BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS »
Showing posts with label CPS horror stories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPS horror stories. Show all posts

Monday, September 26, 2011

Mom wins substantial award against CPS abuse of power

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

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

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Railroad: The road traveled most by parents involved with CPS

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!!!!

Monday, February 7, 2011

CPS: A FINANCIAL EMPIRE

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."

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Prosecute CPS and CASA agents for perjury!

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

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Senator Nancy Schaefer's death

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.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

CPS defined

 (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

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

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

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010

A Woman with 20 different personalities

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

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Washington Families United organization

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.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Corrupt Government

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.