CPS corruption

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

'Family' courts ignore child dependency laws

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."

CPS Abuse of Power

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

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.

Former Senator Nancy Schaefer's Death

I wish to tell the world how sad and shocked I am at the news of former Senator Schaefer and her husband's untimely and recent death. I actually feel lost without Nancy Schaefer's presence in this world. She was a very vocal advocate for parents and children trapped in the CPS/family court system. She really cared about the most innocent victims in the CPS trap. She was extremely dedicated to warning people near and far about the dangers of falling prey to the cruelties and illegalities of the corrupt CPS system. She had very little, if anything positive to say about CPS. She wrote a scathing report titled: "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services" where she rightfully asserts that CPS is a financial empire built upon tearing loving families apart and adopting the children out to people in the 'foster-adopt' industry. As she states in her article, the states receive financial bonuses for every child they successfully adopt out. Mrs. Schaefer said so much more about the corruption within the CPS and family court system in her report. I have posted the link to the report at the end of this post. It is really a shocking unveiling of the true intentions of the so called child welfare system.

Again, I am so saddened by the deaths of Mrs. and Mr. Schaefer. Now there are two less voices advocating against the cruelties and illegal actions of that governmental department. I also hope the mainstream media and major news papers in every part of this nation will at least mention the fact of the former senator and her husband's passing. It is very suspect that they do not get so much as a mention in local media and journalism everywhere in this nation, yet Ted Kennedy's passing was all over the news everywhere for at least several days following. I firmly believe the media is afraid to broach the subject of the Schaefer's passing due to the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of people nationwide who strongly suspect that the government had something to do with it-- namely CPS. Furthermore, the very few small news papers that have mentioned the Schaefer's passing have neglected to even touch on the fact that it is suspected that CPS had something to do with their deaths. They don't even touch on the fact that Mrs. Schaefer stood up to the corruption within CPS and the family court system. The articles ONLY speak of Mrs. Schaefer's views on subjects such as religion, the fact that she was against abortion and gay/lesbian relations, however, nothing about her advocacy for parental rights or that she went up against the wrongdoings within the CPS system. As a matter of fact, she wrote and tried to pass a bill that would have curtailed their illegalities and fraudulent ways. That cost her the senate seat she held at that time. Otherwise known as political suicide. Now she has lost her life. I do not buy the assertion the Mr. and Mrs. Schaefer had a murder-suicide pact, however, want to know if that was indeed what happened. If that is truly the cause of their deaths, I want to have concrete evidence. I suspect rather, that that is just a cover-up story. I also wish to know that no rock had been unturned in the invesigative process that is supposedly being conducted.

Following is a link to many articles by former senator Nancy Schaefer. Read 'em all... however, regarding CPS issues, please pay special attention to the following title within that list:

*UPDATED 9-25-2008 The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services

Child Protective Services true intentions

Over the years, I have been taken to task by CPS people for calling them KIDNAPPERS.


Oh the sanctimony! "We aren't kidnapping kids. We are doing what is in their 'best interest", you see? If it weren't for us watching out for kids 'best interest' they would be getting whippings and held responsible for their actions. If it weren't for us, some kids would DIE!"

Yeah well.. Want to see the LAW about that?

18 U.S.C. § 1203 : US Code - Section 1203: Hostage taking

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

So let's talk about the typical CPS case. What happens? CPS receives a "complaint". CPS acts on that "complaint". To "err on the side of caution", they remove the child from his/her home.

What's wrong with that?

There's the minor detail of the CHILD'S Fourth Amendment Right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Why not arrest the alleged "perpetrator" instead?

Because that would be a CRIMINAL charge and the alleged perpetrator would receive his

Miranda, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights and Constitutional DUE PROCESS.

Instead, parents get dragged with no defense through the unconstitutional family court system, trying to make CPS happy so they can get their kids back. See What Happens in the Fog

The child of course has not gotten a blessed thing but his absurd new "Best Interest Civil Right".

Happily, some of this "problem" was recently addressed in the Greene v. Camreta case. So now it is "discovered" that American kids actually have Constitutional Rights that certainly overcomes the "best interest" sacred cow of European Socialism.

So what about the legal definition of Kidnapping "...detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so.."

Well bunkie, what do you think about volunteering your Constitutional Rights away to "cooperate" with CPS and signing a Safety Plan?

These monsters aren't going to GIVE you your Constitutional Rights. If you don't KNOW your Constitutional Rights and DEMAND them, you are a slave.

In US. vs. Johnson, 76 F.Supp. 538, 540 (1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that-

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. "The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.” -Ezra Pound

COMMENT on this story at AFRA's new "Intense Debate" page





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

"Better be wise by the misfortunes of others than by your own." --Aesop (c. 550 B.C.) legendary Greek fabulist

If CPS hasn't attacked YOUR FAMILY yet, see If you are ever approached by anyone from social services.... and WHEN THEY COME AFTER YOU

Learn as much as you can, as fast as you can at "How To Fight CPS"-

http://familyrights.us/how_to/fight_cps.html


Get YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY ON THE RECORD with your Sworn Affidavit-

http://familyrights.us/bin/FORMS/sworn_affidavit.html



Leonard Henderson, co-founder

American Family Rights Association

http://familyrights.us

"Until Every Child Comes Home" ©

"The Voice of America's Families" ©



Have you seen AFRA News Today?

http://familyrights.us/news


I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to give legal advice. If you need legal advice, see AFRA's Lawyer Friends who certainly are not pretenders (http://familyrights.us/info/law) I merely relate the things I learned in the past that seemed to work in my own case or things that others have related to me that worked in their cases. I provide information for free and do not expect to receive any form of payment or reward on this side of heaven. Therefore, DO NOT rely on this information as legal advice. Real Legal advice would come from a real lawyer who hates CPS and prepares a VIGOROUS DEFENSE against a negative (proving nothing happened) instead an ATTORNEY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorn) talking you into a plea bargain (http://familyrights.us/bin/The_Problem_with_Plea_Bargaining.htm)

Senators deem CPS as corrupt

Larry Holland on 'Get Your Justice Live' reports:

Washington Senator Pam Roach and Former Senator Nancy Schaefer: “CPS is Corrupt”


Lary Holland04.29.09Campaigns, Congress, Judicial Oversight, Parental Rights, Political and Advocate Tools, Programs and Resources, educational, Child Protective Services, Child Welfare Laws, CPS, CPS Abuse, CPS Neglect, Eagle Forum, Georgia, Nancy Schaefer, Nancy Schaefer Report, Pam Roach, Pam Roach Report, Senate, Washington13 CommentsWe were joined by two very special guests to discuss Child Protective Services and Parental Rights. Although these two notable figures live great distances apart, their noble goals are remarkably similar. Nancy Schaefer and Pam Roach made special appearances on Get Your Justice Live Wednesday April 29, 2009. A common theme that both leaders agreed on is that “CPS is Corrupt.”

Play in Popup


Nancy Schaefer is president of Eagle Forum of Georgia. She served in the Georgia State Senate for four years. She has been a staunch defender of parents’ rights and will also assume the position of Eagle Forum’s National Chairman of Parents’ Rights. She is president of Family Concerns, Inc. and represented Eagle Forum at the Untied Nations conferences in Beijing, Istanbul, Rome and New York. Nancy Schaefer is well-known for a scathing report titled “The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services” that was originally released on November 16, 2007 and later updated on September 25, 2008. (Download Available)

State Senator Pam Roach continues to serve in the Washington State Senate for 19 years. In the year 2000, Senator Roach and her son Representative Dan Roach became the first mother/son duo to represent the same district at the same time. Throughout her years of service she has represented the U.S. in East Timor for the International Republican Institute; hosted a radio talk show on KIRO in Seattle; and is founder of an NGO in Honduras among other accomplishments. As Judiciary chair she authored landmark bills on juvenile justice and DUI. Senator Roach chaired the Children and Family Services Committee and continues to advocate for children and parental rights. This year Senator Roach chaired a special legislative committee to shine light on the lack of accountability and trampling of parental rights by the Child Protective Services. She continues to demand accountability within Child Protective Services today.



——————————————-

You can learn more about Eagle Forum by visiting their website at http://www.eagleforum.org and also find additional resources pertaining to the Pam Roach Report at http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com. By referring your own legislators to these resources, organizations, and interviews you can supplement your own voice and positions about the “Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services” and establish a higher burden of proof on the various state programs before they are able to burgeon your family.

No matter which way you look at it, former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer as well as Washington State Senator Pam Roach believe that “Parental Rights Should Be Respected and Protected By All” and the great need for Child Protective Services to come under greater scrutiny of the general public.Please take a listen and spread the word.

The Nightmare Called Child Protective Services

The Nightmare Called
'Child Protective
Services' (CPS)

Unlicensed Bureaucrats Deny Children Their Parents -
All Based On An Anonymous Complaint

By Terry Wanston
twanston@aol.com

Educate Yourself.com

8-22-5


Imagine for a moment that you are outside playing with your children and one of them disturbs one of your neighbors. A shouting match ensued even though you have tried several times to apologize and had your child apologize. Now a couple of days later a CPS worker shows up with a report of "suspected" abuse by an anonymous tip.
They never tell you who made the report. So having nothing to hide, you let them in to see that your children are fine.
You don't think that the bruise on your sons leg from falling off his bike last week will matter. You don't think that because the kids have been out back playing in the dirt will matter or that maybe you haven't started the laundry or washed the days dishes yet, will matter. The worker leaves and says you will hear from them if it is unfounded.
They won't tell you that your adorable children fit the profile of kids that the perfect foster parents are looking for. So after a couple of days, the worker comes back with the police and takes your children. It happens everyday in this country.
You have no rights in their eyes. No warrant is needed.
Now what? In a couple of days they let you see the children if you are lucky. Your daughter's or son's hair may have been cut. They may have been examined by a doctor and or psychiatrist. The worker(a different one) now tells you that your children are saying that you abused them!
Then you go to a hearing where the worker explains to the judge or referee that you did this or that or some other form of abuse. Now you get appointed a lawyer you have never spoken to before. The lawyer says plead "no-contest" so you can get them back quicker. It happens everyday in Genesee County.

Then you get no say in court. Not a peep will they listen to. The worker just stands up there spewing unbelievable lies and you can do nothing. Then a month later you have to sign a "contract with about eight things on it that you HAVE to do in order to get your children back. If you refuse to sign, they make you sign a piece of paper that says you refused to sign (which is the same as refusing services) which they WILL use against you in court.

Now you get a visit once a week with your children for two hours. Every three months you go to a review hearing where you again don't get to speak. They continue to lie about you and say you are non-compliant. After fifteen months if the "contract" is not fulfilled they start termination proceedings.

If they terminate your rights, all future children are taken when one day old and you can't stop them. Termination is then immediate. The whole time that this is going on, your court-appointed attorney sits there. Your 4th and 14th amendment rights have been stomped on and no one cares. Your family is torn apart and no one believes you are innocent of wrong doing. Your own family won't even believe you. Now what?

You contemplate stealing your children back, you plan revenge, you go crazy or commit suicide. It happens all the time in this country.

The foster parents get subsidies for having your children in their home. Then when they adopt, the government pays all their fees, plus the government pays the state between $4,000.00 to 6,000.00 dollars for every child adopted out of foster care. They continue to pay the adoptive parents until each child turns eighteen. How do you feel now?

The media is allowed to sit in on every case of child abuse in this state. They only report the sensational ones where a child is injured or killed. Why is That? With media coverage the fraud and lies would be stopped. The "contracted doctors and psychiatrists" would be exposed and the laws may get changed.

So, I am asking that you cover the story of Emily Lake and her mother, a Michigan mother and nine year old little girl pepper sprayed TWICE by the police in PORTLAND OREGON. The mother is still NOT facing any charges but doesn't have Emily either. Can you sleep at night not doing anything? Please help us! Start covering these cases and help us expose the corruption. Most DHS, CPS,HHS or DCFS workers aren't even licensed. A law they overlook. How can someone with no license decide who is or isn't a good parent?


Thank You for reading this and doing something to help.


Terry Wanston


P.S. Go to the internet, type in "Fight CPS and Win". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Fight%2BCP

S%2Band%2BWin%22&btnG=Google%2BSearch

The stories you will find there are honest parents trying so desperately to get their children back. Approx. 26,000 children per state every year get taken. Please help.

_____

Terry Lynn Wanston is the founder of the Michigan Foundation For Childrens Rights . You can reach her at twanston@aol.com> or call her at (810)785-2224



Related

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

Portland Police Vie with Anne Frank's Captors for 'Nazi Raiders of the Century' Award (Aug. 14, 2005)



http://educate-yourself.org/cn/susandetlefsenupdatesonemilylake20agu05.shtml

Emily Lake: Interstate Child Protective Services Fraud and Abuse Case (re. Portland raid Aug. 21, 2005)



http://educate-yourself.org/cn/cpsabuseinmichigan14aug05.shtml





Disclaimer


Email This Article




MainPage

http://www.rense.com



This Site Served by TheHostPros