear how most are doing in adoptive homes. The vast majority are dropping out of school and winding up in prisons. Thirty percent plus were abused in foster care. Many ended up bounced from foster home to foster home and developed serious attachment problems. Drug and alcohol issues abound with this group along with severe mental health issues. And the idea that they are no longer connected to their bio families? Try telling that to the thousands who seek each other out after the inflicted state holocaust once an adult and fall into each other's arms in tears.

Nobody really knows how children are doing in adoptive homes because the states are keeping it a secret. If an adoptive parent abuses, kills or rapes a child, it goes under “parent” in the statistics column. Adoptive parents are also backed up in courts trying to give the kids back to the states. This is not common knowledge either. I bet the violated parents or grandparents would take them.

People believe that if they call the CPS phone number on a family, then the child will be safe. Is this true or not? Most who pick up that phone believe something they have not researched. So, where does this information about child safety come from? The same people who write public policy while funding human rights violations.

The propaganda is on the radio and TV. It is distributed at the doctor’s offices and on billboards. It is offered as the only solution. Mandated reporting is everywhere and in everything the general public is required to participate in by government decree. Child care centers, dental offices, sporting events and local business, all sport sad faces of children needing help and assistance because of their atrocious poverty ridden parents who are half killing them.

Is that the truth? Only a small percentage of removed children are removed because of actual abuse. The rest are removed due to neglect with most of the evidence unsubstantiated. What does that mean? That the vast majority of children removed have no proof of abuse or neglect. Let that sink in.

Why are they focusing on parents in poverty? Are they really worse parents than those of higher incomes? The social constructionists focus on the poor who blame the poor for societal decay. The poor families pay few taxes, often use the welfare system, and tend to have educational differences that manifest itself through lineage. In public hearings before the legislators, child and family savers abound declaring Utopian ideals and ways to provide handouts or interfere in parenting rights. While people in poverty spend little time worrying about the upper classes, the upper classes avoid their own issues and problems by finger pointing to low income while targeting ways to “fix” them.

Keep in mind that the sociopaths creating wars, violating human rights, drugging people, going to countries for underage sex, and using the vulnerable for any manner of experiments all come from higher education and financial strata. There is a reason why we have the food and drug administration and it is not to protect the country from the toxic poor, but from those who would kill us all without conscience.

The Department of Defense is in the news after being exposed for 250 of their employees downloading and purchasing child porn. Only a few were investigated and convicted. The rest were ignored. How many of these people have children and was CPS called? Not likely any, because those in government positions only want to fix the poor. Looking at themselves is not part of social constructionist agenda.

Countless children are now being removed because of a husband or boyfriend who hits or abuses the mom. This is getting translated as somehow being the mom’s fault. The children get removed and adopted out. If a husband or boyfriend abuses a child when the mom is not home, the blame is also getting placed on the mother. Where are the women’s rights groups on this?

What is the government reasoning? Experts (oh boy!) are saying that children who witness domestic violence are more likely to grow up abusers and that the experience rewires their brain. And they know this how? From all the chips they are implanting without permission? Is this brain rewiring theory or fact? If fact, what means of testing this theory are they using?

Any experience that creates a paradigm shift in a person’s thinking may very well cause some brain chemistry changes to go with it. Graduating from high school, changing careers, joining the military, moving from one school to another might all qualify as brain changing activities. DV would certainly qualify as an incident or series of incidents that would affect a child’s perception. What does brain rewiring mean exactly? They don’t explain that part because they don’t know, yet they are using this as a primary weapon against the family. This is one of hundreds of obscure, unfounded reasoning excuses used to remove and adopt out children.

I had a discussion with a family therapist sent out to work with a family member. I asked her about whether they believe a child can be put down and allowed to cry for any length of time. She responded by saying that she believes that it does not harm a child to let them cry if they have been well attended to. She said that a child is taught that they are not the center of the universe and will seek more independence. She also reported that it is healthy lung development. The therapist then reported that there is division on this theory and that at least half of all other family therapists believe that a child should never be put down if they are crying but held continually. The problem is, whatever the therapist believes who is assigned to the family, that family better take on those values or get crucified in court.

Then there is the problem of observed visitations. One therapist may insist that you get down on the floor and play games with the children. Another may say if you do that you are immature. Some might say it is Ok to speak baby talk, others may say it impedes child verbal development. If a parent puts a child in time out, that may be abusive to that therapist. If a parent doesn’t put a child in timeout this may mean the parent can’t set boundaries to another. The question is this….if they don’t know how to raise children then how are they supposed to teach someone else?

If a judge orders a psychological evaluation and it is paid by the department, is the evaluator unbiased? Not from the evaluations I have seen. Mistakes abound and things get twisted in favor of the prosecution. A person can go to four different evaluators and end up with four different diagnosis even with the same information.

While the US is leaning towards the use of pseudo science psychology to base their decisions on, Israel gives the evaluators absolute power and authority and won’t do anything without an evaluation as it pertains to families. The UK has similar strategies. This is how powerful globally these associations have become, yet they can’t agree on even the simplest and most important of tasks.

What do social engineers and constructionists hope to accomplish? They want to increase the education of the children and the employability in more areas. They want to decrease religious ideology with more government dependency and values. They want fewer problems in the courts and more control on the streets. Because they have put our country in debt, they need the next generation’s taxes. Corporations want to pay lower wages while squeezing out small and medium business. Higher ups are embarrassed at low education scores and want those increased so the US looks better. More liberal special interest groups want to adopt children and take them from families and the legal system just wants federal dollars with little resistance from families when they adopt out their children to strangers. They want us all drugged, used for their purposes, controlled in every respect and don’t want our opinion about any of their behaviors. But most importantly, they want to make all the decisions regarding poor people’s children and will destroy any parent that objects while the wealthy continue to be pedophiles, rapists, murderers, embezzlers, sociopaths, drug addicts and alcoholics, perpetrators, predators of all types, and war mongers.

They accomplish all of this through constantly maintaining propaganda and reaffirming those ideals at every turn, while those who are not researching the truth become their parrots and supporters. The United States, who once was more non-authoritarian, has sustained successful social engineering in child protection advertising with the vast majority believing all the lies told, as the children and families suffer under tyranny and loss of rights. As philosophers and historians argue amongst themselves regarding control and management of the populace, one thing is clear and has been since time began. It is the poor who pays at the hands of the arrogant learned time and again.

Sorry, Martin Luther King. Your dream will not be realized any time soon.

'Family' courts ignore child dependency laws

2010-08-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT

For the complete U.S. Constitution Click Here

On this page you will find the real law, which family courts ignore every day for their own convenience and personal agenda. Know your rights and fight for them!! If you do not you have no one to blame but yourself. This requires much work and study and attorney's will generally not help you here for fear of upsetting judges but your children are worth this effort as it is scientifically proven that children do ENORMOUSLY better in virtually all ways when they have equal access to both parents in a shared parenting relationship.

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states has no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v.City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in`the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process`Clause of`the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840,843,(1952).

A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S.and C.,324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably

Warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208,(1972).

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390 ; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a(once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability

To participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations

under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v.Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 4340 US 268 , (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon Conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411;

Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v.State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364;Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v.Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982).

State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth

Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a

freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981).

From: petes farms

Date: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:07 pm

Subject: An "On Topic" story from Pete. petesfarms

Offline Offline

Send Email Send Email

THE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHT TO BE A PARENT

www.connecticutDCFwatch.com http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/custcit2.pdf

http://www.winchildcustody.com/paternity/_disc107/0000043d.htm

http://www.wvve.org/issues/quotations.html

http://www.fathersforlife.org/families/sprmcrt.htm

http://www.gigglesandfrog.com/CaseLaws.html

http://www.ncfc.net/ja-cite1.txt

http://www.extralove.com/flasupreme.html

http://www.ancpr.org/caselaw.htm

[URLs and Hyperlinks added, and some citations corrected by Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl http://www.billstclair.com/ferran

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly! pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390; 43 S Ct 625 (1923). The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th ! Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985). No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976). A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983). A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and t! he 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983). Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, ; 466 US 429, 104 S Ct 1879 (1984). Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 440 US 268, 99 S Ct 1102 (1979). The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it ! is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender.

No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975). Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972). State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963). The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965). The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982). The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life."

The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981).

I learned a lot a little too late-Do not learn as I did, take care & beware-FTG The sun shineth upon the dunghill, and is not corrupted. We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them."

Due Process Case Law

2010-08-19T19:09:00.000-07:00

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT CASE LAWS

Doe et al, v. Heck et al (7th Cir. Ct. App. 2003)

The practice of "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. 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 (imminent danger)," such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly of the private property.

Griswold v. Connecticut

The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters" Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy, which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. 381 US 479, (1965)

In the Interest of Cooper (Kansas 1980)

Parent's interest in custody of their children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection.

Santosky v. Kramer (102 S. Ct. 1388 1982)

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that clear and convincing evidence rather than a mere preponderance were needed to terminate parental rights. 455 US 745 (1982)

DUE PROCESS CASE LAWS

Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)

Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Child's four month separation from his parents could be challenged under substantive due process. Sham procedures don't constitute true procedural due process. -- Just the highlights

Quilloin v. Walcott (1978)

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. 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978)

GENERAL FAMILY RIGHTS CASE LAWS

Cassady v. Tackett

Coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled.

Florida v. Bostick (S. Ct. 1991)

"Consent" that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse.

K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)

State employee who withhold a child from their family may infringe on the family's liberty of familial association. Social workers could not deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child's mental or physical health.

North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family (2001)

The court explained "absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens' houses. Mere parroting of the phrase "best interest of the child" without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground."

JUDGES & PROSECUTORS - ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CASE LAWS

Forrester v. White (S. Ct. 1988)

Holding that judges do not have absolute immunity when acting in an administrative capacity. -- Just the highlights

Joseph v. Patterson (6th Cir. 1986)

Prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity where it is alleged that he supervised and participated in an unconstitutional police interrogation.

Kalina v. Fletcher (S. Ct. 1997)

A prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly false statements of fact made in an affidavit supporting an application for a warrant.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CASE LAWS

“I WAS ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS”

Good v. Daupin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting a warrantless search of home during a child abuse investigation where exigent circumstances were not present. Court held that a search warrant or exigent circumstances, such as a need to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury, was necessary for an entry without consent, and an anonymous tip was insufficient to establish special exigency. 891 F.2d 1087

Grossman v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 1994)

Individuals aren't immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hafer v. Melo (S. Ct. 1991)

Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC 1983 if they are named in their 'official and individual capacity. -- Just the highlights

Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services

Child protection social workers claimed they were immune from liability in a civil violation (4th Amendment) suit, claiming qualified immunity because "they had not had training in Fourth Amendment law." They felt they couldn't be sued for their mistake, because they thought they were not binded by the Fourth Amendment. The court disagreed ruling "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." and denied their immunity. 3:01-cv-7588.

Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)

An officer who obtains a warrant through material false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his actions under section 1983.

False statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The warrant clause contemplates the warrant applicant to be truthful: "no warrant shall issue, but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth violates the warrant clause. When a warrant application is materially false or made in reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant becomes invalid and will have been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. A search must not exceed the scope of the search authorized in a warrant. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers of the Constitution intended to prohibit. There is a requirement that the police identify themselves to the subject of a search, absent exigent circumstances. Failure to knock and announce forms part of the reasonableness or not inquiry under the Fourth Amendment.

Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)

Child removals are "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on knowingly false information violates fourth amendment. -- Just the highlights.

Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999) Warrant-less Search

There is no exception to the warrant requirement for social workers in the context of a child abuse investigation. A social worker may not force their way into a home without a search warrant in absence of an emergency. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person's home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, without a search warrant or special exigency.. -- Just the highlights. 189 F. 3d 808.

California v. Hobari D. (1991)

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a "seizure" of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. Persons may not be "seized" without a court order or being placed under arrest. 499 U.S. 621

Griffin v. Wisconsin (483 U.S. 868 - 1987)

The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.

Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services

Child protection workers are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all "government officials". The court ruled "despite the defendant's (child protection worker) 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 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". 3:01-cv-7588.

Yabarra v. Illinois (1979)

Where the standard for a seizure or search is probable cause, then there must be particularized information with respect to a specific person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided simply by pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to arrest or to search or to seizure another person or to search a place where the person may happen to be. 44 U.S. 85

CPS Abuse of Power

2010-08-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

The new racism in family court

Posted by: "Jan Smith" sunflowerinthemist2006@yahoo.com sunflowerinthemist2006

Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:40 am (PDT)

There is a new frontier and I say new, because most Caucasians aren't used to
civil rights violations as it pertains to their families. They certainly have
dished it out....consider the tribes and what they went through. In the name of
social reform and religious ideation, the white bureaucrats demolished the
native tribes taking their children, putting them in boarding homes then
"re-educated" their victims. Many never saw or heard from their families again.
As a result of legal litigation long overdue, the tribes have federal protection
- something that drives the power hungry Children's Administration who want no
barriers to child removal crazy.

The Africans faced untold terror as they were removed from their homeland, sold
into slavery, and forced to jump over brooms to get married. Often their
children were sold on the market like cattle and disappeared as frightened small
ghosts. Horrified parents would put the word out trying to find out what
happened on the information chain. Sometimes they found out, sometimes they
didn't. Many children ended up tortured and dead. Currently, they have the
"dis-proportionalit y card" and organized groups of highly educated prominent
individuals who regularly voice descent at the civil rights atrocities occurring
in their defense. Relative placement seems to be a higher priority in the black
community and bio family isn't nit picked and dissected for character defects as
much as some.

Now, it is the Caucasians turn. Not just any Caucasians though, only the poor
ones. The middle and upper classes enjoy the advantage of child removal laws
that somehow remove the risk of most government intervention. Orders are taken
from potential parents wanting to adopt. They want the blond haired blue eyed
little girls and boys and they are getting them. Relatives are regularly kicked
to the curb in favor of stranger placement and told they have no rights.

From the moment an impoverished mother steps into the Doctors office and gets a
positive pregnancy test, the games begin. Drug tests and background history
start the process of collecting evidence for the prosecution. A test for
depression is offered (please don't take it) and the subjectivity of the test
and broad ranging questions hands government intervention opportunities to them
on a silver platter. This is important to states who find themselves struggling
financially because the federal financial entitlements produce a thriving
economy using public funds and dwindling social security dollars for child
removal and adoption.

Doctors have set themselves up as an absolute legal authority. For a parent to
disagree with an offered treatment or service is failure to follow medical
advice and CPS will get called in. Hospitals can place a hold on a child for
pretty much any reason. If one misses an appointment with either a doctor or the
Women's Infants and Children program it may mean being accused of medical
neglect and child removal. The reasons for removal do not have to be imminent
danger - just a power struggle and subjective reasoning.

This puts the poorer Caucasian community in a real dilemma. Faced with more
civil rights violations both in CPS and family courts then one can count, they
find there are no laws that protect white people from subjective and erroneous
government intervention. Caucasians are in unfamiliar territory without a voice
or advocate. Perhaps it was assumed it would never be necessary but things have
evolved.

How do they justify their actions? Its all about obscure arguable reasoning that
in practice doesn't happen most of the time. One argument is children fare
better in a two parent household so they remove from single parents using that
as one of the reasons only to place with a single foster/adopt. Another is
bonding. Once a child is removed, heaven help the parent if the child even
smiles at the foster because that is deemed "bonded" and will get used against
family in a court of law.

The bonding argument is used in virtually every dependency case. They mistake
adaptation for bonding regularly never asking children their preference. As a
matter of fact, it is in writing not to. So, while the children are screaming
for their families, acting out and getting drugged to death, the caseworkers are
in the court room talking about "loving foster families" and "forever homes"
where they state the child is bonded more to the foster than the parents or
extended family. Using flowery words that look nothing like the real picture,
they destroy family after family. Perjury is the number one most protected crime
by the government in family dependency cases and is how the case goes to
termination most of the time.

The white impoverished race is in trouble with nowhere to turn except to the
very people that have been raped by the government for 200 years and know the
ropes. Because the need to change and challenge this status quo requires rapid
intervention to gain back parental and bio family rights, the races should be
working together and are not. Will they help us? They don't have to. I am hoping
that the spiritual will recognize that it is the poor of all races that are
under attack and bind together as a unified force. We can change this horrible
travesty in motion, but we need each other to do it.

DISHONEST CPS AGENTS

2010-06-19T20:26:00.000-07:00

Published by the Church of Scientology International

THE CHILD PROTECTION RACKET

More Foster Children, More Profit

As established by federal law, every state has an agency to combat child abuse. Usually located within the state's Social Services department and commonly called Child Protective Services, the network comprises an expanding, multibillion-dollar empire, with offices in every county — and with each child representing tens of thousands of taxpayer-funded dollars per year funneled to the psychiatric machine controlling the child's fate.

A major source of CPS revenue, nearly $5 billion a year, comes from the federal government through Social Security, under a provision allowing open-ended* funding. By the nature of such a system, the more children placed in foster care, the more money a state gets, producing a psychiatrically centered system that, instead of working to keep families together, strives to capture more and more kids, and to put more and more of them on drugs.

As the California Child Welfare Services (CWS) Stakeholders Group, an organization under the state Department of Social Services, explained:

"The federal system of funding child welfare services at the state and county levels creates a 'perverse incentive factor' by providing open-ended funding for children and youth who are in the CWS system vs. providing capped funds for prevention and early intervention efforts.

"This 'perverse incentive factor' results in the state and counties earning the most revenue by having more children in the system as opposed to their receiving the funding necessary to reduce the need for Child Protective Services in the first place."2

Audrey Serrano noted the incentives include bonuses for CPS employees who bring children into the system — with quotas issued to make sure they do so. New York author and psychologist Seth Farber, Ph.D., told Freedom that such abuses make him consider the CPS system a "gangster racket," with psychiatrists and psychologists at its core.

"They take children away from their mothers and bounce them around in the system," Farber explained. "It's a corrupt system, with psychiatrists and their behavioral classifications at the heart of it."

Falsely Labeling Innocent, Normal Kids

In New York, Farber said, psychiatrists and psychologists appointed by the courts to evaluate children or parents are paid at least $500 an hour. These "evaluations" all too often result in the separation of parents and children — particularly, Farber said, when there is a single mother and she happens to be African-American.

Nearly all of the victims of the CPS system in New York, he said, are poor black women.

Once a child has been removed from the family, frequently on the nebulous charge of "neglect," the systematic milking of funding streams begins. Sources include Medicaid, the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, Social Security Disability Insurance and others.

Some states automatically issue Medicaid cards to children removed from their homes, making it easier to tap into federal funds.

One social worker informed Freedom that once a child receives a psychiatric label, his or her foster home immediately becomes eligible for roughly double the amount of money for that child.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, this source noted that the system has become geared toward giving children psychiatric labels and drugs because such "treatment" brings far greater income to foster parents and those administering group homes. "It's a dishonest system that falsely labels innocent, normal kids on a wholesale basis, condemning them to a life with a phony psychiatric diagnosis," she said.

The WAR on Families

ABUSE WITHIN THE SYSTEM

Taken from his mother for "abuse" she bitterly denies, young Rafe reportedly suffered three head injuries and cuts on his leg during one week in CPS custody.

A review of state child welfare hand-books reveals that, empowered by psychiatrists, Child Protective Services (CPS) agents wield the power to label any parent "unfit" and to take away his or her children.

Based on these guides, genuine objectivity becomes difficult to impossible, leading to injustice even in the hands of well-intentioned employees. New York's manual, for example, contains a chart regarding physical and behavioral signs of abuse or neglect. It includes any type of physical injury, even though contact sports, bicycle or skateboard accidents, and so forth, could be actual causes of injury. This chart contains such catch-all terms as aggressiveness, withdrawal, low self-esteem, failure to thrive, speech disorders and fatigue.

Colorado's points for determining "abuse" and "neglect" include eating disorders, bed-wetting, early arrival or late departure from school, poor communication and PR skills, inappropriate height or weight, and parents unsupportive of school personnel or disdainful of public schools/teachers. According to this, a child who happens to be shorter and skinnier or, perhaps, taller and heavier than average and who shows up to school early may well be in need of state intervention.

According to author and foster mother Mary Callahan, birth parents are up against a stacked deck when they deal with the CPS system. "They tell the parents if they go and get a parent capacity evaluation, this will help them get their children back," she told Freedom. However, she said, "95 percent of the parents that they see end up with a psychiatric diagnosis."

Callahan said that when she challenged a doctor who enjoyed a lucrative contract with the Maine Department of Human Services to give such evaluations, he winked at her and said, "They send them to me for a reason."

© 2006 Church of Scientology International. All Rights Reserved. For Trademark Information on Scientology Services.

My Nightmare With CPS

2010-05-31T16:54:00.000-07:00

My Nightmare With CPS

The following is this blog's author Denise Dopkins' account of her horrific experience with CPS

This case took place in Spokane, WA.
Region One DCFS

Throughout this document, there are law statute references. I must note that some of the laws were amended after the initiation of my CPS case in 2005. I will continue to attempt to locate the law references as it stood prior to the initiation of my CPS case. I want my readers to know that the references were listed on the RCW site at the time my case began, however, have either been since amended or deleted all together. Please feel free to contact me at mamalovesmicah@yahoo.com with any questions regarding this issue.

One of the most oppressive and frightening experiences of this entire Dependency action was the constant contradictory message I was given by CPS agents and court commissioner Valerie Jolicouer. I was told that I must 'make progress in services'. I was simultaneously confronted with the reality that their active intention was ultimately to permanently separate me from my son regardless of what I did or did not do. (A very terrifying and oppressive reality to function under.) The fact of the matter is that I didn't have a prayer of regaining custody of my son because CPS had an agenda and it was going to be accomplished come hell or high water. Their plan from the very day they entered my life was to terminate my parental rights so that Micah could be sold into the foster-adoption industry.

It was never made clear to me exactly what they meant by 'make progress in services'. It was always a shot in the dark. They made it absolutely impossible to build a mother-child relationship with Micah due to the oppressive and restrictive circumstances under which we were allowed interaction. (Keep in mind the fact that they took Micah from me when he was just 9 days old.) We further were only allowed three hours of visitation per week for nearly the entire duration of the case. I would try to follow anything I was told and yet seemingly did not get it right. I am not a stupid or inherently ignorant person. The hard cold truth of the matter is that when CPS wants to keep your children, they will do so. Child dependency laws mandate CPS to clearly specify what behaviors will be expected prior to the return of the children RCW 13.34.030(17)(f) and RCW 13.34.136(2)(b)(1) However, the laws are not enforced and CPS continues to run wild, wielding injustice against families everywhere in this nation.

There seemed to be a lot of circle talk and what I refer to as confusing psycho babble in the entire duration of my dependency case. Not to forget the junk science involved (disguised as psychological evaluations.) Ironically, I was diagnosed with traits of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at the very end of my CPS case... immediately prior to the termination trial. (On the very day of the termination trial, to be exact.) Talk about a rush job! It was never mentioned in the entire duration of the CPS case. (Three years.) I assert that all of the oppression I was subjected to caused this PTSD. I am speaking of the intimidation during visits with my son. I was put on stage and expected to perform and hope and pray that the counselor would speak positively to the court regarding visits. It includes the severe lack of visitation I was allowed with my infant son. It includes the oppressive circumstances and environment my son and I were forced to visit under. It also includes the legal abuse I suffered in the entire duration of my CPS case. I was constantly brow beaten in court for trying to assist in my own defense. My own 'defense attorney' Mark B Callen informed me that I could not continue contacting government officials, such as the governor or senators. He stated that it only confirmed CPS accusations of mental illness. I was accused of firing attorneys when in fact I did not. One attorney, April B Pearce was secretly conflicted out of my case and I was informed three weeks later. Another attorney, Gina M Costello, I did not accept as my legal representative to begin with because she informed me during our first meeting that she did not want my son returned to me. Well of course I did not want an attorney that appeared to be working for CPS. The third attorney that was appointed to my case, Mark B Callen, was with me for the remainder of the case and I never once fired him or asked him to resign from the case. As a matter of fact... he threatened to drop me if I continued to seek redress for the grievances committed against me. I practically begged him to not withdraw from the case. Out of great fear and intimidation, I toned down my efforts to hold the state agents accountable for their actions. I have the email correspondence to back my claims on this issue. I was even left unrepresented for three months prior to the appointment of Mark B Callen because the Court Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur refused to assist me on that issue. The Spokane Public Defender's director John T Rogers refused to appoint me legal representation... insisting that I already had 'an attorney of record'. Nevermind the fact that this 'attorney of record' did not answer my phone calls and she failed to show up in court for hearings that I was party to. There is even proof in the court transcripts that the Court Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur asked where attorney Gina M. Costello was and the AAG stated that she did not know where she was, and that she had been informed of the hearing.

Violations of DCFS

The Department (CPS/DCFS) allowed the foster care providers, Meegan and James Ware to change Micah's name prior to the initiation of adoption. Mr. and Mrs. Ware began coaching Micah to refer to himself as Austin prior to the termination of my parental rights... and prior to my last visit with him. I know this because at one of my last visits with Micah, he stopped me dead in my tracks and informed me in no uncertain terms that "No! I not Micah, I Austin!" How cruel was it to have my son referring to himself as an entirely different name prior to the termination of my rights? How hurtful and alarming to me. How pompous and assumptive of them. I was startled and caught completely off gaurd. The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Ware would not wait until after my last visit with Micah to begin changing his name is (a) illegal and (b) unbelievably cruel. But then again, we are speaking of the foster-adopt industry and CPS.

The Spokane Department of CPS (Melly Keith) failed to notify me in writing and orally at the soonest possible moment of their involvement in my family. That was required by law in http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.44.100(2) prior to the subsequent amendments to that law. That particular law reference has been amended to CPS advantage, however, the law as it stood back in March 2005 when my child was taken from me, specifically stated I was to be notified in writing and orally at the soonest possible moment of their involvement in my family. Instead, though the ‘investigation’ was initiated several weeks before I gave birth, I was notified of their involvement in my life in my hospital room only 12 hours after I gave birth via cesarean section. I was nowhere near recovery from the surgery. I was still extremely tired and still somewhat affected by the drugs that were administered during the surgery. I was also still being given very strong pain medications that caused me to be very sleepy and exhausted. I could hardly move, due to the pain after the operation. I was in no position to defend myself against this sudden confrontation at that time.

Ms. Keith coerced and intimidated me into signing a ‘safety contract’ and authorization forms for the release of personal psychiatric and criminal records. I was informed that if I did not ‘cooperate with’ the social worker, she would remove my baby from the hospital and file a dependency petition against me. I signed the safety contract and other forms under extreme duress and would otherwise not have provided my signatures. My understanding of the act of coercion is that it is a gross misdomeanor according to the statutes. See RCW 9A.36.070. It is also my understanding that coerced cooperation is unconstitutional and a violation of a constitutional right. However, apparently social workers and other state agents are free to do whatever they so please without fear of punishment-- because that's exactly what happens in the CPS arena. That is why so many thousands of families are illegally and unjustly torn apart by CPS and juvenile courts every day in this nation.

In the hospital, I requested an attorney to be present during the interview with Ms. Keith. She stated to me that I did not need an attorney unless this went to court. She also stated that this would not end up in court if we could work together and if I would allow her to provide services in my home. She went on to convince me that she just wanted to make sure that Micah and I were comfortable and safe at home. I soon came to realize that this was just the beginning of a lengthy nightmare in my life. Thankfully, I was able to have a friend present during that initial interview.

At the end of the above referred to conversation, Ms. Keith informed me that she needed to consult with her supervisor Nora Scott for her approval of the safety contract we had discussed. She informed me also that she would confirm with me when she received approval from her supervisor. My point in addressing this issue is that Nora Scott did indeed approve the 'safety contract' which included that I would participate in Family Preservation Services in my home. Apparently, she agreed that the program would be beneficial to me and Micah and could prevent out of home placement while protecting Micah. So, I can not figure how it is that I was denied that service when I was abiding by the 'safety contract' while Micah was in my care and custody. To me, it spells out the real intentions of the Department in this case, which was not to keep this family together and certainly not to reunite after removing my son from my care and custody. Reasonable Efforts were not attempted by the Department before or after they took Micah from me. Reasonable Efforts is a legal term and is required of the Department in order to receive financial incentives from the government. RCW 13.34.065(4)(d). Well supposedly required-- as many thousands of families nationwide have learned, CPS does as they please- when they please. They lie, cheat and steal. They kidnap children from innocent, non abusive and loving parents. They are fraudulent in their reports and in their testimony against the parents in court... they manufacture stories and false evidence against the parents and the Court Commissioners and Juvenile Court judges rubberstamp their every whim and wish, without demanding evidence that the child was indeed in harms way prior to the signing of orders for removal. The reason for all of this illegal behavior? Financial incentives and bonuses. The more children that are in the system... the more money the system (CPS agencies) receive from the government. This includes all of the people that look to the children as their bread and butter. There are the social workers, their supervisors, CPS directors, Gaurdian ad litems, CPS contracted therapists, child therapists, doctors, psychiatrists, phychologists, parenting assessors, visitation monitors, state appointed attorneys, AAG's, Court Commissioners, judges, Court personnel, even fostercare providers and adoptive parents. The list is seemingly endless. All of these individuals seek their very livelyhood by entrapping children in the system for as long as possible. Let us not forget the foster-adopt industry. The states receive money and bonuses for every successful adoption out of the fostercare pool. Therefore, it profits the system far more to destroy natural families and sell the children to perspective foster-adopters. There is no financial security or incentive to keep natural families together or to quickly reunite them after separating them.

When I asked for a copy of the written recommendation of Nora Scott, which would have included her reasoning for authorizing the 'safety contract' that I signed in the hospital, I was informed that they couldn't possibly explain that to me. AAG Lisa Lydon said they have no way of knowing what Ms. Scott's reasoning was regarding her authorization of services in my home. Ms. Scott had conveniently retired long since her approval of that initial safety contract. I find it suspect that Nora Scott's notes are seemingly not located in the social file and that the AAG asserts she is not aware of Ms. Scott's reasoning behind her approval of the initial safety contract that I signed in the hospital. I believe the reason the AAG and CPS agents claim they are not aware of Ms. Scott's reasoning for approving the initial safety contract is that they would have to explain why the services agreed to were not offered or provided in my home prior to removing my son from my care. They swear up and down in court proceedings that services were indeed offered and provided prior to the removal of my son from my care, however, they are not required to prove that they did so. All they had to do is testify in court (under oath mind you) that the services were provided and it stands as truth. Then the court commissioner and judges rubber stamp it as fact... whether or not it actually happened. Another point I want to make regarding the issue of the provision of services in my home is the fact that CPS out and out lied to the court when it stated that the services provided failed to correct the alleged parental deficiencies. That was obviously a lie because there were no services provided.

Melly Keith breached the very contract that she, through intimidation and threats-- coerced and frightened me into signing in the hospital. She did not allow me to work any part of the safety contract. I did not violate any part of the safety contract and I abided by it during the brief period that my son was in my care and custody. This social worker did not allow me to get services set up in my home nor did she assist in setting up the services for me. To my utter amazement, the Department has consistently declared in court documents that they made Reasonable Efforts to keep Micah in my care before taking him from me. They list all of the safety contract stipulations, though I was not allowed to work the contract. They even go so far as to take credit for something that I did solely on my own to protect my son in a time of trouble. (Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery.) It seems to me that the Department asserts that the Nursery was stipulated in the safety contract that I signed in the hospital. (Contract is located in the CPS social file.) It was not stipulated in that contract. I sought out that community service on my own through my pregnancy counselor whom I signed up with several months before I gave birth to my son. Therefore, it was also several months prior to CPS interference into my life.

I believe that Melly Keith is guilty of Custodial interference according to RCW. I also believe that the director from Vanessa Behan Crises Nursery (Amy Swanson?) is guilty of the same law violation… or at least of assisting in the social worker’s committing of the offense. When I informed Ms. Keith that I intended to pick my son up from the Nursery on March 22, 2005 I was instead encouraged by her and the Public Health social worker (Adwena Skinner) to go ahead and leave Micah there for one more night. They both stated that I needed to be fully rested before picking him up from the Nursery. I unwittingly chose to abide by their ‘advice’ and waited until very early the following morning. I called the Nursery staff around 8:00AM (will verify exact time if required) on 03/23/05 to inform them I would be in right away to pick up Micah. I was informed that I needed to wait until 1:00PM so I waited and then showed up at that time. To my utter shock, I was met at the door by the social worker whom said “Hi Denise. I’m here to place your baby.” I pleaded for her to allow me to at least kiss and say good bye to Micah, however, it fell on deaf ears . I believe they had already removed Micah from the Nursery before I arrived to pick him up. (There appears to be evidence of this located on a document in the social file.) I even tried to explain to the social worker that my doctor had called me the very night before and instructed me to immediately stop breast feeding. Dr. Brasch stated to me it was possible that the medication could have been causing Micah’s excessive fussiness and crying. This social worker coolly replied “that’s not my concern.” I was in essence punished for using a community service to assist in protecting my son in a time of trouble. I needed immediate and temporary respite while I simultaneously attempted to figure out what was causing my son’s discomfort. The social worker failed to attempt Reasonable Efforts to resolve the problem so my son could remain in my care.

When Melly Keith and the public health nurse Jan Bostian visited my home on 03/21/05 I had one of my close friends, Marge McAlpin present for the meeting. During the meeting, Marge held and rocked Micah so that I could focus on my meeting with the social worker and PH nurse. She even changed Micah's diaper and clothes once while the meeting occurred. In her subsequent petition to the court, Ms. Keith stated that I had very minimal contact with my son and that mom's friend fed, changed and held Micah during the entire meeting. My response to all of that is this: So what if mom's friend did tend to her infant while she was busy with another task-- be it resting or other necessary business? All new mothers can use some assistance, especially during the first few weeks after she gives birth. I was made out look like a disinterested, emotionally removed mother... which was so far from the truth! Keep in mind the small fact that except for that very brief meeting with the social worker and PH nurse, I did not have any assistance. I was continually in physical contact with my baby boy. I did all of the changing, feeding and comforting of my son. (As much as I could console him due to the extenuating circumstances.) The only time I had 'minimal contact' with my son (prior the his removal from my custody) was during that one and only 20-30 minute home visit with the social worker and Public Health nurse. Note- most mothers have the assistance of someone everyday for the first several weeks after the birth of their babies. I did not. Yet, in her haste and determination to have a judge sign an order permitting the removal of my son from my care and custody, she exaggerated this event of the home visit that she conducted. I find it to be a two edged sword in that CPS claims that they encourage a support system for new mothers, however, out of the other side of its mouth, CPS accuses a mother of emotional disconnect with her newborn if she accepts that support from others. Can they really have it both ways? Mom is set up to fail, regardless of what she does.

I believe Melly Keith was feverishly attempting to compose and file a dependency petition so as to get a judge’s authorization to remove my child from my care and custody. While she did this, I was actively prevented from picking Micah up from the Nursery. When I requested to receive my son from the Nursery (twice) I was not informed of the actual reason I was prevented from doing so. I believe this was fraudulent, cruel and certainly misleading.

Melly Keith’s dependency petition is not entirely accurate or truthful. When she did tell the truth, she exaggerated her claims. She also out and out lied in her petition. (There is previous court testimony from the person she alleges made statements against me, testifying to the contrary and rebutting her allegations.) I can further elaborate on the inaccuracies and untruths of the social worker’s dependency petition if I am asked to do so. This social worker also spoke of mental health issues as if it were current information. Furthermore, she was operating on what ifs and nothing that could not have been attended to while Micah was in my care and custody. Again, the Department failed to attempt Reasonable Efforts in order to allow my son to remain in my home and in my custody. RCW 13.34.020. (Prior to the subsequent amendment to that law reference.) Melly Keith also lied to the court when she asserted that the Department had provided services that failed to remedy the alleged issues. She informed the court that the services stipulated on the initial safety contract failed to remedy the alleged issues. Services were not provided, so how can CPS honestly assert that the services failed to remedy the alleged issues. They can not... however, they do it every day to families in this nation and the courts rubber stamp it every time.

The Department, I believe it was Melly Keith who made a fraudulent and misleading statement to the public disclosure department of the Sheriffs Office when she claimed that I was under investigation for the abuse or neglect of a child. Let the record show that I indeed was never under investigation for alleged child abuse or neglect of any child. Furthermore, my infant son had not even been born at the time of Melly Keith's statement to the Sherrifs department. The referral allegations were in regards to my unborn child. I believe the Department obtained my criminal record by lying to the Sheriffs Department. Let’s not forget how Ms. Keith coerced, intimidated and threatened me into providing my written authorization for said records.

I received a letter dated 03/30/05 from Nora Scott informing me that the referral allegations were investigated and determined by CPS to be unfounded. (Locate letter in social file.) They did not close the case and return my baby boy to me at that time and they are still detaining my child to this day. They continue to state the very same reasons as were determined to be unfounded at the conclusion of their own investigation. The letter actually states that there was no maltreatment or neglect of Micah. I also believe that they did not have requisite evidence of any imminent danger of harm to Micah if left in my care. Their ‘concerns’ were not sufficient to justify the removal of my child from my care and custody and they should have provided services in the home. I should have been allowed to work the initial safety contract. The judge or commissioner should never have signed an order granting CPS permission to remove my son from my custody. See RCW 13.34.050 for law mandate on this subject.

The Department failed to make Reasonable Efforts to prevent the removal of my child from my home. The statutes clearly states that the Department shall indeed make Reasonable Efforts. Also in RCW 13.34.020 it clearly states that “the family unit should remain in tact unless a child’s rights to conditions of basic nurture, health or safety is jeopardized.” Micah’s well being was not in jeopardy and it was due to my actions that he was kept safe.

I am not aware of any return home plan having been made as is mandated in RCW I further am not aware of any specific case plan with the goal of return home. There were no specific steps to achieving that goal.

Micah was not initially placed in a foster home as close to my home as possible, as is mandated in RCW 13.34.136, (2) (b) (iii) He was placed in a home in Elk, WA. I reside in Spokane, WA.

The maximum amount possible of visitation was not encouraged as it should have been all along, according to RCW 13.34.136, (2)(b)ii. To the contrary, visitation was severely limited and rashioned. I was also santioned and punished with decrease in visitation absent any legal grounds for the denial of increased and unsupervised visitation. As a matter of fact, visitation was never increased in the entire three years of the case.
Visitation has been used as a sanction against me. Commissioner Jolicoeur has stated to me in court that “I will not authorize more visitation until you get it”. I am still unclear as to what she meant by “get it" In my opinion, she was saying that she would not authorize more or unsupervised visitation until I made progress in services, though I have been 100% compliant with services and have never violated a court order. Furthermore, 'progress in services' was never clearly defined for me. The court has not allowed adequate, meaningful visitation in this case. The statutes expressly state that parents shall not be denied visitation even if they are in violation of court orders. I have never violated a court order in the duration of this dependency action. I have worked very hard to comply with all of the court’s orders. It is stated repeatedly in court testimony that I have complied and have been flexible, cordial and pleasant during visits and counseling sessions.

‘Services’ were not provided until nearly one year into this dependency action. Counseling was not even provided, though court ordered considerably long before it was provided. The social workers (Gina Miles and Patricia Murman) did not abide by court order to provide referrals. Furthermore, I do not believe that the services that I have participated in for nearly two years were meant to remedy any problem. I firmly believe that the Department placed me in the services in order to find problems. The law does not support that action. The law clearly states that the Department is to name specific parental deficiencies and then provide the services to remedy the problem. The Department has not even specified what aspect of parenting I am allegedly unable to provide to my son. DCFS placed me in ‘services’ with Sue Elg and Carla Paullin on a witch hunt, not to remedy a problem. They have based their entire case on what ifs and nothing specific. They make an open ended general statement in their termination petition regarding mental health issues. They state that the mother has a severe psychological disorder that prevents her from parenting her child. (Based on an old history of mental health diagnosis and the shoddy clinical interview that Dr. David Bot conducted with me in August of 2005.)

The Department seemingly is not aware of what Ms. Elg has provided in the line of ‘services’, other than that of play therapy. (Or are they?) They are either unaware of the fact or they simply do not care that Ms. Elg has made a routine of sitting in the same room during visits, actively and consistently engaging with my son. She succeeded at building a social bond and friendly relationship with my son. This occurred for nearly two years. (Since my son was 11 months of age.) She then unfairly states that ‘Micah does not migrate predominately towards the mother during visits’. (Unreasonable assertion.) Of course he didn't go primarily to me because he was spent equally as much time with Ms. Elg as he did with me. I further believe that Ms. Elg and Ms. Paullin were biased and that they were merely two parrots for the Department. Ms. Elg even admitted to me that she simply did not object to social worker- Ms. Murman's recommendation for decrease in my visits with my son.

The social worker, Patricia Murman (a mandated reporter) failed to investigate reports of suspected abuse or neglect of the foster home when I reported it to her. This occurred on June 8th of 2006. See RCW 26.44.040. I finally had to call the hot-line and make the referral myself-- when it occurred to me that the social worker was not going to investigate. As a matter of fact, Micah's injury had nearly healed by the time anyone got around to visiting the foster home.

The foster care provider told two completely contradictory stories regarding the cause of Micah’s first eye injury, yet the investigator failed to note it as fact. (I have email documentation of the visitation therapist’s agreement with the foster mother’s initial explanation to her and me on June 8th 2006.)

I have received very little in the realm of ‘supportive caseworker services’ in the entire duration of this dependency action. (Supportive caseworker services are mandated in previous court orders.) As a matter of fact, Ms. Murman's supervisor, then Amy Schindler, informed me via email that the social worker would no longer engage in document format with me regarding anything not directly pertaining to visitation arrangements. I guess the social worker no longer was obligated to communicate with me regarding court ordered services in my case. Email evidence in social file.

I believe the Department failed to implement a return home plan upon Commissioner Jolicoeur’s finding that “nothing prevents the Department from placement with the mother on or before the next review hearing”. Ruling in legal file dated approximately April of 2005. The ‘next review hearing’ of that time was scheduled for May 13, 2005.

I do not believe all of the requirements have been met in order to file for the termination of my parental rights. According to RCW 13.34.180, the statute requires all of the conditions to be met. RCW 13.34.180(1)(a) states that the child must be found to be dependent. I assert that the court commissioner improperly ruled my son as dependent on the state because of a lack of evidence to support the ruling. For example, a psychological assessment had not been conducted at the time of that ruling, though the Department had been ordered to provide one. They failed to submit the appropriate paper work for one scheduled evaluation and canceled another scheduled psychological evaluation. It was even stated at a meeting early on in this dependency action that the psychological evaluation would be postponed until at least July or August of 2005... and it was.

The current social worker, Ms. Murman failed to respond to many of my attempts to contact her regarding various issues of concern to me. I have abided by the court’s order to be in regular contact with the social worker, however, she did not provide much in the line of supportive caseworker services, such as returning correspondence and contact attempts as is ordered by Commissioner Jolicoeur; provide referrals short of being warned of intent to motion the court regarding the issue; inform Micah's caregivers of critical appointments; schedule make up visits... one of which was finally granted to me 9 months after the missed visit. etc...

Unreasonable Assertions of DCFS

The Department asserts and the court seemed to agree that the mother was 'focused on her feelings of victimization'. Well of course I was focused on that-- because that was the absolute truth. I was a victim caught in the web of the system. If a person is a victim... they are a victim. I was helpless to change the situation at hand and I was very distraught at what was happening to my son and me. It is unfair of the Department and the court to assert that my feelings of being victimized were inappropriate or without merit. As even the Department stated at one of the three meetings that we had in mid 2007, it is expected that parents in this situation would be hostile and angry. They even went so far as to say that it is not used against the parents unless physical violence (or threats of physical violence) is involved. In short, I mean to say that the fact that Micah and I are victims in the system does not mean that I am not focused on my son. I was very focused on Micah. I fought long and hard to get him safely returned to my arms. (Care and custody.) In the real lives of families in this world, parents often have adult issues to contend with... for example different types of legal matters. Does that mean that all of those parents are neglecting their children by tending to the legal matter or other issues in life? That is an absurd conclusion or assertion. Using the example cited in the termination order: The Department asserts that I redirected Micah or sent him off to play with a toy instead of being emotionally connected with him. I guess half of America should have CPS intervention into their families-- because every parent redirects their children or gives them a toy to play with from time to time. The Department has acted as if this is something that only unfit parents do and that it is harmful to a child's psychological and emotional well being. They also used the example of my fixing a snack or lunch for Micah as something abnormal or evidence of emotional disconnect with my son.

DCFS asserts in the termination petition that ‘the mother’s sever psychological disorder prevents her from effectively parenting her child’… though they do not directly correlate mental health issues with inability to parent effectively. They rely on what ifs and not requisite evidence of current parental unfitness. They made this assertion even before a thorough psychological evaluation was conducted. See more explanation about this- further down under subtitle 'Dr. Mary Deitzen's psychological evaluation' below. Furthermore, Dr. Deitzen opined that I do not suffer from any personality or psychological disorder.

DCFS asserts that I have not demonstrated the ability to meet my son’s physical, psychological and emotional needs. They have, with the assistance of court orders, prevented me from being placed in a parental/care giving role. They have caused the problem by placing roadblocks in my path. Those roadblocks include, but are not limited to:

1. Denying increased and unsupervised visitation… without sufficient reason despite the law statute that mandates the Department to encourage the maximum amount of visitation possible.

2. Denying me any holiday time with my son. (They went so far as to retaliate against me with cruel accusations.) They stated in open court that I was selfish, paranoid and desiring only to disrupt the foster family’s holiday plans. They also accused me of requesting court intervention only to ‘make a point’ and not because I truly desired holiday time with my child. They further asserted that my insistence for court intervention was evidence of mental health issues. I was also accused of requesting holiday time with Micah for my own benefit and not for his. How unfair of an assertion is that?

3. Denying me the right to be present with my son during his doctor visits. I repeatedly asked to be allowed to do so and was denied each and every time. Finally, nearly 28 months into the dependency on July 17, 2007 at a meeting between the Department, me and my attorney, I was informed that I could attend future medical appointments with my son. The clincher here is that there are now only yearly visits to the doctor for Micah. His next pediatrician visit was to be after my last visit with him. I was consistently denied the opportunity and right to be with my son during all of his frequent medical appointments when he was growing from infant to toddler. Furthermore, when I asked the Department at this meeting why I was never allowed to attend doctor’s visits with my son after his removal from Rita Clark's care, the social worker stated the reason being that ‘there were no doctor’s visits’. Apparently, Micah did not attend even one pediatrician visit during the time he was in the care of the current care providers? This statement can be backed by several witnesses that I had present at that meeting. CPS agreed to allow me to attend medical visits with my son when they knew there would be no more for me to attend. How malicious can CPS be? There seems to be no end to its cruelties committed against families.

4. The Department and court have stated that I am so involved with my case (assisting in my own defense) that it has rendered me ‘emotionally unavailable to my child’. Commissioner Jolicouer made that statement to me in court. I believe this is an unreasonable assertion, given the fact that I have the right to disagree with this Dependency action and to rebut the Department’s allegations/assertions. I believe I have legitimate reason to be very upset with the Department's invasion and destruction of my family. I also believe it is unreasonable because of the way the Department has handled this entire Dependency action. (Delay tactics such as: failure of the Department to comply with some court orders, purposely pushing a court ordered psychological evaluation out until five months into this Dependency action… when it was ordered by the court in the first few weeks of the case. Another routine delay tactic of the social worker(s) is the fact that they failed to make court ordered referrals in timely fashion. Mr. Callen had to warn of intent to take it to court if Ms. Murman did not comply with one order in particular.

5. The Department asserts that I am fighting a battle for my own sake and not for the sake of my son. I do not entirely agree with that statement. Yes, I suppose I am ‘fighting’ in part for my own sake. After all, Micah is my child and of course I am determined to do everything I can to defend against the state permanently separating him from me. I am, however, also fighting for my son’s God given right to be reared by his own mother. In reality, I am fighting for my family. Micah and I are a family unit. I do not understand how the Department and their contracted providers can assert that I am so selfish in my pursuit of the safe return of my child to my care and custody. I believe it is in Micah’s best interests to be reunited with me… his own mother. I do not understand exactly what I could do differently. I have faithfully complied with all court orders. I participated diligently in the services the court has ordered. I have consistently asked questions of the therapists, especially the ‘therapeutic visitation’ therapist regarding the services that they provide and how I can ‘progress in services’. I have constantly demonstrated my deep desire for more time with my baby boy since he was taken from me. I have taken responsibility for any part I played in delaying this case. (Which was in the very earliest part of the case.) I can’t say the same for the Department or their contracted providers. They have consistently and continually lied in court and on court documents. Furthermore, I have talked a lot with my individual counselor, Carla Paullin about issues of this Dependency action and the great emotional and psychological distress it has caused me. Ms. Paullin informed me more than once that it was indeed appropriate to talk with her about issues of distress in my life and then she criticized me for doing just that. This Dependency action is probably the most horrific experience I have ever endured in my entire life.

6. DCFS asserts in the termination petition that ‘the mother’s sever psychological disorder renders her incapable of caring for her child’. They have not specified what specific aspect of parenting I am incapable of performing. They are stating ‘what ifs’ and not requisite evidence of any parental unfitness in me. (At least not anything that could not be remedied with appropriate services and counseling.) Furthermore, the Department will assert that this would require a lot of time. I then respond to that by stating that if the Department had provided services in the home (Reasonable Efforts to keep my son in my custody), I would have assuredly been farther along in the healing process long before now. Furthermore, they wasted time by insisting upon keeping me under the supervision of Susan Elg during visits- though they were fully aware that there was not a healthy, trusting - working relationship there. The Department refused to provide any other service or service provider until they were forced to do so with the Circle of Security Project that I located and then fought for and won in court. We had to go to court to force the Department to provide the COS service to me and Micah.

The Department asserts that there has been absolutely no change in circumstances in my case. That was AAG Lisa Lydon's response to Commissioner Jolicoeur when my attorney, Mr. Callen informed the court that there was obviously a change in circumstances in my case. It is unreasonable and absurd for the Department to respond that way when indeed it is evident that circumstances have changed. The court is clearly mandated to consider changes in circumstance when deciding whether or not to grant amending of dependency orders. (RCW13.34.150 Modification of orders.) For example: 1. The issue of men-- Mr. Benvegar and Mr. Barrett. 2. Attitude. (Refer back to the one and only lengthy conversation between GAL Kim Dunham and me. (August 2006.) During that conversation she commended me about the positive changes in my attitude and willingness to work with the Department. She stated that she had seen a 100% turn around. Then she immediately supplemented that statement by saying that she had seen a 150% turn around.) She attributed it to the fact that I had cut ties with Mr. Benvegar who was a trouble causer to say the very least. Documentation letter in social file proving that Ms. Dunham did not disagree with or provide discrepancies to my version of that conversation.

Maliciousness of DCFS

The Department (CPS/DCFS) allowed the foster care providers, Meegan and James Ware to change Micah's name prior to the initiation of adoption. Mr. and Mrs. Ware began coaching Micah to refer to himself as Austin. I know this because at one of my last visits with Micah, he stopped me dead in my tracks and informed me very matter of factly that "No! I not Micah, I Austin!" How cruel was it to have my son referring to himself as an entirely different name prior to the termination of my rights? How hurtful and alarming to me. How pompous and assumptive of them. I was startled and caught completely off gaurd.

I assert that the Department was prejudiced against me from the start. I believe that they decided that I had mental disabilities and that they were not open to attempting reunification for that reason. Actually, I believe that they hung their hat on that, whether or not they believed that I had mental health issues. I believe they were hell bent on adopting Micah out and were using that as their ace in the hole. I further assert that Ms. Elg was a parrot for them and provided tons of negative reports for them to use against me in court. (Though anyone can clearly see that some of the statements of Ms. Elg were clearly idiotic. Such as her statement that "Micah would be emotionally abused if he participated in the Circle of Security Program". Or "Micah will come to associate Christmas with a negative experience if he is forced to spend it with his mother." Or "Micah has moved on". Or "Micah has decided that he can't expect emotional intimacy from his mother." Or "Visits are no longer beneficial to Micah". Or "Denise doesn't bring full lunches for Micah." Or "Denise, I see you as on stage." I only put these statements in quotes to separate them, however, her exact words would be in the reports that she has written.

The Department states that I do not have an emotional connection with my son and that he does not have one with me. In the termination order itself, it states that Micah does not see me as his primary attachment figure or as a parent. My response to that is to say that it is malicious... (unreasonable at best) to insist that it is my fault that Micah and I do not share an 'emotional attachment' when indeed it was due to the oppressive circumstances under which we were forced to visit and interact. We were allowed the minimum amount of visit time possible. We were, as Ms. Elg stated 'on stage' as it was set up to be. That is part of the malice that I see in this whole picture. We were constantly observed, often with a pen and note pad clearly visible. We were interrupted during our interactions. Ms. Elg would instruct me one way and then intervene to 'show me a different way' to discipline or redirect Micah. I see it as Ms. Elg changing the rules mid stream. I believe that also undermined my parental authority in Micah's eyes. (See email: 10/25/07, 2:13pm in social file which documents one very clear example of what I am trying to explain.) Everything about our sessions with Ms. Elg was oppressive. It was uncomfortable to say the least. Though we managed to be civil and polite during visits, there certainly was not a healthy, trusting therapeutic working relationship between us.

Regarding the assertion that Micah did not see me as his primary attachment or as a parent, I must say that our relationship was 100% appropriate, considering the circumstances involved. (1) Micah has visited with me less than 1% of his life. He has known first the Moyers and now, the Wares as his primary care providers. All he knows is that his home is with the current foster caregivers. That is his life as he knows it. Of course he does not see me a his primary attachment figure, let alone a parent. This is not Micah's or my fault, yet the Department, Ms. Elg and the court all place the blame solely at my feet and use alleged 'mental health' issues to try to support their unreasonable assertions. They actually had to concede to the fact that even the 'professionals' disagreed on whether or not I suffer from personality or psychological disorders. It has not been proven by clear, cogent or convincing evidence that I have a disorder that precludes me from raising my son, though they assert in their termination petition that the mother suffers from a severe psychological disorder that prevents her from caring for her child. For heaven's sake, they can't even agree on what the diagnoses is or is not! They have stated so many diagnoses that I am confused about it. Then it is stated that I may have been incorrectly diagnosed in my past with Borderline Personality Disorder. (Dr. Mary Deitzen informed me that she tends to believe just that.) She also informed me that when she oversaw therapists at Spokane Community Mental Health, she became exasperated at the fact that women were often mistakenly diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, when indeed they ought to have been correctly diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. She also states that she believes that I suffer from traits of PTSS. Furthermore, even if I did suffer from Borderline personality Disorder-- it has been proved that women with that disorder improve with age and the disorder deescalates with age.

The social worker (Patricia Murman) through the AAG was very cruel by her words to me in response to my requests for time with my son on major family holidays. During the holiday season of 2006, I was accused of being selfish, paranoid, wishing only to make a point in court, wishing only to disrupt the foster family’s holiday plans, not placing my son’s needs above my own, amongst any number of other cruel accusations. It was also stated that Christmas is a holiday more for adults and that children Micah’s age do not have any concept of the day or when the holiday is celebrated. That logic was used to deny my son time with his own mother on a major holiday. I was only allowed to go on a supervised outing with Sue Elg as the supervisor… the day before Thanksgiving. I was then only allowed to take Micah for pictures with Santa five days prior to Christmas.

The Department again attempted to deny my son time with his mother on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day in 2007. I had requested a mere few hours with my son on each of those holidays. Unfortunately, we were again forced to seek the court’s decision regarding the request. The Guardian Ad litem informed me via email that she was not in support of unsupervised visitation during the holidays in 2007. When I inquired of her what her reason for opposition was, she responded via email that it is just an issue of current court order for supervised visits. She provided no other reason for her opposition to my request for unsupervised visitation, so I assume she had no other reason to be in opposition to it.

During the meeting between GAL Kim Dunham and me (August 2006) she tried to persuade me to willingly relinquish my parental rights. This she did directly after informing me that she had witnessed a 150% turnaround in my attitude and willingness to work with the Department. Contradictory at best. She went on to try to frighten me into signing an Open Adoption agreement by informing me that if the Department took me to trial and won, I would not see my son again- at least as a minor. She went on to say that if I did choose to agree to Open Adoption, I would be able to see Micah from time to time and receive photos and letters about how he is doing. In short, the Department, via the GAL and my therapist at the time, Carla Paullin, tried to convince me (intimidate me into relinquishing my parental rights... while at the same time complimenting me on the progress I was making! How underhanded and malicious. And-- there was that word again- 'progress'.

The Department begrudgingly provided the referral to Circle of Security. They did not allow me to complete the program. Furthermore, they did not even enroll Micah until nearly 5 months into my sessions with Ms. Beth Fergin. Micah and I would have had far more time to participate in this program together if he had been placed in it with me to begin with. Instead, the Department left me under the supervision of Susan Elg for nearly 6 more months. (Even though the GAL argued in court that COS was a duplicate service... and believe me-- it is not.) They knew of the oppressive nature of visits under Ms. Elg and they were well aware that there was not a trusting therapeutic working relationship between us. If that wasn't bad enough, the Department, with the assistance of the court, denied me the opportunity to participate to the fullest extent in the COS program. As a matter of fact, during a meeting (at my request) in July 2007, I asked the Department if they intended to allow me to participate to the full capacity in the COS program and to please define their definition for 'full capacity'. They responded by telling me to look it up in the dictionary! (This incident reminds me of another meeting where the Department informed me that they could not provide their definition of the word 'love'... even though they had agreed that "There is no question but that Ms. Dopkins loves her son and enjoys her time with him." (Stated in court document.) Their response was to inform me that CPS is just an entity... and that they therefore could not define their definition of love. (Even though they agreed that there is no question but that I love my son.)

The Department failed to state any deficiencies in my home until I requested and received the one and only home visit I was ever granted with my son. Once they begrudgingly 'agreed' to the home visit for Christmas Eve day 2007, they scheduled a home 'inspection'. Ms. Murman and GAL Kim Dunham came to my home on 12/23/07. We sat in my living room, along with my close friend Marge McAlpin and held conversation for approximately 45 minutes. Marge basically listened as the SW, GAL and I talked. They did not 'inspect' my home. They simply followed me through my home-- peeking into the rooms and nodding their heads. They noted one issue that they never mentioned before during the entire 3 years of this Dependency action. Some-- not all of my windows had insulation covering them to prevent drafts of cold winter air from coming into my home and to cut down the outrageous heat bill that I incurred. They stated that it was a fire hazard and needed to be removed in order for Micah to come and visit me for a few hours on Christmas Eve day. I take issue with this because this was never once brought up before this occasion-- even in court, several over one year prior when my attorney, Mr. Callen stated that he wanted to be sure that he understood the Department's answer regarding the condition of my home. He also stated in court that he didn't want to be several months down the road and have this to contend with again. At that time, the Department agreed and still stated again that the home was not an issue regarding the return of my son to my care and custody. Well, not until a year and a half down the road did the Department raise the issue of a supposed 'fire hazard' as reason to prevent Micah from visiting my home for a few hours. Note: Some of my windows had the insulation in them for several years prior to CPS involvement in my life, yet they did not so much as mention it until 3 years into the Dependency action. I tend to believe this was just an attempt to prevent the in home visit for the holiday. As Mr. Callen confirmed by way of the social worker's own testimony during the termination trial, the visit almost did not occur. As a matter of fact, Mr. Callen informed the Department that if they couldn't find anyone to transport Micah to the visit, he would stay in town and transport Micah to and from the Christmas visit himself. Mr. Callen was subsequently able to locate a social worker with the Office of Public Defense that was willing to monitor the visit- and so he did. The gentleman's name is Joseph Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez was authorized to and did provide the transportation as well.

Lack of clarifications and omission of facts by DCFS

The Department states in the termination order that the mother failed to complete the first scheduled psychological evaluation, however, they do not include the true reason for that. The actual reason that the initial court ordered psychological evaluation was not completed is because the Department prevented me from having the evaluation done at that time. As court testimony will prove-- the Department failed to get the referral paperwork in for that evaluation. I did not refuse or fail to show for any appointment. As a matter of fact, back in April or May of 2005 (exact date in social file), the Department (Melly Keith- social worker) informed me that the psychological evaluation would be pushed out until at least July or August of that year. I have witnesses that were present at that meeting. The second evaluation was canceled by my attorney, April Pearce. We agreed that perhaps a psychiatric evaluation would be more appropriate because there was an issue of medication as possible reason for negative and positive behaviors. Dilantin is thought to have contributed to some emotional issues and possibly could have influenced behaviors. Then in 2000 a new seizure medication, Lamictal-- was thought to have treated depression and to have helped to stabilize it. (See testimony and reports of Carla Paullin, adult therapist for more on this claim.) I take Lamictal to this date and it controls my epilepsy. In my case, it is not prescribed for depression, however, as Carla Paullin testifies, it could very well be treating depression in me.

The Department social worker Melly Keith and Edweena Skinner omitted the fact that the Department was planning to take Micah from me at the Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery on the very day to which they encouraged me to leave him there. Instead they led me to believe that they were attempting Reasonable Efforts to keep my son and me together in my home. In retrospect, I should have shown up at the door of the Nursery the very evening that I initially intended to do so and then demanded that Micah be released to me that very moment. There was not yet a court order (that I am aware of) on March 22, 2005 and they could not have prevented me from picking Micah up at that time. The court's order was signed on March 23rd, the date to which the social worker and WIC social worker encouraged me to wait until to pick Micah up. Not only was I prevented from picking him up on March 22ND-- I was required to wait until later in the day on March 23rd. I called early that morning to inform them that I would be there shortly thereafter and the Nursery staff informed me that I would have to wait until at least 1:00 that afternoon. When I arrived to pick him up, the social worker met me at the door and said "Hi Denise... I'm here to place your baby." She was grinning from ear to ear as she made that statement.

Unethical, dishonest statements/actions of DCFS

During one of the meetings that I held with the Department, Lisa Lydon stated that the initial referral was determined as unfounded. She further stated that summary assessment revealed more issues. That is an untruthful statement. All of the issues they say that they discovered subsequent to the initial determination of unfounded were the very same referral allegations that initiated the 'investigation'. There were no new issues revealed. The truth of the matter is that the Department simply did not allow me to work the safety contract that I signed in the hospital under intimidation and coercion. So they made up this story about supposed subsequent discovery of issues. As a matter of fact-- the 'issues' were stated in the original referral that the Department received.

Even though they had my coerced authorization for my criminal history records, the Department fraudulently obtained the documentation. I located a document in the social file that states to the disclosure department that “Denise Dopkins is being investigated for allegations of abuse or neglect of a child”. This statement was made nearly 5 weeks prior to the birth of my son. The fact of the matter is that I was never accused of the abuse or neglect of any child. The Department was merely ‘investigating’ a referral of supposed ‘concerns’. I refer to their concerns as ‘what ifs’ and not requisite evidence of current parental unfitness. There was no legitimate reason to remove my son from my care. I protected Micah every step of the way. The court commissioner contradicted herself when out of one side of her mouth she commended me for taking Micah to Vanessa Behan Crises Nursery for immediate and temporary respite. Out of the other side of her mouth, she told me it proved that I was not ready to parent my son. In essence, every parent must be warned of the possible, rather probable consequences of taking a newborn baby to Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery or any other community service.

Social worker Patricia Murman fabricated a lie regarding the intentions of my individual therapist Carla Paullin. In her report to the court dated August of 2006 Ms. Murman asserted that Ms. Paullin stated to her that ‘she was considering terminating services with me because of my inability to benefit from the therapeutic process due to my mental health issues’. Ms. Paullin later testified in court that she never made any such statement. She further stated in court that she would never tell any of her clients that. She also stated that she shares with me anything she informs the Department and court of in regards to me prior to sharing with them. Ms. Paullin never informed me that she was considering termination of her services with me and, as she testified, has never informed Ms. Murman or anyone else of such. Referred to report is in the legal file.

I believe the social worker, Patricia Murman lied to me regarding the actual reason I was not served with the initial termination petition and notification of the scheduled trial. The initial petition was filed in September of 2006, without the knowledge or me or my attorney! Ms. Murman provided at least two completely different stories as to why I was not served or notified. My own attorney, Mr. Callen informed me that he was not notified by anyone about a filed petition or of a scheduled trial regarding such petition. He informed me via email (of which I have a copy) that I was the first person to notify him. I became aware of the fact of a filed termination petition only four days before the scheduled trial date. I was in the court house on a completely separate issue when it was brought to my attention by the Family Court Facilitator. The first reason Ms. Murman stated to me via email was: that there would be no hearing because she was ‘unable to serve Charles and me in time’… which indicates to me that she claims she was actively attempting to serve me clear up to the time allowed by statute. I am not a difficult person to serve legal documents to. The Department was aware of my whereabouts several times during any week. I could have been served via certified mail with my signature required as proof of service. I could have been served through my attorney— if he would have been notified. As a matter of fact, I had regularly inquired via email whether or not the Department was planning to file a termination petition and on what grounds. That was just one more opportunity for Ms. Murman to inform me that she was allegedly attempting to serve me with the court documents. The second reason I received for the Department’s failure to notify me of the filed termination petition and notification of a scheduled trial date: Ms. Murman, at a meeting with several witnesses present, informed me that they just let the petition sit doormat due to the issue of paternity needing to be established. (one and one half years into this Dependency action.) The actual truth of the matter is this: The Department and the AAG were aware of the issue of paternity before they filed the first termination petition.

I have requested a copy of the affidavit detailing the dates, times and locations of alleged service attempts. I have yet to receive the affidavit. My concern is that my attorney was not notified of the termination petition or scheduled trial date. How can he defend me if he is not informed of filed legal documents and scheduled hearings? I certainly hope Mr. Callen is telling me the truth in that he claims he was not informed. I believe that it would be worse to find that he did know and hid this information from me. Ms. Murman, her supervisor and other superiors in the Department have repeatedly ignored my emails and attempts to locate the affidavit. It makes me wonder what really was the case. Was Ms. Murman really trying feverishly to serve me with the legal notification documents? Or was she purposely neglecting to do so? Why was Mr. Callen not notified of this termination petition and hearing date concerning it? (Or was he?)

Contradictory statements of the DCFS, court and treatment providers

It has been repeatedly stated by the court and by the treatment providers that they are impressed at my survival from child abuse and neglect. (Though I am not sure it is legal to consider one's childhood when deciding whether or not to return his/her child.) They commend me for not choosing to become involved in the abuse of alcohol and controlled substances, despite the fact that drugs and alcohol abuse was very ingrained in my family. Court Commissioner Jolicoeur stated to me that she doesn’t know how I survived that traumatic of a childhood. Out of the other side of their mouths, they state that I am a victim of the abuse I suffered as a child, however, do not explain what it has to do with my parenting skills or how it proves that my son would be in harms way if returned to me. If, as they say, I have risen as a survivor from childhood abuse, why do they make so many statements to the contrary? They contradict themselves by simultaneously stating that I am a victim of the abuse I suffered as a child. They continue to use my history of childhood abuse as a reason to keep my son from me, claiming that they fear I might... just might abuse or neglect him. They also continue to use my old history of mental health treatment/diagnosis as reason to keep my son from me-- whether or not it was all accurate diagnosis. ‘What if… what if… what if’. Not requisite evidence of current parental unfitness. Especially given the most current and extremely thorough psychological evaluation with Dr. Mary Deitzen whom does not diagnose me with current psychological or personality disorders. (Though I refer to psychological evaluations as junk science, Dr. Deitzen's report was still basically disregarded and Dr. Bot's emphasized.) Of course his was given more weight, after all, he was parroting the Department's wishes concerning my case.

The Department and court commissioner Jolicoeur chastises me for not trusting 'those who are just trying to help me'. Out of the other side of its mouth, the Department expresses distrust and concern about bias in regards to an actual social worker with the Office of Public Defense. During the holiday season of 2007, Mr. Callen located a visitation monitor for my home visit with Micah, due to the fact that the Department supposedly couldn't find anyone else to do it. At a meeting including Joseph Gutriezz, Ms. Murman, me and Mr. Callen, it was stated that Ms. Murman was concerned that the visit monitor we had secured would be biased in my favor. Did she not know he was just another one of the team members that wanted to help me and Micah? (I must confess to some sarcasm there-- or maybe rhetoric) I don't understand why Ms. Murman would distrust him. I think it was more than that in and of itself. I think Ms. Murman would have preferred someone who would have been at least somewhat biased in the Department's favor and written their notes to reflect more of their agenda... sort of like those of Ms. Susan Elg and Dr. David Bot. Again, who has the trust issues here? I think Ms. Murman jumped the gun so to speak. Perhaps she ought to have waited to see Mr. Gutriezz's report before she expressed concern about bias or prematurely accused him of being dishonest. I, on the other hand, have had very legitimate reason by way of experience with CPS, to distrust the words and actions of CPS agents and other parties to the case, such as the GAL and the Department's contracted treatment providers. (I am referring to the childhood experiences with CPS, as well as my experiences as the mother in this case.) CPS left me in abusive foster homes as a child. (Drug addicts, sexual abusers, physical abusers.) Ironically, CPS refers to my childhood abuse (much of it allowed by CPS) as reason to be concerned about my ability as an adult to protect my son. How is it the system causes problems for children and then uses it against those children in their adult lives?

Delay tactics of DCFS

DCFS would have a higher court believe that they gave me more and more time in efforts to reunify me and my son. The fact of the matter is that they purposely delayed and dragged their feet on many occasions... with the goal of wasting enough time that it would convince a judge to terminate my parental rights on the premise of 'no time for progress'. They purposely left me in services with Susan Elg for nearly two years while she consistently provided negative reports. "concerns still exist" types of reports. They did this even though the AAG erroneously state during a meeting that 'You weren't ready for service at that time'. CPS was well aware of the oppressive nature of the relationship between Ms. Elg and me. They knew there was absolutely no therapeutic working relationship and should have offered another service long before I had to fight for the Circle of Security service on my own. Again, the law mandates that the Department is to offer all reasonably available services capable of correcting parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future. They did not. I sought out and won the Circle of Security program on my own initiative... just as I did in establishing the therapy sessions with Carla Paullin back in 2006... due to the social worker's lack of assistance in the matter. It seems to me that her failure to provide referrals was a direct violation of the court's order at that time.

DCFS failed to arrange for paternity testing of Douglas P. Barrett in the beginning of the Dependency action, though it was ordered by the court. If they had chosen to abide by the court's order- the issue of Charles Benvegar would never have been-- because the biological father would have already been proven and I could therefore not have presented Mr. Benvegar as an alleged or possible father.

DCFS canceled scheduled court ordered psychological evaluations and delayed until August 2005. (5 months into dependency action.) This they did purposely as evidenced by their own statement at a meeting held back in April or May of 2005 where it was stated that a psychological evaluation would be pushed out until at least July or August of 2005.

DCFS, when they finally got around to it, employed a psychiatrist who merely interviewed with me for 45-50 minutes. He briefly went over some documents that DCFS provided him… asking me questions about previous contacts with Community Mental Health and some hospitalizations. (All old history and not evidence of current parental unfitness.) He then basically rubber stamped an old history of diagnosis and stated it as current fact. There was no hard testing data to refer to. DCFS promptly claimed Dr. Bot’s evaluation as evidence of current parental unfitness by way of their testimony in court, though Dr. Bot did not testify in court at that time. I still wonder what the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist is. Apparently, very obvious difference: Dr. Bot conducted absolutely no evaluation. Dr. Deitzen conducted a very thorough and detailed evaluation including initial interview with Mr. Callen and me, several in-depth interviews with me and at least two psychological tests (hard data to evaluate.) I have since learned that it didn't make any difference how the psychological or psychiatric evaluations were conducted. These "evaluations" are junk science and the results are very subjective and easily manipulated by the doctor conducting the so called tests. The answers given by the patient can be manipulated to mean whatever the doctors so wishes to testify to as truth. Their so called professional opinions align with whatever CPS intentions are for the case.

Ms. Murman failed to inform the foster parents about a critical appointment that Micah and I had scheduled with Carol Thomas in October 2007. This appointment had been scheduled several weeks in advance. When the appointment date came around, Micah did not show for the assessment. One of Micah's care providers informed me that she was not told about any appointment for October 27th, 2007. I took it upon myself to schedule a new date for the parenting assessment with Ms. Thomas which could not be fit in until better than one month later-- November 30th). Hence, Ms. Murman caused a nearly three month delay in this case by failing to inform Micah's care providers of the appointment date in October.

The Department, through the GAL, Kim Dunham caused yet another delay in the case by challenging a reasonably available service (Circle of Security program) that I located on my own and requested of the Department that I be allowed to participate in. I do not believe the GAL was acting as a separate party to this case. I believe, as the AAG's statement at the hearing regarding it suggests that the Department did not wish to be caught depriving me of a reasonable available service, capable of correcting 'parental deficiencies'. When addressed by Commissioner Jolicoeur, the Department responded by in essence admitting that they did not really want to provide the COS program to me, however, were not technically objecting because, according to the AAG's own statement, they feared the repercussion of a termination being overturned on appeal due to their failure to provide all reasonably available services. They never did provide all reasonably available services and I believe that they never intended to in the first place.

Questionable actions/lack of action by DCFS

DCFS placed me in sessions with Mary Anne Sacco instead of making the referral and following through with a psychological evaluation that was ordered by the court at that time.

I noted that the Department was unwilling to compose answers to my questions in document format, however, that they insisted on having a list of questions from me prior to any meeting that I requested. I found that rather suspect that they would not put their answers in writing or other document format, yet they required it of me. Perhaps they were just guarding against being held accountable for their actual 'answers' to my legitimate questions and concerns?

Violations of Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur

Commissioner Jolicoeur failed to assure that I was legally and actively represented for three months. She commented in open court that she had no control over the Public Defender’s Office and that her only advice to me would be to ‘be persistent with them’ in my request for active counsel. Even the Public Defenders Department Director, John T. Rogers blames Commissioner Jolicoeur for failing to order legal counsel, when it was in her power to do so. (Mr. Rogers made this accusation in a statement he submitted to the Washington State Bar Association in attempt to defend against my assertions that he refused to appoint active legal counsel.) There is documentation to back this statement.

Commissioner Jolicoeur has accused me of being ‘obsessed with the letter of the law’ and has used that amongst other things to sanction me with limited visitation. She repeatedly refused to grant more visitation time with my son. She stated to me in court that I was "so obsessed with the letter of the law that it rendered me emotionally unavailable to my child". I have always been under the impression that as an American citizen, it is my right to pay close attention to the letter of the law and to aid in my own defense. I think any mother who loves her child would fight back if she only knew she had that right and if she knew where to locate the information to assist her in that battle. I further assert that if the court commissioner had been paying more attention to the letter of the law, I would not have had to be so busy at it.

Commissioner Jolicoeur repeatedly denied me additional time with my son for no legal reason. She stated to me that she would not authorize more time with my son "until I get it." The law expressly says that a parent can not be denied time with her child unless she is abusing or harming him. RCW 13.34.136(2)(b)(ii). The law even goes on to say that even if the mother is violating court orders, she can not be denied visitation or sanctioned with decreased or limited visitation, as long as the child is not being abused or harmed. I was repeatedly and consistently denied any more than 3 hours per week with my son-- even though I was never accused of abusing or harming him during the minimal time I was granted. I even had to fight for make up visits that Micah and I were owed. Sometimes Commissioner even denied those visits!

Unethical/unreasonable comments or actions of Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur

Commissioner Jolicoeur state in court that she was 'also aware of the statutes and therefore was obligated to grant the Circle of Security program to me'. (Exact wording would of course be in the transcripts.) I point this out because her attitude was the same as that of the Department and I believe her motives were also the same as theirs. The Department absolutely did not want to offer or provide the Circle of Security program to me. As they even admitted in court during the hearing regarding it: 'We are not objecting to the service because we fear the repercussion of a termination being overturned due to the all reasonably available services clause of the law'. (Exact wording can be located in transcripts.) In short, the Department was going to provide the service only if it was ordered by the court to do so... and not out of a desire to attempt reunification efforts. As I state prior in this document, I firmly believe that the GAL's motion to prevent Micah's and my participation in the Circle of Security program was merely an effort to abide by the Department's real intentions in this case. I do not believe it was her individual opinion or recommendation against the COS program. I do not believe Commissioner Jolicoeur willingly granted the Circle of Security program to me either.

Violations of previous counsel

Attorney April B. Pearce

Attorney April B. Pearce assisted in violation of my Due Process rights by encouraging me to sign a document stating that I agreed that my son should remain in Shelter care. I believe she was aware that Micah should not have been removed from his home and that he was denied the chance to remain with me while we participated in services promised to us during the conversation in the hospital. She was clearly informed by me that I did not agree that my son should have been removed from my custody and that I did abide by the Safety contract that I signed in the hospital. (For the very few days I was allowed to do so.)

Ms. Pearce assisted in violation of my Due Process rights by advising me to sign an agreed order of Dependency. I very obviously did not understand what I was signing at that time. Furthermore, I was desperate to be reunited with my son. I have since located in the RCW’s that by signing the document, in essence I stated that I agreed that my son was Dependent as described in that statute. Ms. Pearce said to me that ‘this is just routine… nothing to worry about.’ I was with the understanding that if I signed the affidavit I would be granted custody of my son. (If I agreed to abide by court ordered services.) Ms. Pearce failed to inform me of the consequences of my signatures.

Ms. Pearce failed to present to the court the letter stating “the findings of this investigation are unfounded”. (Letter is in the CPS social file dated 03/30/05 from Nora Scott.) Instead, she merely waived her hands at me, saying “throw it away, they send those to everyone”.

Ms. Pearce failed to object to claims of CPS in that they did not have evidence to support their claim that their unfounded allegations deemed me currently unfit to parent. Instead, she advised me to sign stipulated orders; incorporating Department composed ISSP’s (Individual Service and Safety Plan.) Apparently I am in the record as having agreed that my son should remain in Shelter Care and that he was dependent. I have never agreed that my son was dependent or should remain in state custody. I signed documents at the advice of my attorney at the time. It was not explained to me that I was in essence agreeing that my son was dependent on the state. I have since located statutes that declare that if I signed any stipulated order I agreed that my son was dependent as described in RCW...

Ms. Pearce failed to assure that my husband at that time was adjoined to the case when he stepped forward as a possible father to my son. At least 4 months had elapsed before her removal from this case. She was ‘conflicted out’ of the case without my request. She was also removed from the case without notifying me until after the fact. I never requested the removal of Ms. Pearce from my case. It was just done.

In the beginning of this Dependency action, it was ordered by the court that Douglas P. Barrett undergo paternity testing. Ms. Pearce failed to assure that this order was followed by DCFS. If she had done so, I would not have allowed Charles Benvegar to present as Micah’s father and I certainly would not have married him. This was completely avoidable, had the system done its job. Furthermore, when Mr. Benvegar came forward as a possible father to Micah, he should have been required to undergo paternity testing at that time; however, this was not required by the court until October of 2006, nearly one and one half years after he entered the case.

Attorney Gina M. Costello

Ms. Costello initially informed me that she did not want my son out of Dependency. I immediately informed her and the Public Defender’s Department director John T. Rogers that I did not accept her as my legal counsel. I wanted an attorney that believed in me and would defend me to the maximum extent. Ms. Costello failed to request the court’s permission to withdraw from the case, though I clearly requested that she do so. She ignored my phone messages and failed to appear at hearings that I was a party to. She further failed to assure that services were provided to me and Micah. I had to try to assure this for myself-- of my own initiative. This went on for three months, until she finally motioned the court for withdrawal from my case on January 26, 2006, only moments prior to a review hearing. There I sat, again without legal representation. Not one moment before her withdrawal from the case was I appointed actual active legal representation. Mr. Callen was assigned right from the hand that refused to provide me with active legal representation the preceding three months.

Issue of legal representation by Mark B. Callen

Before I address any issues regarding the legal representation of Mr. Callen, I must say that I wish to try to win on appeal without getting Mr. Callen into any trouble. I say this because, though he certainly did not say or do everything as per my wishes or that he ought to have done, I believe he did put forth some good and sincere effort to defend me under the circumstances. I feel that the system can be cruel and intimidating to anyone that is under its thumb (or- probably more appropriate-- anyone under its iron fist.) Not knowing how to interpret every part of child dependency law, I may not completely understand all of it or how it applies. Therefore, perhaps I am not thoroughly correct in my current interpretation or understanding of a defense attorney's legal and ethical responsibilities. I know what I have found and read in my research efforts on the subject of attorney ethics and rules of conduct. I consider myself to be of at least average intelligence, and probably somewhat higher than average. Perhaps some of what I have read in the process of my researching may have to be explained to me at some point and I am certainly open to receiving explanation.

I did indeed inform Mr. Callen from time to time that I thought he was doing a good job considering the mess that he inherited when handed my case. I thought he was doing a good job because he seemed to be doing what he was supposed to. I have learned since then that he did not do half of what he ought to and could have done to defend me. I learned by way of my own research and reading of child dependency laws as well as rules of conduct for attorneys.

I must point out the fact that I was constantly browbeaten regarding the issue of legal representation in this case. I was falsely accused of having battles with my attorneys (assertion of the Department.) I was accused of firing two attorneys-- when indeed I did not 'fire' Ms. Pearce and I never even accepted the appointment of Ms. Gina Costello. I recall that I did write across a letter to her that Ms. Costello was 'fired' as the attorney on this case, however, it was not due to my having accepted her as my attorney. She was merely appointed and I was notified weeks afterward. During the one and only meeting that I held with her, she informed me that she did not want my son out of dependency. Of course I did not want her as my 'legal defense' attorney- if she was not going to defend me and seemingly sided with the Department in their refusal to return Micah to me. In short, I have not made a habit of firing attorneys. One was conflicted out of the case without my knowledge prior to it happening. One attorney was appointed without my knowledge-- and I was notified to contact her weeks after Ms. Pearce's removal from the case. Mr. Callen was appointed to my case and I never once asked for his removal from the case. I worked with him and diligently followed most of his advice... in retrospect, somewhat to my demise. As a matter of fact, Mr. Callen once threatened to withdraw from my case if I continued to be proactive in my attempts to seek redress for the grievances committed against my son and me.

In retrospect, I believe that I made a huge mistake in going along with Mr. Callen's strategy to, in essence, agree with the state's assertion that I suffer from mental illness. I regret that I did go along with it. I believe Mr. Callen failed in his duty to defend me against the flimsy and false allegations of the Department. (Their assertion that I could not parent Micah due to a severe psychological disorder.) His job really was to refute their accusations and remind the Department and court that it is not my burden to prove their accusations false... but to the contrary, it is their burden of proof of the allegations they assert. The law clearly states that the court can not remove a child from his parent- even if she suffered from mental illness. Again, they must prove that the mental illness prevents the parent from safely and effectively parenting her child.

During the termination trial, some witnesses lied. Though I fear this may not be an appeal-able issue in and of itself, I believe the issue of lack of objection or rebuttal on the part of Mr. Callen is pertinent to the appeal. I noted that he failed to challenge some of the statements of witnesses, such as Ms. Murman regarding the allegation that I was seen with Mr. Barrett behind his booth in the park in September 2007. Another statement Mr. Callen failed to challenge or require evidence for: Pat Carol testified that I had basically threatened her during a conversation about Christmas Eve visitation arrangements. She told the court that I informed her that I would have a witness present at the visit who would be monitoring her. The Department nearly succeeded at preventing the one and only home visit with my son, by way of this dishonest SCAN worker. Mr. Callen ought to have challenged that by reminding the judge of how foolish that would have been for me to say such a thing to this visit monitor when I wanted this home visit with my son so very dearly. He ought further to have reminded the judge that there has never been any accusation that I have ever threatened anyone else in the entire duration of this case-- so why then would I be foolish enough to chance ruining an opportunity of a lifetime? (to have my little boy home for part of the holiday.) It doesn't make sense. Isn't the real test in all of this: what would any reasonable person have believed, given known circumstances of previous interactions and conversations between me and others party to the case? Why, then, would it be so quickly believed that I was hostile to this Pat Carol?

I believe that Mr. Callen ought to have addressed Ms. Elg about the issue of law regarding decrease and/or termination of visitation between parents and children. If Ms. Elg is not aware of such law, she ought to be informed that visitation can not be decreased, limited or terminated under any circumstance other than abuse or neglect of a child. If she is made aware of this fact, perhaps she will make far fewer recommendations for the unnecessary and I dare say illegal decrease, termination or limitation of visitation. There is certainly a difference between "Micah is becoming confused as to why he comes to visitation" versus the clear abuse of a child. There is certainly a difference between "The mother is on stage" versus the clear abuse of a child. If Ms. Elg does not know the difference... and I believe she does-- then the Department social worker or an attorney ought to clearly explain it to her.

I assert that Mr. Callen failed to address all of my concerns to the court. (During hearings and at the termination trial.) Though I presented him with a lot of information that I wished to be in the record, he still failed to bring it forth. I can give example after example to prove my point. I have all of the emails and written correspondences between Mr. Callen and me, as evidence of my claims. One of the most important and critical concerns: The letter I received from Nora Scott dated 03/30/05 which stated that the referral allegations had been investigated and determined to be unfounded. That speaks loudly to me that when the Department failed to return Micah to me at that time, the Department had every intention of keeping Micah so as to adopt him out. He was a beautiful, healthy, drug and alcohol free baby boy. How easy it would have been to immediately adopt him out-- if I had not fought back as long as I did. As Mr. Callen did state at one of my hearings prior to the trial... we assert that the Department made no effort to reunify following the removal of my infant son from my care and custody.

I assert that Mr. Callen failed to file various motions that he could and should have, during his appointment as legal counsel in my case. Some of those motions- I requested that he file and he failed to do so. There were other motions I didn't necessarily request, but that he should have filed- as I would come to realize later. One in particular that he did not file was a 'motion to reconsider' before Judge O'Connor. She actually suggested this could be done in regards to the conflict between Mr. Callen and Ms. Lydon about the wording of the termination order. Following the judge's ruling of termination, Ms. Lydon attempted to add facts to and embellish the termination order. It did not accurately reflect the oral ruling of Judge O'Connor. Mr. Callen then appropriately filed a motion to address this issue before Judge O'Connor and she gave direction to the attorneys as to how to resolve the conflict.

One of the main reasons that I didn't say much to anyone about what I felt Mr. Callen was doing wrong was due to being brow beaten by the Department and court commissioner about legal representation. I was constantly reminded by the Department and the court that I was not an attorney and that I should rely on an attorney instead of trying to do things myself. So-- what did I do? I relied on Mr. Callen to do whatever he was supposed to do to defend me to the full extent of the law. It didn't help matters that I was so frightened to speak in court either. This is a very frightening and intimidating experience and that is an understatement at best.

Violations/questionable actions of Guardian Ad litems

Martin Kulagrub

Mr. Kulagrub failed to report on failure of CPS to comply with court orders as follows:

1. Mr. Kulagrub failed to inform the court that CPS social worker Melly Keith did not comply with the court’s order to refer Douglas P. Barrett Jr. for paternity testing. If this order had been complied with, the issue of Charles Benvegar would never have occurred because Douglas would have already have been proved the biological father. RCW 13.34.105 (1)(c)

2. Mr. Kulagrub failed to inform the court that the Department/AAG refused to immediately adjoin Mr. Benvegar to the Dependency action upon his statement that he was a possible father to Micah. Regardless of whether it was right or wrong for Mr. Benvegar to have been adjoined to the Dependency, is neither here nor there now. Of course, looking back, it was a very bad decision on my part to have involved Mr. Benvegar in the Dependency at all, however, just the same- Mr. Kulagrub failed in his duty to inform the court of the issue at that time.

Kim Dunham

1. Interestingly enough, Ms. Dunham has completely concurred with the Department’s plan of termination of my parental rights and anything they have ever requested of the court regarding this case. The first time I am aware of her ever having disagreed with the Department’s request was regarding the issue of my motion for the court’s order that I be enrolled in the Circle of Security Project. I do not believe the Department wanted to enroll me in the COS and I believe Ms. Dunham was simply the mouthpiece of the Department. She, through her attorney Keri Janda, filed a motion to prevent me from participating in a reasonably available and appropriate service. Ms. Dunham was supposedly acting as a separate party to this Dependency action, however, I do not believe she was truly doing that. I believe she was perfectly aligned with the Department’s agenda and plan. The Department just didn't want to appear to be attempting to deny me the opportunity to participate in the COS project. (Though, as the verbatim report will clearly prove-- they indeed were completely against offering me that service. The AAG's response to Commissioner Jolicoeur's question was evidence of the Department's true intentions. During the hearing regarding the Circle of Security Project, Commissioner Jolicoeur asked the Department for their comment. The AAG, Lisa Lydon answered by informing the court that the reason the Department wasn't technically objecting to the service was due to their fear of the repercussion of a termination being overturned due to the Department's failure to offer or provide all reasonably available services. Again, I assert that they never did provide all reasonably available services, nor did they intend to in the first place.

2. Ms. Dunham, back in August of 2006 informed me of the wonderful progress she had seen in me-- and during the same conversation attempted to persuade me to willingly relinquish my parental rights by signing an Open Adoption agreement. That seems rather contradictory and malicious in my estimation-- cunning and deceitful/misleading at best. If a mother is doing so well and making such good progress, why on earth would the GAL be trying to persuade her to agree to an open adoption? This attempt occurred nearly one year prior to Micah's placement in the 'foster adopt home' he now resides in! I firmly believe it is because it was never CPS intention or goal to reunify my son and me. Mr. Callen even asserted that the Department had not made reasonable efforts to reunify.

3. Ms. Dunham testified- during the August 2006 hearing, that she had attended about 30 minutes of a visit with Micah and me. That visit occurred very shortly before the August 2006 hearing. She further testified that she did not witness any bond between my son and me. I shared with Mr. Callen afterward, that I did not believe she was qualified to testify as to the bonding or lack thereof between my son and me due to three factors: (1) She only attended 30 minutes of one 90 minute visit in the entire prior to the hearing. (2) She is not an expert in the field of bonding and attachment or parenting issues. (3) She is fairly young and further did not have any children of her own at that time.

Questionable actions of GAL-- Diana Salinas

Ms. Salinas testified at a hearing regarding my son. She was a temporary GAL while Ms. Dunham was on maternity leave. I believe her testimony should not have held any weight given the fact that she had not really done anything on the case herself. She relied solely on the reports of Martin Kulagrub and Kim Dunham instead of doing her own interacting with me. She testified that she trusted their work and relied on for her reports in this case.

Violations and/or unethical/incompetent behavior of Susan Elg-- proclaimed child therapist

I believe Ms. Elg has been biased against me. I am concerned that Ms. Elg recommended decrease and termination of my visits with Micah-- even though the law clearly does not support the recommendation in this case. If she does not understand this concept, it should be clearly explained to her so that she does not waste the parent's, the Department's or the court's time reading her recommendation. Ms. Elg made the recommendation to decrease and/or terminate my visits at least three times... when indeed there was no abuse, neglect or harm to my son during any visit. I fear she does the very same thing to other parents involved with CPS as well. If this is indeed occurring in the lives of other families, Ms. Elg must be challenged and her deeds revealed.

To my recollection, Ms. Elg refused to respond with answers to my questions stated in an email to her. That specific email is dated 06/15/2007 and the subject line is: 'Questions'. My questions in that email pertained to her opinion regarding the Circle of Security program. She loudly objected to my participation in that program and she went so far as to say that Micah would be emotionally abused as a result of his participation in it. She state all of this in one of her reports. I subsequently composed a list of questions for Ms. Elg's consideration and I asked her to respond with answers. This example is just one of several.

Ms. Elg stated, during the third of three meetings with me and the Department, that she suggested face to face meetings with me to discuss my questions and concerns. She further stated that I did not follow through with that suggestion. That is not entirely true. Ms. Elg omitted the fact that she asked for the face to face meetings and then declined when I informed her that I wished to include my attorney and a few close friends/supports. Instead, she decided to go ahead and answer my questions via email. (Apparently she considered that particular email as important enough to respond to.) Recall the email I spoke of earlier in this document where Ms. Elg informed me that she would no longer be responding via email to my emails.

She never promoted any ‘therapeutic’ visitation. She merely situated herself in the same small room during visits and actively engaged in play with Micah, befriending and promoting a social bond with him. The instructional part of visits (if one can even remotely consider it having been professionally instructional) ought to have taken place outside of visits when Micah was not present. (Unless there was a significant problem or concern during visits that would have necessitated the intervention of the therapist)… which never occurred. Micah seemed confused about who was the mother in the room during visits at Ms. Elg's office because she constantly interrupted disciplinary moments and undermined my parental authority concerning my son. One very specific example is stated in a visitation documentation letter that I composed, located in social file as well as my email file. I can also cite other instances as well.

She reports that the child does not predominantly migrate towards his mother during visits, but shows affection and desire to interact with therapist and mother on an equal basis. The expectation that Micah would act any differently is absurd, given the conditions and circumstances under which we were allowed interaction time. (Refer to paragraph directly above.) Carol Thomas and Beth Fergin have both stated that the type of relationship the Department and Sue Elg have demanded is not possible given the fact that I have not been placed in the care giving role and have had such limited time with my son. Interestingly enough, Ms. Elg completely contradicts herself in an email to me where she states that she sees that Micah chooses me as his go to person.

Micah viewed Susan Elg as higher authority or boss in the room due to the fact that he is informed by her that he is visiting in her ‘home’. Micah was also very aware of the times when Ms. Elg instructed me and I followed her instruction… or when she corrected me and we discuss it during the visit. I believe Micah viewed me as a playmate and Ms. Elg as the boss over both of us.

She reported ‘concerns’ that there is a ‘lack of bonding’ between the mother and child. Given the circumstances under which Micah and I have been allowed to visit together, it is ridiculous to expect any closer bond than we share. Refer to prior court testimony and reports of Carol Thomas and comments of Beth Fergin. In addition to what they both stated, I believe and assert that inadequate visitation time has also aided in the result of alienation of affection and lack of emotional bonding... though Ms. Elg, the court and the Department readily place the blame solely at my feet. I further assert that 'lack of bonding' is not legal reason to keep children from their parents and certainly is not reason to terminate the relationship... especially when it is due to prolonged out of home placement.

I noted a lot of circle talk surrounding the issue of 'emotional connection' between Micah and me:

1. Ms. Elg would report that I was not 'emotionally connected' with my son and that "Micah has moved on".

2. It has been stated, I believe also by Ms. Elg, that I was not 'emotionally available' to my son. (Commissioner Jolicoeur also made a point of stating that in court.)

3. "There is no question but that Denise loves her son and enjoys her time with him". (If that is not a sign of emotional connection, I don't know what is.) However, when I asked the Department and Ms. Elg to state their definition of 'love' they both declined. Ms. Elg stated in writing that she could not answer that question. The Department stated at one of the three meetings that I should look it up in the dictionary. They used that response on more than one occasion when I asked for clarification of their statements.

I have since looked up the definition for 'love' in the dictionary. It is as follows:
From Dictionary.com

[luhv] Show IPA
noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
–noun
(a) a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
(b) a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

4. Ms. Elg reported that Micah 'enjoyed his time with his mother'. (But, not emotionally connected with her?) Just socially connected. Still connected just the same! He wasn't given a reasonable amount of time with me and he knew a completely separate life better than 99% of the time. Maybe Micah wasn't emotionally connected with me, however, I was emotionally connected with him. I continually dream about my son in the night. I cry because I miss him so dearly. I constantly begged for more time with him. I did what I could with the crumbs I was thrown from the Department and the court. They were unreasonable in there expectation and I believe they knew, as did Ms. Elg that their expectations could not be met under the oppressive circumstances that they placed me and Micah in. They did not encourage or allow the maximum amount of visitation in the least restrictive environments as the law mandates. Back in November of 2006, Ms. Elg, “therapeutic visitation counselor”, went so far as to state in a report to the court that Micah would likely come to associate Christmas with a negative experience if forced to spend any part of it with me. Out of the other side of her mouth, she stated to the court that Micah is too young to understand the significance of Christmas. Seems like rather contradictory reasoning in my opinion. It didn’t sound like intent to reunify this family. Ms. Elg has also stated in reports to the Department and court that she recommends that visits cease because she feels that “visits are no longer beneficial to Micah”. She has recently contradicted herself in stating to me that she does not view Micah’s visits with me to be negative in any way. (Documented email verification in the social file.)

Ms. Elg recommended (in her refusal to challenge Social Worker Ms. Murman's wishes) that my visits be decreased and then terminated. She made this recommendation at least three times that I am aware of. I only learned the third recommendation during my termination trial. The initial recommendation from July 31of 2007 was the one I learned of during my termination trial. I was shocked to say the very least. Ms. Elg gladly continued to sit with Micah and me week after week-- month after month for nearly another one and a half years after her initial recommendation for decrease and termination of visits. She also continued to collect payment for doing so. I believe this was very unethical on her part. If she did not feel that Micah and I were benefiting from her 'services' she ought to have recommended another service and/or service provider. I must also refer to yet another contradictory statement of Ms. Elg where she states that she does believe that I have benefited from her services. She gave that answer in response to a direct documented question from me. I asked her if she thought I had benefited from her services and she responded in document format stating that yes she thought I had. Email verification in social file.

Ms. Elg insists that her undying goal was to promote a strong parent-child relationship between Micah and me. I disagree. If that was really her sincere goal in this case, why did she consistently recommend the least amount of visitation that the court would allow? Why did she repeatedly recommend decrease and even termination of visitation? Why did she recommend decrease and termination of my visits so early on? I found out, by way of a statement by Lisa Lydon AAG, that the reason my visits were not again decreased to less than three hours per week was because "a legal opinion has been made that the statutes do not support decrease or termination of visitation at this point." This she stated at the last of the three meetings that I held with the Department, when I asked if the Department was indeed going to motion the court for another decrease in my visits with my son. I asked the question due to the email I received from Ms. Dunham, informing me that her office would be motioning the court for 'suspension of my visits with Micah'. Of course that legal opinion had been made- it is made very clear in the statutes that the Department or court can not decrease or terminate visits absent abuse or harm to the child. Interesting to me is the fact that this legal opinion came up following Ms. Durham's threat to have my visits suspended when I fought for the Circle of Security program. I challenged her in a response email when I informed her that visitation is a fundamental parental right and that it could not be taken absent abuse or neglect of the child. (During the Dependency process, anyway.)

Ms. Elg, as evidenced in one of the three meetings that I attended (at my request), stated that she sees me as always 'on stage'... concerned about what is going on around me. She states that this 'takes away from the moments with Micah'. My response is that: Of course I was always on stage. This is how the service was set up and continually operated. Ms. Elg continually watched and took notes on my every action or word. Additionally, she criticized and analyzed my words with Micah. (during visits and in his presence.) She made reference to my childhood and at least insinuated that my childhood experiences motivated the perfectly appropriate words spoken to my son. (Such as, for example: When I said to Micah-- "I think you're having a bit of an attitude today".) Ms. Elg undermined my parental authority by interrupting disciplinary issues and telling me a different way to handle it, when she ought to have instructed me in the absence of my son and- even though I was not harming, neglecting or abusing Micah in my choice of redirecting method. It is stated in court documents that I do not abuse or harm my son and never have. Back to the 'on stage' comment... how could I have felt any other way? I was indeed consistently and purposely observed. Furthermore, is every parent that is aware of what is going on around them to be considered 'emotionally unavailable' to their children? Even if it be so, is that reason for the state to remove and keep children from their parents? What family in this country has the perfect emotional connection? Who decides what that is?

Ms. Elg encouraged me to talk about 'the case' and how things were going concerning it. During sessions- from time to time-- she would initiate the subject and ask specific questions about what might be occurring with the legal aspects of the case. I believe this was completely inappropriate and unethical-- given the fact that this is something that was addressed as an alleged concern about me. It was made an issue of... that I spoke about the case during services at times. (even during sessions with my own individual therapist- where I ought to have not had to fear repercussions of doing so.)

Ms. Elg neglected to cite observances and examples to me, however, she then incorporated her alleged observances (mostly negative) into her reports to the court. I was often times caught off guard and completely by surprise concerning her testimony to the court.

EXAMPLES-

A. In her July 31, 2007 report, Ms. Elg states that I did not bring Micah ‘full lunches’ as I agreed to do. She never brought this to my attention and further waited nearly one year to state in her report. She also does not specify her opinion of what a ‘full lunch’ consists of, nor does she inform the court prior to or Department of what I did bring Micah. I generally provide foods from several of the national recommended food groups. I always brought nutritious foods and snacks for Micah, including but not limited to: fruits and vegetables (vitamins, antioxidants and minerals); nutritious crackers (various grains); eggs and peanut butter sandwiches (proteins); yogurts and cheeses (calcium); juices, and more. I had also brought bran muffins, microwaveable foods such as burritos, raviolis, tuna casseroles, etc. Ms. Elg did not have an oven available for cooking 'full' meals.

Ms. Elg informed me very shortly after I enrolled in the Circle of Security Project that she would no longer be responding to any of my written correspondence, generally emails. She claims that it was due to what she claimed was a breeding ground for misunderstandings and miscommunication between us. Interesting and somewhat confusing to me is the fact that Ms. Elg waited to make this decision until August of 2007-- nearly13 months after I began composing visit documentation letters. I believe the reason she has ceased from responding to my emails is that she wished not to put anything more in documented format that would contradict herself. Note: Ms. Elg has previously stated in documented format—(email verification) that she has only responded to emails that she ‘deemed necessary’. She asserts also that she has not responded to all other email from me because she did not deem it to be necessary or important. Apparently, she no longer viewed any of my written communications as important. I also wanted to note that the social workers, attorneys, Guardian Ad litems, foster parents, etc… do much of their correspondence and communicating in document format. Apparently they all understand each other perfectly and never disagree? Apparently they are all constantly in perfect harmony and alignment.

Unethical/dishonest behaviors of Carla Paullin-- individual adult therapist

Ms. Paullin did not treat me for any accurate diagnoses-- though she stated several during her time as my therapist. As a matter of fact, ms. Paullin went on the information in Dr. David Bot's report from a very brief shoddy clinical interview he held with me. I further believe that even if she were treating me for any diagnoses, she was treating for inaccurate ones. She spoke of Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissism, Antisocial, Dysthymia. She did not mention PTSS in her reports until she found that Dr. Mary Deitzen had suggested that I may have traits of that syndrome, therefore, she did not treat me for it. I know she did not treat for that syndrome because I have done research and found the recommended treatment methods. Ms. Paullin did not use any of the stated modes of treatment for PTSS. Dr. Deitzen, on the other hand, does not diagnose me with Dysthimia, Borderline Personality Disorder or any other personality or psychological disorder. She diagnosed me with traits of some disorders. (And certainly not a severe psychological disorder.)

Ms. Paullin has stated to the court that I have not taken responsibility for my part in delaying this case. I do not understand where she is coming up with her assertion. I have indeed stated to her that I do understand my responsibility for some delay in this case. I informed her as well that I came clean with the court and confessed to having lied about my relationship with Charles Benvegar. I informed her that the actions that I did which caused some delay in the case took place very early on in the case... yet the Department continues to refer back to that incident and blame it for the entire duration of this case. I also informed Ms. Paullin that I told the court why I married Mr. Benvegar and why I lied to the court about the nature of the marriage relationship. Again, I can not say the same for anyone else that is involved in this Dependency action. Not one other party to the case has taken responsibility for or confessed to their dishonest, fraudulent and coercive actions. I guess I am confused about what else I could have done to convince the court, Department and their contracted providers that I have indeed taken responsibility and realize the seriousness of my actions in regard to lying to the court. I have already explained to the court that I did it all under severe duress and fear.

I believe that Ms. Paullin was unethical in sharing with the Department practically every conversation that she and I held. I was of course afraid to be completely honest with her out of fear of her blabbing my every word to the Department. I believe she violated that client and therapist confidentiality laws. I will never feel confident to share my inner most feelings or thoughts with therapists who will repeat everything I say to them. It just does not make for a trusting therapeutic relationship between a therapist and client. Yes, I guess I lied again in court during my termination trial when I agreed that I trusted Ms. Paullin. Again, I made this statement under duress and in desperate hope that I would appease the judge and convince her to let me take my child home. Wrong? Probably-- however, I know this goes on in so very many cases nationwide. People are terrified that if they don't say and do whatever CPS desires, they will lose their children forever. It also seems that I have read in the statutes where it is a defense when a person is signing documents or testifying under duress or coercion.

Ms. Paullin did not recommend any anger management classes even though she stated in court that many of my emails sounded angry and sarcastic. (She said that she read all of my emails provided to her by my attorney for her comment.) She disagreed with the Department's assertion that I am hostile in my written communications, however,she stated that she perceived many of them as angry and sarcastic. Apparently not necessarily unjustified anger or sarcasm-- because she informed me during a session that she did not feel that an anger management class was warranted or necessary. My point in bringing this subject up is to demonstrate that my own therapist seemed to believe that most of my fears and anger were well founded and not without merit.

Mr. Callen set up a meeting with Ms. Paullin directly after the termination ruling, without first notifying or consulting with me about it. He then chose to invite me-- told me to be there. Ms. Paullin attended the meeting, as did a couple of my close friends and supports. At this meeting, Ms. Paullin again tried to convince me to willingly give up. She pleaded with me to not go forward with an appeal regarding the termination of my parental rights. She went on and on about how she was so concerned about my emotional well being and that she wanted to see me go on to make more wonderful progress. She stated that she felt that I was not allowing myself to grieve the loss of my son if I continued on with the appeal. I don't think it is the business of any therapist to try to convince their client to not appeal a court's ruling. Appealing is a constitutional right that we have and is part of the judicial process. I was further appalled that Ms. Paullin seemingly dismissed all of the pain and suffering that I had endured during the three years of this dependency action, as if it were nothing compared to the stress of an appeal. At least I was allowed a small and limited amount of time with my son during the dependency action. I do not get to see him at all now. In short, I believe Ms. Paullin overstepped her boundaries as a therapist by trying to convince me to not file for an appeal of the trial court's ruling of termination.

Useless service provider-- Mary Anne Sacco

Mary Anne Sacco was enlisted by Gina Miles to conduct a rather quick 'parenting assessment'. Within several days of my last contact with Ms. Sacco (of which I had very few), a hearing was held before Commissioner Jolicoeur. At this hearing, Ms. Sacco was called to testify. To my great relief, my attorney at the time-- April B. Pearce proved one of my main points and grievances about Ms. Sacco. I had complained to Ms. Pearce that Ms. Sacco was confusing in her communications and seemingly not sure of herself and her therapy mode. As Ms. Sacco continued answering questions for Ms. Pearce, she repeatedly used the phrase "ya know what I mean?" She repeated this phrase at least six or seven times within a 15 minute time frame. Finally, Ms. Pearce stated in exasperation, "No, I don't know what you mean. I'm having a hard time following you!" My point being-- that Ms. Sacco is either incompetent, or merely another parrot for the Department. She obviously is not required to display any real competence or back up anything she said. She never provided any kind of therapy in the sessions that I attended with her. She spent more time either assisting a repairman in her outer office area or using beauty products for her skin and nails.

Another important point I would like to make in regards to the 'service' Ms. Sacco was supposedly enlisted to provide-- The Department insists that she wore several hats... which, even if this were the case, I think it would have been inappropriate at best. The Department states that she was to conduct a parent assessment, provide adult individual therapy, provide parenting instruction and marital counseling. That is not what was made clear to me. I was with the understanding that Ms. Sacco, according to Gina Miles (social worker) was contracted to conduct a parent assessment-- period. Ms. Miles even stated to me that "this would be cheaper than a full psychological evaluation." She also stated that "Why should the Department put out $800 for a psychological evaluation when it could be done for considerably less by Ms. Sacco?" I couldn't believe my ears! The only thing that mattered to me at that time was receiving my baby boy back into my arms and home. I was game for almost anything they wanted me to do.

I am aware that Ms. Sacco and the social worker at that time, Gina Miles were friends. I believe that influenced the intentions of Ms. Sacco. I think it was unethical for Ms. Miles to make a referral to a service provider of whom she is a personal friend. I also believe that Ms. Miles attempted to influence the testimony of Ms. Sacco. The reason I believe this-- amongst other reasons, is due to the nature of the conversation she held with the therapist from Family Service Spokane. I spoke earlier in this document about the hostility with which Ms. Miles confronted the Family Service Spokane therapist. That interaction is evidenced in the therapists report, located in the client file with that agency. In short, I mean to say that even though a good portion of Ms. Sacco's testimony was truthful and just stated the facts... she also twisted some facts and exaggerated others. I also agree that my sessions with her would likely have been less chaotic without the presence of Mr. Benvegar, as was evidenced in the sessions with Susan Elg and Carla Paullin.

Useless 'service' YWCA "hands on parenting instruction"

During the time I visited my son at this location-- that is all I did. I visited Micah while several very young people sat around in the same large room, conversing about their extracurricular activities and romances. There were generally at least two other families in this same area when I visited my son. Occasionally, one of the young people staffing the room would look over to see Micah and me and then turn right back to their leisurely conversations. Once in a while, the person supposedly assigned to 'work with' me would check in to suggest that I coo more with Micah. Brandy would merely suggest that I sing and talk to Micah-- as if I did not interact at all with my infant son. Needless to say, I was bored with the lack of services provided by this program.. I reached my limit when one day, I was changing my son's diaper and he was on the changing bed. I turned around and walked just a few feet to the sink to quickly wash my hands and was scolded by Brandy for not having one hand on my son at all times. First of all, Micah was not even two months old at that time and could not even roll over if he tried. Second, I was only several feet away from him and only for a moment and I turned back to look at him several times during the brief few moments it took to wash my hands. I was very conscious of my son and vigilant to make sure he was not harmed. I was, however, made out to look like an ignorant person who did not look out for her son's safety. I was treated as if I could not think to provide for my son's well being.

Dr. David Bot's psychiatric evaluation

Dr. Bot met with me one time for less than an hour. I had never seen or met this man before the day of the 'evaluation'. Dr. Bot merely chatted with me and asked some questions about some documents given to him by CPS. He asked me a few questions about previous mental health treatment and hospital stays. (Ancient history.) He did absolutely no testing such as MMPI or any other personality/psychological tests. He therefore had no hard data from which to base his 'opinion' and diagnoses. He merely rubber stamped an old history of diagnoses. He did not attempt to understand if perhaps previous diagnoses were indeed correct or even still present in me. He even went so far as to inform the court that I had gotten off on the wrong foot by choosing to make CPS my enemy instead of my ally. He painted me as unnecessarily obstinate and uncooperative with CPS due to my insistence on paying attention to the letter of the law. He actually asked me what was more important to me: my son or fighting a legal battle. I informed him that my son was at the core of the legal battle and that it was him that the legal issue was all about. He insinuated that my disagreement with CPS involvement in my family was evidence that I lacked the capacity to effectively raise my son. It was used against me for the remainder of the three year long CPS case. It eventually resulted in the termination of my parental rights.

I have to wonder what the Board of Psychchiatry would have to say about the conduct of Dr. Bot. I suspect they might inform me that he did not follow protocol for correctly diagnosing a patient. Anyone can sit and chat with a person for a short period of time, however, I dare say that the Board of Psychiatry would disagree with Dr. Bot's shoddy clinical interview as a method of diagnosing an individual with serious mental health disorders. Diagnoses that will follow that person for a lifetime. Diagnoses that are likely not even remotely accurate.

Dr. Bot was very instrumental in the eventual termination of my parental rights to my son. That was a very serious violation of my Constitutional right to rear my child absent unnecessary governmental interference. Dr. Bot played a significant role in that ruling. He also billed Medicaid and collected the payment for his unprofessional and illegal manner of diagnosing a patient. I believe he is guilty of Medicaid fraud and medical malpractice.

Dr. Mary Deitzen's psychological evaluation

This blog's author Denise Dopkins first presents another mother's mental health condition. I do so in an effort to explain my assertion that social services (CPS) unjustly, illegally and cruelly terminated the relationship and bonding experience between my son Micah and me. I was never diagnosed with any severe personality or mental health disorder... just minor traits of. Kim Noble on the other hand was diagnosed with substantially troubling mental health disorder. (Discotiative Identity Disorder.) She was allowed to keep her daughter in her care and custody while receiving therapy and other services in her home. Social services denied me the same opportunity. They simply removed my son from my care and custody and successfully built a dishonest case against me... causing a court to eventually permanently terminate my parental rights. Please read the story of Kim Noble: A woman divided.

Dr. Deitzen did a very thorough and complete psychological evaluation with me. She laid her foundation with collateral information and initial interview with Mr. Callen and me. She conducted several in-depth interviews with me... delving into my childhood and early adult life, on up to present day. I submitted to some written tests that she provided. I thought she was basically fair and honest, though I did not agree with every word in her report. I wish to point out some very important facts regarding her report.

1. Not only does Dr. Deitzen not diagnose me with psychological or personality disorders, she also uses phrases such as: 'she may' or 'it appears that' or 'victims of abuse tend to'... and so forth. She does not directly state that I personally exhibit these types of behaviors or symptoms... or even that I have displayed in the past. I contend there is not clear, cogent or convincing evidence that I suffer from a psychological disorder so severe that it prevents me from safely and effectively parenting my son. (Though the Department claims in its termination petition that I do.) Many people in this world have suffered child abuse. That does not automatically make them abusers of children. Statistical or not, it is not fair and I dare say it is illegal to terminate the parent-child relationships on the premises of what ifs. Nor is it fair or legal to terminate parental rights simply because a parent might... just might abuse her child. There have been people who were brought up in loving stable homes that went on to become seriously disturbed people. Many of those people committed crimes of violence towards family members as well. On the other hand-- many people who were abused as children did not go on to abuse their children.

Dr. Deitzen diagnosed me with traits of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That diagnosis wasn't even mentioned until the very end of my CPS case. I assert that I should sue the State for causing me to suffer from PTSD. My experience in dealing with CPS was the most traumatic experience in my entire 44 years of life on this earth! Furthermore, I was never treated for PTSD. So one could say that the state failed to provide all necessary and reasonably available services-- though they are required to do so by law.

I will be composing a letter to Dr. Deitzen requesting my entire client file from her. I will request copies of the exact tests that I marked on. I will be asking for the manual or other method of evaluating the tests that I took. I will be asking her for all documentation in the client file... be it her clinical notes from our sessions, her notes from our initial meeting with me and my attorney Mr. Callen, an exhaustive list of all collateral information that she reviewed and so forth. In short, I will be asking for a copy of everything in the client file.

Strengths of Denise Dopkins (mother)

Before I gave birth to Micah

When I discovered that I was pregnant with my son, I was full of joy and excited to experience giving birth. I soon sought out a pregnancy counselor. A close friend helped me locate a pregnancy counseling service ‘Life Services’. Though not required by law to do this, I wanted to do so in preparation for the very important responsibility of caring for and nurturing my baby boy. I wanted the very best for Micah. I did enroll in the Life Services and faithfully attended all appointments with Ms. Snider. I earned points towards baby items by attending sessions, watching educational videos and doing homework. I learned much valuable information in the process. In short, this was just one more example of evidence that I was fully aware of the necessity to provide the best and safest upbringing of my son.

I was pressured by Micah's father to terminate the pregnancy. He even hauled me all over town to obtain a 'morning after pill'. When I visited the Planned Parenthood clinic- he waited out in his vehicle for me to speak with someone there. I received the pills with directions on how and when to take them. I purposely botched the effectiveness of the medication by throwing it away. I wanted this baby and I do not agree with or believe in abortion. I truly wanted Micah then and I still do.

I enrolled in the WIC program and began regularly receiving medical and nutritional information throughout my pregnancy. I kept all of my appointments with the Public Health Nurse at the WIC office.

I received regular and consistent prenatal care and I did abide by all of my doctor’s advice and instructions regarding medical aspects of pregnancy.

I enrolled in Lamaze classes and enlisted my very close friends Marge McAlpin and Rita Clark to come to the classes with me, which they very willingly did. I opted to not include Micah's father for obvious reasons. We were not planning to raise Micah together. We never planned to get married. We never lived together or planned to do so. We no longer had an intimate relationship.

-------------------------
After I gave birth to Micah

I was allowed to take Micah home from the hospital, with the understanding that I would abide by a signed safety contract. I had signed the contract in the hospital, under severe duress and terrified that they would take Micah from the hospital if I did not cooperate with the social worker. (By cooperate, she meant that I needed to sign various consent forms for personal information and the safety contract as well. She also forced the issue of holding a conversation with me regarding any number of topics, including, but not limited to mental health history, drug and alcohol history, criminal history, childhood abuse issues and more.) She then proceeded to twist and turn my words and she blew everything way out of proportion in her petition to the judge for the removal of my son from my care and custody.

Once home with Micah, I realized that he was excessively fussy and constantly cried. I was not getting 20 minutes of rest at any time around the clock. I was up and down continually, nursing Micah and attempting to soothe and comfort him. During this time period of 5 days, I was also contending with post birth medical issues. I was taking very strong pain medication which made me deliriously sleepy, yet I was getting no sleep. I was wearing a catheter, due to a cut bladder and had to remember amongst other things, to empty the bag. I was trying to recuperate from a Cesarean surgery and overexerting by getting up and down so many times to tend to Micah. I opted to enlist the assistance of my pregnancy counselor and close friends and I did not enlist the assistance of Micah's father Mr. Barrett. At my pregnancy counselor's advice, I chose to leave Micah at the Vanessa Behan Crises Nursery so that I could get some immediate and temporary respite. I also attempted to figure out what could possibly be the problem causing Micah to be so excessively fussy. I called my doctor and he strongly advised me to stop breast feeding. He indicated that the medications I was taking could have been causing discomfort in Micah. I did stop breast feeding at that time.

Once involved with CPS, I sought out a counselor for myself—while waiting for the social worker to provide referrals. The counselor I chose assessed me and found me to not fit the criteria for the services offered by Family Service Spokane. I was apparently not severely ill enough to be accepted as a client in their program. As it turns out, the counselor reported that the CPS social worker (Gina Miles) became hostile toward her about the fact that she did not provide a negative enough report regarding me. Ms. Miles also demanded my private client information, which the counselor informed her she would not provide to her without my written consent. Ms. Miles accusatorily asked this counselor if I had informed her of various incidents from my past. This counselor informed her that yes, I had indeed informed her of the facts Ms. Miles referred to. Ms. Miles became angry and hostile at her answers. This counselor responded by saying to Ms. Miles “If you are this hostile towards me, I can only imagine how you treat Denise”. Evidence of this report can be located in the client file with Family Service Spokane.

I may not have the exact wording, however, Court Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur has stated in court that she commends my articulateness, intelligence, doggedness, will to survive, love for my son, and the fact that I have not abused drugs or alcohol. She has likely said more positive than that, however, this is what I recall from immediate memory. Court transcripts would reflect her exact words.

My counselor, Carla Paullin has repeatedly stated to me that she firmly believes that I should become employed doing some kind of legal research, perhaps even for a law firm. She commends my persistence, dedication and attention to detail, articulateness, intelligence and so forth. She has stated to me more than once, very emphatically that “Denise, we have got to get you a job doing what you do so well!” (Referring to my dedication to fighting for the safe return of my child… which has necessitated an active role in assisting in my own defense. This has included much legal research, reading, letter writing, and information gathering for my attorney and so forth.

Mistakes made by Denise Dopkins (mother)

Under extreme duress and terrified that the state could take my baby from me permanently, I chose to marry Charles F. Benvegar. We did indeed lie in court and to the Department regarding the nature of our relationship. Given the not so truthful or accurate petition of Melly Keith, I felt desperate to prevent the permanent termination of my relationship with my son and I made some very poor decisions. The petition stated allegations of mental health disorders, lack of paternal interest in my son; that the mother is single, indigent and unlikely to be able to defend against the father of Micah. I thought that if presented as married, financially supported and capable of defending against Mr. Barrett, I would have a far better chance of regaining custody of my son. Furthermore, April Pearce (my attorney at the time) convinced me that the court could take Micah from me permanently merely because the father is a convicted sex offender. (See letter dated mid February 2006, located in social file confirming, on the other hand, that social worker Patricia Murman stated to me that Micah could not be taken from me regarding Mr. Barrett if I did not allow unsupervised contact between him and my son.) I have never allowed unsupervised contact between the father and Micah. I even chose not to enlist the father’s assistance when Micah was in my care... even though there was not a court order stipulating such action. I chose instead to call my pregnancy counselor and other supportive friends for assistance. Note: Ms. Murman’s failure to respond to my documentation of our conversation indicated to me her agreement with my version and interpretation of it. (Referring to Ms. Murman's and my February 2006 conversation about the father of Micah.)

Regarding the paragraph directly above, Mr. Callen asked me in court if Ms. Murman had ever informed me that I could have absolutely no contact with Mr. Barrett. I answered that no she had not. I wished I had addressed the letter regarding the conversation between Ms. Murman and me from February 2006. As usual, I was too terrified to say much of anything in court and relied solely on my attorneys to speak in my behalf. I relied on them to relay to the court everything I asked them to address. As I have stated before, they did not get everything into the record that I asked them to-- or that was necessary to preserve for appeal. Mr. Callen... as well as Ms. Pearce had opportunities to get information into the record, however, did not act on those opportunities.

Facts regarding alleged ‘mental illness’ (mother’s)

I would first like to mention another mother's story so that my readers might more clearly understand why I assert that CPS and the Superior Court judge were unjust in their success at terminating the relationship between my son Micah and me. Please click on the following link to read the story of another mother whom dealt with social service workers. Kim Noble: A woman devided.

As my Public Defender Mr. Callen asked in his comments regarding the appeal-- does a mother's mental disabilities preclude her from raising her child? In response to that comment I would just say that I still assert that the Department did not prove that any alleged psychological or emotional problems in me prevents me from caring for my son. Furthermore, even Judge O'Connor stated in her own ruling that there is some disagreement between the doctors as to whether or not I suffer from any personality or psychological disorder. That equals that there is not clear, cogent or convincing evidence that I have a disorder that would preclude me from caring for and raising my son or that I would not protect him from any known or perspective harm. Read the story of Kim Noble to more clearly understand why I make the assertion that I am not incapable of caring for my son. I already proved to them that I am capable of protecting my son in that I did not enlist the assistance of Mr. Barrett in my time of need when Micah was in my care and custody. Again- I did not enlist his assistance, even when there was not a court order prohibiting me from doing so. I do not require a court to order me to separate Mr. Barrett and Micah because I would do it on my own. There is documented evidence to back this up. When I stated in court that I would keep the father and Micah separated without DCFS approved supervision if a court's order required it, I just meant that I would also abide by the court's order. I did not mean to insinuate that I would need a court's order... just that I would not violate any court's order.

During the past two and one half years, I have exhibited very minimal, if any of the criteria for the various diagnoses that the Department is stating to the court. Refer to the necessary criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder or Dysthymia. They also list paranoia. I do not agree that I am paranoid. I do believe that I have well founded reason for being distrusting of the Department. I have never been under as severe duress as I have suffered during this dependency action. Studies show that I would have reacted completely differently than I have if I indeed suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, Dysthymia or paranoia disorders. I believe I may have been incorrectly diagnosed when I was younger. Furthermore, in my distant past, I responded far more irrationally over far less stressful situations than what I have endured for the past three and one half years.

I do not feel that the Department has accurately specified how alleged mental health problems directly affect my ability to parent effectively. I do not feel it has been proved by clear, cogent or convincing evidence that any mental health condition in me renders me currently unfit to parent. Anything that they have said is open ended and full of vagueness. I believe the Department has made a generic, open ended statement in the termination petition: They allege that the mother has a severe psychological disorder that prevents her from effectively parenting. They can say anything, however, they must prove their claims, especially when a well known and respected psychologist has concluded that I do not suffer from any severe psychological or personality disorder. Do I have some emotional baggage from my history of child abuse and maltreatment, likely yes. Does it rise to the level of a disorder rendering me unfit or unable to safely and effectively parent my son? Absolutely not.

The Department finally arranged a ‘psychiatric evaluation’ 5 months into this Dependency action… very untimely. Dr. David Bot merely spoke with me for about 50 minutes, asking me questions regarding documents he obtained from the Department. (Old history of mental health diagnosis and treatment.) He did not conduct any paper testing of any kind, such as the MMPI test. There was no current hard data to analyze. He just rubber stamped an old history and allegations of the Department. He provided diagnosis based on a conversation with me lasting less than one hour. Dr. Bot even went so far as to accuse me of “getting off on the wrong foot by choosing to make the Department my enemy rather than my ally”. I have never viewed CPS as my friend and I certainly did not make them my enemy. They have done a good job at that of their own initiative.

Facts regarding the Department’s alleged concern about Douglas Barrett

The Department fails to recall that they determined in the beginning of this Dependency action that Douglas and I were not living together, had never lived together, were no longer romantically involved and did not intend to parent Micah together. (Never mind the fact that they also determined that referral allegations to be unfounded.)

The Department fails to recall that I protected my son from Mr. Barrett during the time Micah was in my custody and care. They fail to recall that I did not enlist Mr. Barrett’s assistance when Micah was so excessively fussy and he did not attempt to pursue contact with Micah. I chose instead to call my pregnancy counselor and other supports for assistance. In essence, I did not violate the safety contract I signed in the hospital and I proved that I was capable of keeping the father and Micah apart without DCFS approved supervision… despite the fact that I was not court ordered to do so at that time. All of this was made clear to Commissioner Jolicoeur in the beginning of this dependency action.

The Department fails to recall a ruling of Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur during the very early part of this Dependency action. (Documentation of her ruling is located in the legal file dated approximately April of 2005.) She ruled that ‘nothing prevents the Department from placing with the mother on or before the next review hearing.’ The commissioner made this ruling with full knowledge of the fact that Mr. Barrett and I were associating. The Department is fully aware of her ruling and of her finding of fact regarding this issue.

Mr. Barrett has willingly relinquished his parental rights to Micah. He is not any part of the Dependency action and does not wish to pursue contact with Micah.

Mr. Barrett’s psychiatrist, Dr. Ed Averett did not recommend against supervised visitation, which leads me to believe that he did not deem him a high risk of harm to Micah. Furthermore, Mr. Barrett has received a notice from the Sheriff's department that he is eligible to apply to not be required to register his residence location because he was released from prison over 10 years ago and has not been in any trouble with the law since then. He has also been determined to be a level one offender, least likely to re-offend. If the Department of Corrections is not concerned that Mr. Barrett is a risk of harm to children such that they encourage him to apply to not be required to register his residence with the Sheriff's department-- in addition to all of the measures I have taken to keep Micah and him separated, then I am confused about why CPS makes such an issue of him now. Furthermore, Mr. Barrett has not proceeded to request that he not have to register his residence anymore. He also owns his own home now and is not transient as he was during my CPS case. They have enough evidence to conclude that I certainly would not allow contact between Mr. Barrett and Micah, however, they act as if they do not. I am perfectly capable of protecting my son from him or any other known, perceived or perspective harm. I must clarify that in pointing out the positives of Mr. Barrett's situation, I am not suggesting that he be allowed unsupervised contact with my son. He further has shown no interest in contact with my son. I am merely stating facts as per his psychiatrist and DOC's reports. Refer also to a case the Washington Appellate Project prevailed in regarding the state's accusation regarding a convicted abuser of a child.
Title of Case: Docket Number: 59291-2 In Re The Dep. Of M.s.d, Kyisha Davis, App V. State Of Wash., Dshs, Respondent; File Date: 02/04/2008

During the last few years, I have been amicable with Mr. Barrett. We have talked on the phone and occasionally met for coffee. I have updated him on the status of the Dependency case as well as the status of the paternity action when it was pending. He has occasionally given me rides to services and to do things such as laundry or grocery shopping. That ceased in August of 2006. We have not been sexually involved since shortly after I became pregnant. Micah has not been any part of my interactions with Mr. Barrett. He has not ever been around Mr. Barrett without DCFS approved supervision. The Department has no reason to believe that I would ever allow contact between Mr. Barrett and Micah. They are again basing their allegations on what ifs and not requisite evidence of parental unfitness. Again, the Department has every reason to believe that I would NOT allow contact between Micah and Mr. Barrett… based upon my choosing not to enlist Mr. Barrett’s assistance when Micah was in my care. Many women would have enlisted their boyfriend/ex boyfriend to help them, however, I did not. That separates me from those that would.

As far as I know, parents are afforded the right to associate with people who have been in trouble in their past, as long as their children are protected from any potential or known harm and as long as the parent is not participating in criminal activity with such persons. Fit parents are capable of protecting their children from potential or known harm. Many people have been known to help people who have been in trouble, however, they are not punished by the removal of their children from their care and custody. The Department has speculated that I am not capable of effectively parenting my child, however, they have not proved it. This is again an issue of ‘what ifs’ and not clear, cogent and convincing evidence that I would harm my child or allow him to be harmed while in my custody.

Additional issues for consideration

I wish for the higher court(s) to know that many of my answers and statements in court during the entire duration of the Dependency action, as well as the termination trial were made out of fear. I did not lie merely to lie or to be deceitful. I was desperate to be reunited with my baby. I was terrified. This entire experience with CPS has been the most terrifying, oppressive and emotionally torturous one I have ever endured in my life. I even confessed to false guilt in my desperate attempt to say whatever they wanted to hear and to hopefully appease them so they would release my son to me. Obviously, it does not matter what you say or do, right or wrong-it is all subjective and if CPS wants to keep your baby and adopt him out, they usually succeed. I have heard far too many devastated parents speak of the same experiences that I have suffered at the hands of the child welfare system as it operates today. For heavens sake-- Senator Nancy Schaefer, other political figures and national leaders met on 09-26-08 in Washington DC to discuss, as Senator herself says 'the financial and moral corruption' within the CPS arena. Senator Schaefer is horrified at the awful things that CPS gets away with and the paths of destruction they leave behind-- all for the almighty dollar. (1.Adoption incentive-- financial bonuses for every child they adopt out... and even more when they exceed the set quotas. 2. Funds to keep children in state care. The longer CPS can string a case out-- the more money the agency gets and the more likely they are to succeed at terminating the parents relationship with his/her child and then adopt them out.) She further wishes to do something about it in order to curtail many of the horrific actions of agents of CPS and to protect families near and far-- from the unnecessary break up of their homes. I only wish I wasn't so terrified during my encounter with CPS so that I could have spoken every word of which I am able to say in document format. I am better at writing or composing than I ever could muster up courage enough to speak it all in court. I'm not certain that I could even think straight enough in court to be able to remember everything that I should say. This is precisely why I never wanted to represent myself in any legal proceeding of any kind. Mr. Callen constantly advised me to not file motions or documents on my own, so I didn't. I chose to abide by his advice.

Interestingly enough, animals will kill or severely wound anyone or anything that so much as approach their young. Human mothers, on the other hand, are expected to keep their cool, comply with anything CPS demands- whether it is necessary or not, show undying gratitude for CPS very presence in their family's life, and admit to anything CPS asserts or says. If you fight back or disagree with anything they say- they retaliate and cause unbearable suffering. They use it against the parent and accuse them of being non-compliant or obnoxious-- even denying them any more than the minimal amount of visitation with their children. Then, while the legal battle rages on, time also is wasted. Time is almost always the parent's enemy when dealing with CPS. Time is nearly always CPS's friend- because the more time that passes, the more likely they are to be successful in convincing a judge that there is 'no time for progress' and terminate the parent-child relationship. (Never mind the small fact that in this case, and I fear many other cases, the Department fails to clearly explain what 'progress in services' means... or what I must specifically do in order to receive my child back in to my care and custody. They are very vague and generic in their statements. They provide excellent opportunity for treatment providers such as Susan Elg to make general negative statements such as 'concerns exist' or 'concerns still exist' or 'there is a social bond, however, there is not an emotional connection or an emotional bond between mother and child'. How do they know that? If you agree with CPS, they use that against the parent by saying that after all, they agree that they have problems severe enough to warrant the removal of their child from their care and custody. I never intended anything I said to be interpreted as that. It is a losing battle for the parent either way. There really is no accountability where CPS is concerned-- and the parents can be punished, regardless of what they do or say, right or wrong.

Who decides when a parent-child relationship is good enough, absent abuse or neglect? As Mr. Callen did say (I believe it was during the termination trial), "the Department is painting with a very wide brush" in this case. I believe that the Department and court is playing God where they have no business. (Refer to: If there is no abuse or neglect and no clear, cogent or convincing evidence that Micah would be in imminent danger of harm if left in my care, why has he not been placed back with me, his own mother? Again, they base their decisions on what ifs and speculation. Mere statistics do not merit the removal of children from their parents and certainly does not justify the permanent severing of the parent-child relationship.

I believe I am a victim of legal abuse. I truly believe I have suffered at the hands of the legal system within Juvenile court. I feel that the parents and defense attorneys are not really listened to in Juvenile courts. Even when public defenders actually do their job in defending their clients, they are often ignored and brushed aside so that the Department gets what they want from the court. I believe the testimony of Department contracted treatment providers, DCFS social workers and Guardian Ad litems hold far more weight than that of the parent and/or their attorney… often times public defenders. I further believe and have personal experience/documented evidence to substantiate my belief that public defenders often do not make certain to get everything into the record... as in this case. The fact of the matter really is that even the attorneys are actively involved in assuring that the parent's are permanently separated from their children. They do so by failing/refusing to bring forth a vigorous defense for the clients.

At the third of three meetings that I held with the Department, my attorney and some of my close friends, I was informed that the reason I was not offered any other services than that of Susan Elg in the earlier stages of this case was because-- and I quote Lisa Lydon: "You weren't ready for services at that time." I could not believe my ears! Her statement was in response to my question "Why hasn't the Department offered or provided any other reasonably available services in the duration of this case" If I 'wasn't ready'... ready for what? If I 'wasn't ready'... why was I in services with Susan Elg? What really was her purpose as the treatment provider in this case?

Somebody flat lied about the accusation of seeing me with Douglas Barrett behind his booth in the park in September of 2007. I even asked Ms. Murman who made this accusation and, as is her general practice in this case, she failed to answer me. I believe it was therapist Carla Paullin who testified to this at the termination trial. When I questioned Ms. Paullin about it- she informed me that Ms. Murman informed her that someone had told her that they saw me in the park with Mr. Barrett. This was hearsay in court. My attorney and I refuted their claim in court as well, however, the Department was never forced to come forward with evidence of their accusation. I did do some research and found that Mr. Barrett did not even have a booth in the park that year.

The issue of Domestic violence in my history has been used as another reason to keep Micah from me. I have read some case law that states that even if a child has witnessed the act of violence in the home-- it is not legal to remove that child from his home merely based on that fact. I would assume also then, that since Micah has never witnessed any violence from me towards him or anyone else, the state can not permanently separate me from him due to past history of domestic violence.

I was forced to sign consent forms throughout the Dependency action, against my will. It is supposedly a person's right to refuse to sign anything, however, the juvenile court ordered me to sign releases of information anytime it was requested of me. I was also ordered to sign consent forms to allow any and all parties to the Dependency action to collaborate, share provider's reports and discuss my case with one another. I was basically forced to sign blanket forms allowing open ended and indefinite consent for communication and information sharing between providers, the Guardian Ad litem and attorneys. I tried to refuse through Mr. Callen, however, he encouraged me to sign the consent forms. I did so under protest. I tend to believe that the treatment providers and the Department, GAL and attorneys would collaborate and share information regardless of whether they had consent forms anyway. If they were allowed to do so anyway, then why was I asked and further ordered to sign consent forms?

In several documented cases where the termination a parents rights was overturned, it speaks of the parent having completed various services, such as parenting class, anger management class, and so forth. For example-- see Washington Appellate Project case: "In the matter of the Dependency of T.L.G." where it talks about the appellant having completed specific courses or services. In my case, to my recollection, there was never any completion date stated or even in sight. There was never any specified completion date for services with Ms. Elg or any other so-called service that I participated in. I was never informed of exactly what was expected of me in order to receive my son back into my care and custody. There was always open ended circle talk about it. They spoke in vague terms. For example: "Make progress in services" or "Work on your relationship with your son" or "Bond with your son". This is the kind of direction I was given in the entire duration of this case. This directly conflicts with the law that mandates that "The agency plan shall specify what services the parents will be offered to enable them to resume custody, what requirements the parents must meet to resume custody, and a time limit for each service plan and parental requirement". (RCW 13.34.136 (2) (b) (i)

I believe it is not in the best interests of any child Micah's age to suddenly have all ties with his mother cut off. Especially when she is the one and only constant in his young life. I never abused or harmed my son in any way. The sad fact here is that the adoptive parents are punishing me for refusing to sign an open adoption agreement and willingly relinquish my parental rights. Furthermore, if I had won this appeal, a substantial amount of time would have passed. How is it in the best interests of a child to first be suddenly cut off from the one and only constant in his life thus far, and then, if the court had ruled in my favor, to be torn from a home he has know for the better part of his life and placed with someone who is once again none more than a stranger to him. Make no mistake in misunderstanding my statement-- I do not mean to suggest that I don't want my son back in my care and custody. I want to be reunited with him very much so. I think he should be placed back with me. I am just concerned for his well being due to the horrific actions of the Department and court. (The unnecessary prolonged out of home placement and the severe lack of interaction allowed by the court during such placement.) At the same time, I am worried that the higher court would order him to remain in the home he is in-- once again using the logic that it would be detrimental to his well being to be taken from the home he has know for the better part of his life. This is the exact problem that the system as it stands today causes. It is a crying shame. Something must be done to prevent this. If a parent has not harmed or abused their child(ren), they should be allowed at least supervised visitation throughout an appeals process, so the child can stay familiar with their parents and therefore make the transition back into their care far less traumatic... should the higher court rule in the parent's favor. Instead, the parent is cut off at the knees so to speak... even though the parents were never even accused of abuse or neglect. The state proclaims its sincerest sorrow for the abuse a parent suffered as a child and then proves its supposed sympathy by severing any interaction what-so-ever.

I recall that Micah was constantly asking to come back home with me to visit after his Christmas home visit with me. He was familiar with me. He liked me. We had fun together and I believe he knew I loved him. We cherished our time together. It is so hurtful to recall how Ms. Elg and the Guardian Ad litem repeatedly stated that Micah "tolerated visits well" with his mother. What kind of statement is that? He either did or did not enjoy his time with me. The Department and providers make contradictory statements regarding the nature of visits between my son and me.

I must explain my main purpose for composing this document. I do so in large part to paint a clear picture of exactly how much I had to endure in my attempts to appease the Department. I also wish to convey how upset I have been and the very legitimate reasoning behind it. I feel, as do many others, including several therapists I have interviewed since the termination of my parental rights, some friends, and many others nationwide, that I have handled extremely well- the duress and fear I have suffered for nearly five years, not to forget the retaliatory actions and cruel and unreasonable accusations of the Department. I have not reacted in many of the ways various diagnoses would indicate that I would- if indeed they were accurate diagnoses. For example, despite the horrific duress the court and CPS subjected me to, I have not once threatened to or attempted to commit suicide, hence, I am not suicidal. I have not threatened anyone or their property with physical harm. I remained in services for a considerable amount of time- even though it seemed very oppressive to me. (For example, I did not refuse to continue seeing my son under the observation of Ms. Elg when she informed me back in December of 2006 that she was going to recommend decrease in my visitation time with Micah.) Though I certainly had the right to demand to visit with my son elsewhere, I did not. At the advice of my attorney, and seemingly to my demise, I chose to stay put until such time as the court would allow me to visit Micah somewhere other than that of Susan Elg's office. I was compliant, flexible and congenial during services with Ms. Elg, even though we did not have a healthy, trusting or therapeutic working relationship, and despite the fact that she gave a lot of circle talk and psycho babble to me when I asked questions regarding issues of bonding and attachment and disciplinary issues. When I did receive answers from her, she would often contradict herself and sometimes change the rules- if you will- after she had instructed me one way. She did this in the presence of Micah. She regularly undermined my parental authority and confused my son in the process. I did not violate court orders. I did it all in the best interest of my son and in order to be reunited with him.

People should not have to be afraid of the government or any of its agencies/agents. People near and far are afraid of CPS. Once they have been involved with CPS and if their children are ever returned to them, they tend to always watch their backs and continue to be terrified that CPS will again take their children. I know that I will always fear CPS if my son is ever returned to me.

People should not have to be afraid to use community services, such as Vanessa Behan Crises Nursery in Spokane, WA. They commend parents for being brave enough to ask for help. (Q6 news commercial for a fund raiser for the Nursery.) Parents should not have to be afraid of losing their children to the state as punishment for taking action to protect their children. Yet, I fear that so many are punished that way. Prior to the parent leaving their children at the Nursery, they ought to be required to forewarn the parents that Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery staff may contact CPS. What happens then? CPS gets involved... meets the parents at the door of the Nursery and takes their children from them. Then, the nightmare begins. As it operates today, CPS doesn't need a real concrete reason to remove children from their parents custody... never mind the fact that the law mandates that they do. Just a suspicion that they might... just might be in harms way. CPS is required by law to make Reasonable Efforts to keep the family together in their own home while providing community services to correct any alleged problems. They promise parents that if they cooperate and sign safety contracts and any number of other consents for information that the parents can keep their children. Often not true! They are not allowed to work the safety contract that they were likely frightened and intimidated into signing and then CPS begins their efforts to build a case against the parents... generally by way of their own 'department contracted treatment providers' negative reports, winding the clock down so that they can file a termination petition and ultimately permanently separate the children from their parents... even adopting them out to perspective adoptive couples. (Not only do these couples receive money and other benefits during the foster care period, they also receive subsidy payments and any other number of benefits, even after the adoptions are final.) Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery is a breeding ground for the permanent removal of children from their parents.

I have copies of the questions and 'answers' from the three meetings that I held with the DCFS/CPS the AAG, my attorney and some of my supportive friends. At each of these meetings, which, by the way, were at my request, many of the answers I received were vague, confusing and appalling. For example: It was stated in a report to the court that "There is no question but that Ms. Dopkins loves her son and enjoys her time with him." When I asked the social worker to define the word love, the AAG butted in and directed me to the dictionary for the definition. The Department of CPS couldn't even define its own statement to the court! The AAG, Ms. Lydon and the social worker, Patricia Murman routinely sidestepped questions and referred me back to the legal file, which, coincidentally, the AAG did not bring with her to any of the meetings we attended together. As a matter of fact, at the third and final meeting, Ms. Lydon informed us that she had accidentally brought the wrong legal file. She actually brought someone Else's file! Interestingly enough, Ms. Lydon initially cancelled the scheduled date for that meeting, stating that she needed 'more time to better prepare' to answer my questions, of which she already had a copy. (email verification of her request to cancel the meeting.) Then, she still came unprepared to answer my questions and concerns. Also-- for the record, other than the meeting that was held back when Micah was still residing with Rita Clark in 2005, I was never invited to even one staffing or team meeting of any sort. The statutes mandate the Department to include the parents in the planning of their treatment regimen. The Department failed to include me. I had to demand to be included in my own 'treatment' plan and when I did, they begrudgingly included me. The social worker, AAG, treatment providers and even my own attorney looked entirely annoyed at having to attend a meeting to clarify the specific goals and behaviors (RCW 13.34.030(17)(f) and RCW 13.34.136(2)(b)(1) that would be expected prior to the return of my son to my care and custody.

The one thing I would loudly warn parents to do is to REFUSE to speak with any state agent without the presence of an attorney to assist them. My biggest mistake was to ever speak with that social worker in the hospital without an attorney present. This should never be allowed in the hospitals. Mothers should not be allowed to be jumped by social workers without any warning or defense. An attorney would prevent the social worker from bullying the defenseless mother into thinking she was obligated to answer any questions or even agree to any conversation with him/her. Social workers will use everything you say against you. They will twist and turn your words. They will tell half truths and even outright lie in court reports to get a judge to order the removal of your baby from your care and custody. Social workers are not there to help you-- but to gather anything they possibly can to start building a false case against you. Once they have you under Juvenile Court's jurisdiction, they use their whores of the court to cement their case against you. By whores of the court, I mean to say therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, "parenting assessors", gaurdian ad litems, visitation monitors, foster parents, and the list goes on and on. Then the circle talk starts. All of the many catch phrases the state uses day in and day out in court. The judges and commissioners are well aware of all the catch phrases. Such as "lack of bonding" or "marginal progress" or "no time for progress" or "permanency for the child" or "in the best interests of the child". The vagueness of the entire process is sickening. There is no expectation of CPS or its cohorts to back anything they say with evidence. If they say it... it must be true. Then the judges and commissioners rubber stamp anything they request in court... right or wrong. Just or unjust. Doesn't matter- as long as their are children being run through the system, all is well and the federal funds continue to flow in. All of the jobs held by all of the whores of the court remain in tact as long as their are children languishing in foster care. Successful adoptions also bring in federal funds as bonuses for those adoptions. It keeps the foster-adopt industry going strong. Remember, many of those wonderful foster parents are really only planning and scheming to adopt you child. It is a set up from the start. Your child is placed in what is referred to as a pre-adopt home. This is where the social worker begins to attempt to strengthen the bond between your child and the foster care providers. She also works at weakening and destroying the bond between your child and you. Then this is brought into court and used against the defenseless mother... the mother who has continually begged for more time with her child to no avail-- bacause it fall upon deaf ears. The goal of CPS and Juvenile courts is not to keep your family together or to reunify the family. It is rather to destroy the family unit in order to manufacture state funded homes. Sounds mellow dramatic? Read former Nancy Schaefer's scathing report titled "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services".

I must say that my appeal was unsuccessful. I received the mandate from the so called Washington State Appellate Court that my case has been completely closed and denied. Never mind the fact that my appellate attorneys repeatedly informed me throughout the appellate process that I had a "strong case". Never mind also the fact that they informed me repeatedly that they believed I was railroaded by CPS and family court. Never mind also the fact that my appellate attorneys informed me that-- "if CPS can take your baby for the reasons it asserted, it seems that ALL PARENTS are at risk of having their children removed from their care". My attorneys informed me also that the State appellate court only wanted to hear cases that affected people on a 'systemic level'. I guess I have to wonder what constitutes a "systemic level" in the eyes of the appellate courts. Apparently, the fact that CPS and juvenile courts railroad thousands of families everyday does not have any bearing on what cases it hears or rejects. The Appellate Courts are as unjust as the 'trial courts' in this nation. I mock the term trial courts because, in the context of Family courts, it is more appropriate to refer to them as kangaroo courts... considering the lack of due process transparency and justice for families. When we consider all of the blatant law and civil rights violations committed by DCFS and Juvenile court commissioners/judges... and the appellate courts ignore those violations, it is no wonder defenseless moms permanently lose their children and have no further recourse for receiving redress for the grievances committed against them and their children. My attorneys also informed me that the appellate courts didn't want to listen to "fact intensive" cases. I assume then-- that the greater the amount of factual violations committed by CPS and juvenile courts equals the lesser chance of receiving justice from the appellate courts.

Following is a list of all the players in my case;
Investigative social worker Melly Keith (Esmeralda Woodruff)
Permanency planning social worker Gina Miles
Permanency planning social worker Patricia Murman
Melly Keith's supervisor: Nora Scott
Gina Miles' supervisor: Amy Schindler
Patricia Murman's supervisor: Amy Schindler and Rick Holcomb
Marty Butkovich: Region One DCFS administrator
Guardian Ad litem Martin Kolagrub
Guardian Ad litem Kim Dunham
Guardian Ad litem Diana Salinas
CASA attorney Keri Janda
Foster care providers Amy and Louis Moyer
Foster care providers James and Meegan Ware
Child therapist Susan Elg
Child therapist Carol Thomas
Child therapist Mary Anne Sacco
Adult therapist Carla Paullin
Circle of Security therapist Beth Fergin
Dr. David Bot
Dr. Mary Dietzen
Defense attorney Mark Callen
AAG Heidi Holland
AAG David Turplesmith
AAG Lisa Lydon
Court Commissioner Valerie Jolicoeur
Judge Gregory Sypolt (Superior Court judge)
Judge Kathleen O'Connor (Termination trial judge)