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

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

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

Beware Child Protective Services

Beware Child Protective Services

www.welfarewarriors.org/mwv_archive/s07/s07_cps.htm 

What Victims, Advocates, and  Mandated Reporters Need to Know

 

The following information is from the Women’s Justice Center . To read the entire document, go to www.justicewomen.com

 

Most mothers say they would rather be threatened with jail than to be threatened with the loss of her child. Such a governmental threat is invasive, terrifying, and awesome. Yet virtually all the decisions as to her fitness, compliance, and fate are decided at the lowest judicial standard of evidence: 51% of the evidence. This is the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard. It is a far cry from the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. (That is the standard the government must reach before sentencing someone to jail for even the briefest time.) 

 

The level of proof against her that CPS is required to put forth is minimal. It provides the mother little protection against any abusive, prejudiced, or discriminatory exercise of power by CPS. The low evidence burden on CPS also makes it nearly impossible for the mother to defend herself, especially against their vague accusations. 'Failure to protect', or 'she knew or should have known' don't even constitute a crime in the criminal system. Yet on those grounds children are separated from their mothers. 

 

The agency seems to be perpetually marred by a steady drumbeat of nightmare stories about CPS emanating from the very families CPS is supposed to serve. 

 

The Oppressive Swath of Danger and Damage 

 

The harm of the widespread CPS practice of removing children from non-offending parents extends far beyond the dangers and injustices to individual mothers and children. The harm extends to nearly every poor, immigrant, or minority race mother who is trying to deal with family violence. Most have heard stories of CPS removing children from other mothers in their neighborhoods. As a result, they become reluctant to seek help for their own situations for fear that the same thing might happen to them. 

 

Key Facts About Child Protective Services and Child Welfare Agencies 

 

1. In California, and Many Other States, Mandated Reporters Do NOT Have to Report to Child Protective Services. 

 

Many counselors, teachers, doctors are already sympathetic to the problems mothers experience with CPS. But they say there's nothing they can do about it. They believe they must make a report to CPS. But that's not what the law in California and many other states says. Mandated reporters in many states can choose not to report to CPS. The law gives mandated reporters a choice of institutions to which they can report. You can make your report to police, sheriffs, probation departments, or child welfare agencies. In fact, in California and many other states the mandated reporting laws put child welfare agencies last on the list of options. You have other options, and often those other options will be much more beneficial for both the mother and the child. 

 

2. CPS Does Not Have the Power to Open a Criminal Case Against the Perpetrator. Nor Do They Have the Power of Arrest. 

 

CPS agencies are not law enforcement agencies. They are social service agencies. This explains why CPS does not take action against the perpetrators in cases of one parent’s violence. 

 

3. The CPS/juvenile court System Has Only One Significant Power, the Power to Remove Children from their Parents. 

 

CPS does not have law enforcement powers. But, unlike most other social service agencies, CPS does have one awesome power. They have the power to take custody and remove children from the home. The stated purpose of this power is to protect the child from future abuse. The stated purpose is not to punish anyone. But obviously for parents and children who love each other this forced removal can be the worst punishment of all. 

 

4. At best, CPS/juvenile court Decisions are Made on the Lowest Judicial Standard of Evidence, the 'Preponderance of the Evidence' Standard, i.e. 51% of the Evidence. 

 

There is a void of evidence and rigor in the CPS/juvenile court system. That leaves the decision making process wide open to the virtually unchecked influence of mistakes, bias, discrimination, prejudice, vengeance, hearsay, junk science, nonsense, and arbitrariness of all kinds. (The one exception to this is that a final termination of parental rights usually requires a 'clear and convincing' standard of evidence. This is still a much lower standard than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of the criminal system.) 

 

Many lawyers themselves are so scornful of the flimsy evidence standard of the CPS system they call it "a crap shoot", or the "anything goes" standard. The problem for the mother goes beyond the fact that CPS doesn't need much evidence against her. It also means that whatever opinion a CPS worker may have of you, the worker can usually support that opinion in court. She can simply fish through the extensive family details the worker has gathered. Then she selects the one or two tidbits that favor the opinion. 

 

5. The Flimsy 'Preponderance of the Evidence' Standard is Bad Enough But things are Actually Much Worse. 

 

Increasingly, the CPS/juvenile court systems are handing off their fact finding and decision making responsibilities to mediators, evaluators, and even to CASA volunteers. All of them operate on NO standard of evidence at all. 

 

There are a number of things that makes the system tend toward abusive responses. One of these is the cardinal truth of any power. Unchecked power always tends towards abuses of that power. And the power of CPS is hugely unchecked. And worse yet, as is discussed later, it is exercised in secret. 

 

A second thing that tends the system toward abusive and prejudicial responses is the class of the mothers themselves. Heaping social prejudices already prevail against them. The mothers who come to the attention of CPS are most often poor, or immigrant, or minority race. The harsh realities and chaos of their lives are generally incomprehensible to people who don't live like them. There is much prejudice, stereotypes, ignorance, and blame against these women floating in society. So the middle class social service system is primed from the start to blame these mothers. Or at the very least, they believe it's the mothers that need to be fixed. 

 

6. Both the Federal and State Welfare Law Governing the CPS/Juvenile court System are Full of Vague, Non-mandatory Language. This Further Promotes the 'Anything Goes' Atmosphere of CPS Proceedings. 

 

In addition, these laws almost always refer to the parents as an undifferentiated single unit, "the parents'. This puts a legal lock on viewing the non-offending parent with as much culpability as the abusive parent. Only recently has the legal language begun to recognize the existence of the 'non-offending parent' as separate or unique from the offending parent. 

 

7. The CPS/Juvenile Court System Operates in Secrecy Off the Public Record. This secrecy fans the flames of the system's other tendencies to abuse. 

 

The CPS/Juvenile Court findings, proceedings, mandates, and actions take place off the public record. This is ostensibly to protect the privacy of the child and family in what is viewed as a private family matter. But who really has been more protected by this secrecy, the CPS system or the families it serves? 

 

Nothing fans the flames of governmental abuse like governmental secrecy. Secret files, secret evidence, secret accusations, secret proceedings are a sure fire formula for allowing abuses to thrive and expand throughout the system. Since its inception, CPS/juvenile court activities have been off the public record with the exception of only a few states. The involved parents are informed. But, to date, neither the public nor any public watchdog has been allowed scrutiny or oversight of the handling of these cases. 

 

Fortunately, it looks like there is the possibility this may change. In 2005, The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges voted approval of presumptively open hearings with discretion of courts to close. This isn't yet law, but it's a big step in that direction. 

 

8. Most all CPS/juvenile court Systems deal ONLY with Intra familial Child Abuse. 

 

There is a schism between the way society deals with child abuse perpetrated by a family member versus child abuse perpetrated by an 'outsider' . This points out a staggering hypocrisy in the rhetoric about treating child abuse seriously. Behind the rhetoric is a child welfare and police system that in reality works hand in hand to let most child abusers walk free. 

 

Many people are very surprised when they call CPS to report a child abuse case perpetrated by a neighbor, a priest, a stranger. CPS tells the caller they don't handle these cases. They only respond to cases in which the perpetrator is a family member. So CPS tells the caller to report to police. 

 

Another thing that may surprise you. If you call police to report a case of child abuse perpetrated by a family member, police will often tell you to report the case to CPS. Police could take the report if they wanted to, and they should take the report. But police themselves are all too often on the same philosophical page as CPS. They too often believe that when fathers 'grow their own victim', the fathers shouldn't be held accountable like other offenders. 

 

And even if police do take a report of sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member, chances are very good, even if convicted, he will get off lightly compared to an outside-the-family perpetrator. California law, like the law in many states, maintains gaping legal loopholes. Prosecutors can, and frequently do, charge intra familial child sex abuse under different codes which allow the family offenders much lighter sentences. What's perhaps most telling is that, at least in California, these legal loopholes for intra familial perpetrators have been widened over recent years, rather than tightened. The more women and children have made demands on the system to stop family violence, the more the system has created ways to look good while paving the perpetrator's escape. The patriarchy with all its bluff and bluster to the contrary, still supports the notion that a man's home is his castle, and that his children are his to do with as he pleases. Unfortunately, CPS, with its hold-no-perpetrators-accountable system, is a vital part of the machinery for perpetuating these archaic and oppressive beliefs.

Marie De Santis
Women's Justice Center
rdjustice@monitor.net ; www.justicewomen.com