Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Every Parent Needs to File Against Corrupt Caseworkers

Every parent needs to file against corrupt caseworkers. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036-4505
(202) 254-3617, dsheth@osc.gov
All parents need to file complaint on state workers the supervisors for misappropriation of state funds. The workers involved in malicious prosecution on case where the state seeks to terminate parental rights on false allegations, proceeding case without merit. The state can fraudulently obtain federal funds for these children placed in state custody, or obtain funds through administrative child support orders from working families. Actions of malicious prosecution , denial of due process parents provide the name of the state office, provide the name of the case worker , provide the name of the workers supervisor.Include the details of the case the court case the location ,the allegations , provide the detail that the child and or children were removed before allegations were ruled substantiated or unsubstantiated. Civil right violations of due process, Obstruction of justice by state official.Misuse of state official authority, court and state records, state official intent to defraud the federal government.
I ____________________ am writing this letter to request a former investigation for criminal activity by the following state agency being______________________. The state worker name involved in said criminal activity is ______________________. That individuals supervisor through said agency of ___________________, located at the address off __________________ in the state of __________________, in the county of _____________, supervisor name being ,__________________. The laws and criminal activity involved is of the following starting with Misappropriation of state funds of the state of ____________. Funds being misappropriated by this worker are fund applied to court cost in the following court case / cases being _________________, held at the following court ______________, at the address of ______________, in the state of ________________. I the parent of ______________, have / have not been accused of neglect, abuse , child endangerment. There has / hasn't been any rulings on said allegations so by proceeding with said case this is Misappropriation of state and county resources being the local justice system. and courts. This also is clear violation of civil rights in the area of Malicious prosecution occurring in the court of _____________ with the case being ______________________. The following is the name of the judge or judges involved in the case ____________. The attorneys involved in the case are_________________ for the defendant being the parents of _______________ and the parents name are ____________ and ____________. The attorneys for the plaintiffs being _________________ and the plaintiffs in the case are ____________. Again the criminal activity is Misappropriation of state funds by state workers accused, Misappropriation of state resources being the courts , Civil right violation by case workers being Malicious prosecution, False pretense in court case, Misappropriation of Federal funds obtained for child involved in said allegations , intent to defraud the federal government by illegal placement of child in state custody and other civil right violation of Denial of due process in court case involving said state worker
For complants on civil right violations this same form may be used but sent it to this address for civl right violations, request of investigation
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Hillary Profiting From Late Term Abortions by Selling Parts

Pretty much explains why she is bragging about supporting late term abortions.  She is getting big money for selling the bodies.  This is a sick sick woman.  She hates children have no doubts.


Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Seven Social Workers Sold Millions in EBT Cards

This is some of the slimy stuff the CYS and other agency employees do to pad their incomes.  They also have their own blood labs, counseling agencies, Mental examiners... BEWARE!  Social workers are more likely to be criminals than good people just wanting to help you.


Losing Custody of YOUR CHILDREN Because of FALSE Neglect Charges by Social Workers

Proven fact that everyday hundreds of children end up in foster care because of FALSE charges made by social workers.  There is NO oversight in Children and Youth Services so all they have to do is make up a story take custody of your children and they own them.  They will make up more and more lies to keep them state owned.  It will be put upon you to fight the false charges (nearly impossible) and follow their list of rules, take all of their assigned classes, be drug tested, have your house and privacy invaded and your money grabbed as you fight so hard to prove them liars and get your children home safe.  Your children on the flip side are placed with strangers (sometimes abusive) and they begin to tell them you don't want them and you are bad people.  This is all in return for thousands of dollars they receive to take and KEEP your children.  They get an even bigger pay off if they can keep them for 15 months and terminate your rights so they can be adopted.  This is an ever growing disgusting child stealing ring started by Bill and Hillary Clinton.  News is Breaking now as to why they want your children.  Child trafficking to pedofiles like Bill Clinton and all of their rich friends.  They even have an island where these children are sent and kept for rich weirdos to fly to and have sex with.




Out of Control Department of Human Services Agencies

Medical Kidnap has done a number of very informative truthful articles about Children and Youth Services and how they steal our children for money.  Please read and feel free to comment.


Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Texas Teen Gets Restraining Order Against Child Protective Services

We need to see more of this.  If you are a teenager or a parent that is being abused harassed by CYS file against them.


Safe Child Act Introduced in PA

A long time in the making and a lot of hard work this bill my finally end some of the abuse of children and families in PA.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Fostering for BIG Profit

When I decided to take on the role of a foster mom I did it to help and guide children that have lost their way.  During the time I fostered I learned quickly just how corrupt the whole system is.  It is now big industry thanks to Hillary Clinton and her huge incentives that agencies get for removing children from their homes.  Title VI funding is a nightmare.  It allows an employee from a child "protective" agency to enter your home or school and take children.  Once in the care of the state it becomes pure hell what parents must go through to get children and grandchildren back in their care. These agencies have no burden of proof and hearsay can easily become fact as there are no oversight committees or agencies to stop the corruption.  This ad is from the UK but this very thing is happening right here in the USA.

Drugging Our Foster Children


Hillary Brags About Her Role in STEALING Our Children

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Family Circle November Issue

This is what is wrong with the whole foster care adoption scam.  It disgusts me that these magazines will NOT report the truth about what is happening in these agencies that are stealing children for profit.  Sick!!!  Please write the editor with your REAL Stories.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton HATES CHILDREN!!

The money Hillary's government hands out to states and counties to steal your children. Incentives raise to $8000 if they can adopt a child out. Berks County is taking 40-50 children per month up 191% and not one person in government or law enforcement has tried or been able to stop the corruption. Berks county now depends on the millions they receive by taking children from good families. There is no oversight no protection for families.  Listen to her ad "No matter where they are born or to whom they are born."  She truly wants every child owned by government not family.  You can lose you child to the government for not vaccinating, false reporting, if you are in a car accident, if the baby is underweight at birth, if the child is truant from school, if they fall on the playground....it is a never ending list of reason to steal kids from good families.  Once they have your child they will work day and night to dig up anything they can on you.  They have used parking tickets passed due to keep children.  If after interviewing all your family, friends, exes they still can't find anything they will start creating false evidence of abuse or anything to twist and turn facts to keep that child.  They will present it to the judge and because she also reaps from the money train she will rule against you.  Once they make you jump threw hoops to try and get your child back they will have excuse after excuse until 15 months has passed and they terminate your rights and adopt your child out to strangers.  Hillary Clinton is 100% responsible for this system through Title VI-E funding and all the incentives $$$ and no proof of passage to kidjack children.  She don't care about children she cares about the money wheel she has created to destroy families and the lives of children by holding them hostage in the government system where most will end up homeless, in jail, drug addicts or commit suicide.  This is Hillary's America.  She knows how to run corrupt fund raising schemes at the expense of innocent people's lives.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

The Juvenile Law Center Help for Foster Care Children

 There is a lot of information and help on this site for teens and juveniles being held captive of the system by corrupt CYS agencies.  Here is an example of the complaint for you can submit for HELP.  There is a manual on sight with an overwhelming amount of direction and information.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Berks CYS Workers Being Fired Children Still NOT RETURNED HOME

Racheal Drobnick, Nicole Robinson, Kate Acker and Supervisor Shannon Rankin are no longer at Berks CYS falsifying records and lying to the judge.  Problem is MANY cases are still before the judge and the attorneys (John Fielding for one) and Berks CYS are refusing to correct the lies and false documents these caseworkers created.
Children are being adopted to strangers because Berks County is not forcing all cases reviewed when these liars were involved.  As usual there is nobody to turn to for help because this agency has no oversight.  It's a cash cow for the county raking in millions.  This week the District Atty was crying he needs more money because of all the thousands of cases in the agency.  When there is an increase of 191% in cases somebody with a brain must realize most of them are false.  But not in most states and counties like Berks because just for the asking the Federal Gov shells out more cash so they can keep stealing children and destroying families.
Weekly I get 5-10 calls  from desperate parents begging for help to get their children back.  Same old and tried bull crap doled out by the agency.  Child is taken for little to NO reason and then safety plans, drug tests, evals, classes......it goes on and on.  The agencies goal is to drag out the hoop jumping for 15 months when they terminate parental rights and adopt out children for even more incentives $$$$$.  Once a child is in their custody they start drugging the children and having counselors convince them that their parents no longer love them.  They refuse parental visits causing Parental Alienation.  Time and Time again same program different family.  It has to STOP!!!!
To date they are still holding hostage to children with a family inherited medical issue claiming the children were abused.  They WERE NOT!!!  Their parents love them very much and want them home.  Even thought Judge Ullman has been presented with overwhelming amount of evidence the judge refuses to return the children.
Children are being ripped from grandparents, family members and parents placed with strangers all for money.  This agency has no PROOF to hold these children hostage in the system but not one lawmaker or law enforcement person will come front and stop this outright kidjacking of our children.

Camron Michaels Death Still NO ARRESTS Berks County CYS Responsible for NOT PROTECTING HIM!!!

Berks County CYS was well aware that Camron was being abused in the foster home where he was placed but caseworker Kate Acker never turned in the reports.  Her supervisor, Shannon Rankin and Kate Acker are no longer employed at CYS.  Still no arrest has been made in the beating death of Camron.  Justice needs to be addressed for this poor soul.  Parents in most cases will protect their children above and beyond any foster home.  Foster homes have become cash cows for lazy criminals that don't want to work so they are given 1-10 foster children who often go unfed and uncared for and in some homes abuse mentally and physically is the norm.  This time foster daddy beat Camron to death. Why hasn't the Berks County District Atty acted on this crime.  All paper work is in all proof collected still no arrest.  
Camron's Story

SELINSGROVE — Camron Harold Michael, 2 years, 10 months and 2 days, of Selinsgrove, passed away on April 14, 2015, at Penn State Hershey Medical Center. He was born June 12, 2012, a son of Emily Billheim and Harley Michael. Cameron was an amazing child, smart, energetic, caring and an all around happy little boy. He greatly loved playing with his siblings. Even in death he helped by donating to the Gift of Life to save others. In addition to his parents, Camron is survived by two sisters and one brother, Mya Billheim, Harmony Micahel and Hayden Latsha; grandparents, April Michael, Steve Latsha, and Dixie Latsha;and great-grandmothers, Sarah Weikel and Beverly Parker. He was preceded in death by his paternal grandfather, Harold Joseph Michael. A memorial service will be held from 4 to 6 p.m. Friday at the Schwartz Funeral Home, 444 N. Ninth St., Reading.


Parents Speak Out on Caseworkers


Friday, August 26, 2016

You Can Beat CYS and Lawyers like Shawn McMillan are PROVING it!!

Beating CPS, there is hope.

11 Votes

Southern California mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, filed a lawsuit against Child Protective Services (CPS). She claimed caseworkers had unjustly taken her children in February 2000. The children were ages 6 and 9 at the time. The accusation against her was that she was telling the children that their father was trying to take them away from her.
Because of this, the children were placed in the Orangewood Children’s Home. The children were kept there for a month, then transferred to afoster home for two months. Eventually they were placed in their father’s custody, and the mother had to endure the humiliation of supervised visits.
Another family destroyed!
But wait! The mother recovered from the injustice done to her enough to file a federal lawsuit based on violations of Constitutional law. With the help of an attorney, Shawn A. McMillan, they went after the Orange County (California) Department of Social Services and three caseworkers.
In the lawsuit the mother alleged the caseworkers intentionally misled the court, fabricated evidence against her, and hid exculpatory evidence. She also alleged that caseworkers withheld information from the judge regarding the emotional distress of the children, who wanted to be with their mother. Also alleged was that a supervisor in the agency refused Kinship Care rights to relatives without good cause, forcing the children to stay longer in foster care.
On March 23, 2007, after a seven-week civil trial, the jury found the Department of Social Services and caseworkers Marcie Vreeken and Helen Dwojak liable for violating the mother’s parental rights and violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick was awarded 4.9 million dollars. The jury also awarded her an additional $5,900 in punitive damages. The large settlement was intended to ‘send a message’ to Child Protective Services bureaucrats.
In a press release after the settlement the attorney gave this list of illegal practices of the caseworkers involved:
… detention of children without a finding of imminent danger or serious physical injury;
… interviewing children without a parent present;
… continuing detention after learning there was no basis to do so;
… using trickery and fabricated evidence;
… failing to adequately train employees regarding the Constitutional rightsof parents.
The attorney added:
“My client Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, is satisfied by the Jury’s recognition of the harm that the defendants caused her. But, obviously, no amount of money can ever undo the damage inflicted upon Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick or her children. We expect the Jury‘s 4.9 million dollar verdict will cause the County of Orange and its Department of Social Services to implement procedures to prevent future abuses by County social workers and protect other families.”
My opinion: I consider this to be outrageously good news. More people should be filing charges against CPS, but they don’t, mainly because they have a hard time finding attorneys willing to represent them. The attorneys know that CPS maims families by splitting them up using trumped up, inaccurate, or fictitious accusations. But it seems most attorneys don’t have the guts to fight CPS. Perhaps it isn’t a politically correct move to sue this overly powerful agency, yet this is what needs to be done if we’re ever going to be able to stop caseworkers from unfairly decimating families.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Update on Babies Cesar and Julius

Berks County has been stealing children on a daily basis.  Here is one families sad story.  The corruption is so deep with in the bowels of government that nobody has had the decency to stop the kidjacking.  Family after good family suffering while their children are stashed with strangers and big money is paid out by the Federal government to keep the money wheel turning.  Adoption incentives are HUGE.  No family stands a chance one enthralled in the CYS system.

Friday, August 12, 2016

It is the LAW Don't be Afraid to Demand Enforsement

42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
prev | next
(1)Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2)Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
(R.S. § 1980.)

Thursday, July 14, 2016

House Committee Approves Long-Sought Family First Act

WASHINGTON — A bill that would give states more flexibility to use federal foster care funding to help families stay together cleared its first legislative hurdle on Wednesday.
The House Ways and Means Committee approved by voice vote the bipartisan Family First Prevention Services Act (HR 5456). The bill would allow states to use federal child welfare funding to pay for family services such as mental health, substance abuse and parenting programing to prevent children from entering foster care.
Under current federal law, most child welfare funding can only be used to reimburse states after children are placed in foster care.
“The bill focuses on addressing problems in the home by delivering parents much-needed support, rather than sending a child straight into foster care. Most of all, it helps ensure our children grow up in strong communities and stable homes,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, when the bill was unveiled days before the markup.
A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have been trying to reach a compromise on the prevention legislation for months, as the clock ticked on the year’s limited congressional calendar.
Lawmakers are expected to try to move the bill swiftly through the House and Senate, where Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Finance Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are championing it.
The bill’s sponsors also have tied the importance of preventive services to the opioid and heroin problems in many parts of the country.
“The nation is in the grip of opioid and heroin crisis, which — according to states — is responsible for the recent spikes in the need for out-of-home foster care placement,” said Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., the lead House sponsor of the bill.
The bill has won the support of a broad range of children’s advocates but has encountered some skeptics who say it does not go far enough to address families’ problems with support, such as child care, housing and basic cash assistance.
The bill would allow states to use federal funding for prevention services for 12 months, and the services must be classified as “promising,” “supported,” or well-supported” by the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare.
The bill also seeks to limit states’ use of non-family settings, such as group homes or congregate care facilities, for children who are removed from their homes,.
States would have to demonstrate regularly that a non-family setting was most appropriate for each individual child. In addition, the bill sets new standards for non-family settings in areas such as trauma-informed care, staff requirements, family participation and accreditation.
Several Democrats said at the markup that while they support the bill in principle, they disagree with its approach to funding.
The bill’s preventive service provisions do not take effect until Oct. 2019, which Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said flies in the face of the idea that there is an out-of-home placement crisis fueled by opioid and heroin abuse.
“If there is an imminent danger, what does this bill do about it? It says we’re concerned about it and in three years we’ll act about it,” he said.
Some Democrats also said more money is needed to help states, not just a reshuffling of funding. The bill is funded largely by reducing “inappropriate” group home placements and reducing funding to states for adoption assistance, according to a committee summary.
“I think we could do better by these children,” Doggett said.
The bill also would:
  • update the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program to allow states to support former foster youth up to age 23; and
  • reauthorize the Regional Partnership Grant program, which provides grants for evidence-based services that aim to prevent child abuse and neglect related to substance abuse.

Parents Right to Raise Their Children

Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the care, control, and upbringing of their children, and this very much comes into consideration when parents are under CYS investigation. CYS caseworkers and employees seem to think that parents have no rights. A parent or parents being investigated for abuse or neglect are frequently treated as if they have less due process rights than a criminal in the court system. It is important for any decision where the government can have an impact on the relationship between a parent and a child for there to be the freedom of a robust discussion of the constitutional rights of parents as it relates to their children.
The U. S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that parents have constitutional rights related to their children.  People would be very concerned if a state official tried to silence or censor discussion about parental rights when making decision about CYS or accountability for the government. Hostility toward parents or the religious faith of parents by elected officials is a growing concern and the public deserves to hear more about this issue, not less.  I agree 100%

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

How Child Abuse Laws Were Written To Help Balance State And County Budgets


Our states and counties are depending on the BIG MONEY the Federal Government gives them for stealing children.

Monday, July 11, 2016

PA Social Workers have IMMUNITY

This law needs to change and all social workers need to be held accountable and be punished to the fullest extent of the law for lying and presenting false documents and information with direct intent to hold children they steal from good families hostage in the system.

Filing a Complaint Against a Social Worker

Social worker review complaint link / HHS civil rights complaint form / social worker/agency

Report to the State Board
  • Review the current code of ethics for social workers to ensure that the social worker is in violation. Find a copy on the National Association of Social Workers website.
  • Contact the social work board that has jurisdiction where the alleged unethical social worker works and request a complaint form or locate a state-specific form online. You can find a list of state boards and their contact information on the National Association of Social Workers website.
  • Complete the form and submit it to the appropriate social work board along with any supporting documentation.
  • Wait for a response and be available to answer follow-up questions. The social work board will respond by letter to inform you if an investigation is not necessary. If an investigation is necessary, the social work board may or may not inform you, depending on state policy. Some social work boards post the violation on their websites.

Report to NASW

  • Contact the appropriate chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (typically the one in the area where the social worker works) or the NASW Office of Ethics and Professional Review for assistance. Contact information is listed on the website.
  • Request a professional review.
  • Complete all the forms the NASW gives you, sign the "Confidentiality Pledge/Statement of Understanding" and attach any supporting documents before returning the forms. Include information regarding exactly how the social worker violated the NASW Code of Ethics and cite the violated standard. (The standards are on the NASW website.)
  • Work with the NASW consultant assigned to your case. Follow any additional instructions from the consultant

How to File a Civil Rights Complaint

Complaint Requirements

Your complaint must:
  • Be filed in writing by mail, fax, e-mail, or via the OCR Complaint Portal
  • Name the health care or social service provider involved, and describe the acts or omissions, you believe violated civil rights laws or regulations
  • Be filed within 180 days of when you knew that the act or omission complained of occurred. OCR may extend the 180-day period if you can show "good cause"

File a Civil Rights Complaint Online

Open the OCR Complaint Portal and select the type of complaint you would like to file. Complete as much information as possible, including:
  • Information about you, the complainant
  • Details of the complaint
  • Any additional information that might help OCR when reviewing your complaint
You will then need to electronically sign the complaint and complete the consent form. After completing the consent form you will be able to print out a copy of your complaint to keep for your records

File a Civil Rights Complaint in Writing

File a Complaint Using the Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint Form PackageOpen and fill out the Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint Form Package in PDF format. You will need Adobe Reader software to fill out the complaint and consent forms. You may either:
  • Print and mail the completed complaint and consent forms to: Centralized Case Management Operations U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 509F HHH Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20201
  • Email the completed complaint and consent forms to OCRComplaint@hhs.gov (Please note that communication by unencrypted email presents a risk that personally identifiable information contained in such an email, may be intercepted by unauthorized third parties)
File a Complaint without the Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint Form PackageIf you prefer, you may submit a written complaint in your own format by either:
  • Mail to Centralized Case Management Operations U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 509F HHH Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20201
  • Email to OCRComplaint@hhs.gov
Be sure to include:
  • Your name
  • Full address
  • Telephone numbers (include area code)
  • E-mail address (if available)
  • Name, full address and telephone number of the person, agency or organization you believe discriminated against you
  • A brief description of what happened, including how, why, and when you believe your (or someone else's) civil rights were violated
  • Any other relevant information
  • Your signature and date of complaint
  • The name of the person on whose behalf you are filing if you are filing a complaint for someone else
You may also include:
  • Any special accommodations for us to communicate with you about this complaint
  • Contact information for someone who can help us reach you if we cannot reach you directly
  • If you have filed your complaint somewhere else and where you’ve filed
If you mail a complaint, be sure to send it to:Centralized Case Management Operations U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 509F HHH Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20201 http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/filing-a-complaint/complaint-process/index.html


42 U.S. Code § 13001

The Congress finds that—(1)over 2,000,000 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect are made each year, and drug abuse is associated with a significant portion of these; (4)in such cases, too often the system does not pay sufficient attention to the needs and welfare of the child victim, aggravating the trauma that the child victim has already experienced;
  1. U.S. CodeTitle 42Chapter 132Subchapter I › § 13005

42 U.S. Code § 13005 - Accountability

(B)AuditThe Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of grants under this subchapter to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year. Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Honorable Daniel Levinson, Inspector GeneralMain Phone Number: (202) 619-3148Mailing Address: 330 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20201Hotline Number: (800) 447-8477; HOTLINE: https://forms.oig.hhs.gov/hotlineop...Hotline Email: hhstips@oig.hhs.govhttp://oig.hhs.gov/ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 IMMUNITY Besides authorizing official capacity suits against state and local officials for structural injunctive relief, 42 U.S.C. § 1983authorizes claims against those officials in their individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages. Although, as discussed above, the Eleventh Amendment limits official capacity claims against state officials to prospective injunctive relief, it does not affect damage claims against those officials in their individual capacity.1 In this section, we discuss when absolute and qualified immunity limits individual capacity suits against public officials.

8.2.B. Qualified Immunity: Executive Officials

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. Early cases required a public employee to establish both that he did not violate clearly established law and that he acted without malicious intent.83 Because proof of subjective good faith was incompatible with summary judgment, the Supreme Court modified the defense to shield public employees performing discretionary government functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”84 Apart from special needs and administrative search cases, the Court has cautioned against examination of subjective intent.85 Because public employees86 almost always perform discretionary functions,87qualified immunity really turns on two issues: (1) whether the action in question violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that action violated clearly established law.88 Although the former question may involve disputed facts, the latter is a question of law subject to early resolution. This involves a historical inquiry into whether the law was clearly established when the defendant acted. Reasoning similarly, the Court subsequently held in Groh v. Ramirez that a search warrant that failed to describe either the person or things to be seized was facially invalid under the Fourth Amendment Clarity is shown when "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate."109 8.2.B.2. The Reasonable Official and Scope of DiscretionThe question of whether a reasonable official should have believed that the conduct in question violated clearly established law is largely a function of whether the law in question was clearly established. In that sense, the determination of whether the official’s belief that his conduct was reasonable is redundant; it is reasonable whenever the law is not clearly established.110 The existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time of the action and in light of all the circumstances then present is what affords a basis for qualified immunity. an official who acts outside the scope of his discretionary authority and who violates the Constitution cannot assert qualified immunity even if his conduct did not violate then clearly established law.112 Given the Court’s expansive interpretation of qualified immunity, you should allege the facts that defeat qualified immunity in detail when suing a public official for damages. Advocates should refrain from suing officials for damages in the absence of evidentiary support that will allow a claim to overcome qualified immunity.

8.2.B.3. Qualified Immunity, Intentional Discrimination, and Retaliation

To avoid summary judgment on the merits of the underlying constitutional claim, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence, usually circumstantial, from which a reasonable jury can infer that the defendant intentionally discriminated or retaliated; without that evidence, the plaintiff cannot establish unconstitutional conduct.113 With no evidence of unconstitutional conduct, the defendant will prevail without reaching the question of qualified immunity. But if the plaintiff has sufficient evidence of unconstitutional motive to avoid summary judgment, qualified immunity generally will not benefit a defendant because the constitutional prohibition against intentional discrimination or retaliation has long been clearly established law.114 http://federalpracticemanual.org/no...SOCIAL WORKER IMMUNITY/ NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985, 1986
  1. In these federal circuits, social workers are absolutely immune from suit under federal law for actions in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings. See Beltran v. Santa Clara Cnty., 514 F.3d 906, 908–09 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (discussing the absolute immunity of social workers when making make discretionary, quasi-prosecutorial decisions, but holding that social workers are not entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they fabricated evidence during an investigation or made false statements in a petition affidavit signed under penalty of perjury); Abdouch v. Burger, 426 F.3d 982, 989 (8th Cir. 2005); Rippy ex rel. Rippy v. Hattaway, 270 F.3d 416, 422–23 (6th Cir. 2001); Ernst v. Child & Youth Servs., 108 F.3d 486, 495 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied. 522 U.S. 850 (1997); Millspaugh v. Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 937 F.2d 1172, 1176 (7th Cir. 1991); Vosburg v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 884 F.2d 133, 135 (4th Cir. 1989). See also Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377, 1382–1383 (10th Cir. 1989) (10th Circuit positively discussing, without deciding, absolute immunity for social workers in the judicial context). See also Baca v. City of New York, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11810, (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2003) (2nd Circuit district court positively discussing, without deciding, absolute immunity for social workers in the judicial context). But see V.S. v. Muhammad, 581 F. Supp. 2d 365, 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) reversed on other grounds, V.S. v. Muhammad, 595 F.3d 426, 431, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3017, 10–11 (2d Cir. 2010) (2nd Circuit district court refusing to extend absolute immunity to social workers in the judicial context). The U.S. Supreme Court has not directly decided whether social workers have absolute immunity in any context, but Justice Thomas has expressed skepticism regarding it. See Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060, 1062–63 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Social workers have qualified immunity in all other contexts. http://www.heritagedefense.org/2015/07/13/in-32-states-social-workers-immune-for-lying-to-judges/
False reporting is usually classified as a low level misdemeanor, which is a crime. In some states, filing a false child abuse report is a higher-level crime—a felony. People who make false reports can be subject to fines ranging from $100 to $5,000 or sentences from 90 days to five years in jail or prison. Reporters who are found to have filed multiple false reports may be subject to even harsher penalties (See Child Welfare Information Gateway for information on your particular state). Besides criminal penalties for making a false report, reporters can also be subject to civil liability in the form of compensatory and/or punitive damages. Compensatory damages are meant to pay for any actual losses the family incurs as a result of the false report. Losses are not limited to the financial kind, but the damage award will generally be in the form of money. Compensatory damages can include damage to reputation, disruption caused by the investigative process, and even assault and battery for unwarranted physical examinations of children in response to a false report (Lau, Krase, & Morse, 2009). In addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages may be awarded for a false report. Punitive damages “punish” bad behavior, and usually involve a large monetary award, above and beyond the actual damages caused by the report. www.socialworker.com

42 U.S. Code § 13001a

(5)the term “child abuse” means physical or sexual abuse or neglect of a child, including human trafficking and the production of child pornography; (7)the term “multidisciplinary response to child abuse” means a response to child abuse that is based on mutually agreed upon procedures among the community agencies and professionals involved in the intervention, prevention, prosecution, and investigation systems that best meets the needs of child victims and their nonoffending family members;(8)the term “nonoffending family member” means a member of the family of a victim of child abuse other than a member who has been convicted or accused of committing an act of child abuse; and (Pub. L. 101–647, title II, § 212, as added Pub. L. 102–586, § 6(b)(2), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5029; amendedPub. L. 114–22, title I, § 104(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 236.)

42 U.S. Code § 13001b

(a)Establishment of regional children’s advocacy programThe Administrator, in coordination with the Director and with the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, shall establish a children’s advocacy program to—(1)focus attention on child victims by assisting communities in developing child-focused, community-oriented, facility-based programs designed to improve the resources available to children and families;(2)provide support for nonoffending family members; (2)Grant recipientsA grant recipient under this section shall—(A)assist communities—(i)in developing a comprehensive, multidisciplinary response to child abuse that is designed to meet the needs of child victims and their families;(iii)in preventing or reducing trauma to children caused by multiple contacts with community professionals;(iv)in providing families with needed services and assisting them in regaining maximum functioning;

42 U.S. Code § 13031

(a)In generalA person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of this section on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, shall as soon as possible make a report of the suspected abuse to the agency designated under subsection (d) of this section (c)DefinitionsFor the purposes of this section—(1)the term “child abuse” means the physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, or negligent treatment of a child;(2)the term “physical injury” includes but is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones, burns, internal injuries, severe bruising or serious bodily harm;(3)the term “mental injury” means harm to a child’s psychological or intellectual functioning which may be exhibited by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or outward aggressive behavior, or a combination of those behaviors, which may be demonstrated by a change in behavior, emotional response or cognition;(4)the term “sexual abuse” includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children;(5)the term “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—(A)sexual intercourse, including sexual contact in the manner of genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact, whether between persons of the same or of opposite sex; sexual contact means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire of any person; (B)bestiality; (C)masturbation; (D)lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person or animal; or (E)sadistic or masochistic abuse;(6)the term “exploitation” means child pornography or child prostitution;(7)the term “negligent treatment” means the failure to provide, for reasons other than poverty, adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child; and(8)the term “child abuse” shall not include discipline administered by a parent or legal guardian to his or her child provided it is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree and otherwise does not constitute cruelty. (Pub. L. 101–647, title II, § 226, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4806.)

42 U.S. Code § 12371

  1. U.S. CodeTitle 42Chapter 127Subchapter II › § 12371
(a)FindingsThe Congress finds that—(1)children and youth are inherently our most valuable resource and their welfare, protection, healthy development, and positive role in society are essential to the Nation;(2)children and youth deserve love, respect, and guidance, as well as good health, shelter, food, education, productive work, and preparation for responsible participation in community life;(3)an increasing opportunity for children and youth to participate in the decisions that affect their lives is essential;(4)the family is the primary caregiver and the source of social learning which must be supported and strengthened, but when families are unable to ensure the satisfaction of the needs of children and youth, it is society’s responsibility to assist them; (Pub. L. 101–501, title IX, § 982, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1280.)
  1. U.S. CodeTitle 42Chapter 6 › § 192

42 U.S. Code § 192The Children’s Bureau shall be under the direction of a chief, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The said bureau shall investigate and report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our people, and shall especially investigate the questions of infant mortality, the birth rate, orphanage, juvenile courts, desertion, dangerous occupations, accidents and diseases of children, employment, legislation affecting children in the several States and Territories. But no official, or agent, or representative of said bureau shall, over the objection of the head of the family, enter any house used exclusively as a family residence. The chief of said bureau may from time to time publish the results of these investigations in such manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary. (Apr. 9, 1912, ch. 73, § 2, 37 Stat. 79; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §§ 3, 6, 37 Stat. 737, 738; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 2, § 1, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7873,60 Stat. 1095; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§ 5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053,67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, § 509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

  1. U.S. CodeTitle 42Chapter 7Subchapter IVPart E › § 671

42 U.S. Code § 671

(15)provides that—(A)in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern;(B)except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families—(i)prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child’s home; and (ii)to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child’s home; (15) (D)reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) shall not be required to be made with respect to a parent of a child if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that—(i)the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in State law, which definition may include but need not be limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse);(ii)the parent has—(I)committed murder (which would have been an offense under section 1111(a) of title 18, if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent; (II)committed voluntary manslaughter (which would have been an offense under section 1112(a) of title 18, if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent; (III)aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter; or (IV)committed a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent; or(iii)the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily; (19)provides that the State shall consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards (20)(A)provides procedures for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases (as defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) 1 of title 28), for any prospective foster or adoptive parent before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child regardless of whether foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made on behalf of the child under the State plan under this part, including procedures requiring that—(i)in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be so made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, for spousal abuse, for a crime against children (including child pornography), or for a crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or battery, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed at any time, such final approval shall not be granted; and (ii)in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be so made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed within the past 5 years, such final approval shall not be granted; and (28)at the option of the State, provides for the State to enter into kinship guardianship assistance agreements to provide kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of the children for whom they have cared as foster parents and for whom they have committed to care on a permanent basis, as provided in section 673(d) of this title;(29)provides that, within 30 days after the removal of a child from the custody of the parent or parents of the child, the State shall exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to the following relatives: all adult grandparents, all parents of a sibling of the child, where such parent has legal custody of such sibling, and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), subject to exceptions due to family or domestic violence, that—(A)specifies that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of the parent or parents of the child; (B)explains the options the relative has under Federal, State, and local law to participate in the care and placement of the child, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond to the notice; (C)describes the requirements under paragraph (10) of this subsection to become a foster family home and the additional services and supports that are available for children placed in such a home; and (D)if the State has elected the option to make under paragraph (30)provides assurances that each child who has attained the minimum age for compulsory school attendance under State law and with respect to whom there is eligibility for a payment under the State plan is a full-time elementary or secondary school student or has completed secondary school, and for purposes of this paragraph, the term “elementary or secondary school student” means, with respect to a child, that the child is(A)enrolled (or in the process of enrolling) in an institution which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under the law of the State or other jurisdiction in which the institution is located; (B)instructed in elementary or secondary education at home in accordance with a home school law of the State or other jurisdiction in which the home is located; (C)in an independent study elementary or secondary education program in accordance with the law of the State or other jurisdiction in which the program is located, which is administered by the local school or school district; or (D)incapable of attending school on a full-time basis due to the medical condition of the child, which incapability is supported by regularly updated information in the case plan of the child;(31)provides that reasonable efforts shall be made—(A)to place siblings removed from their home in the same foster care, kinship guardianship, or adoptive placement, unless the State documents that such a joint placement would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings; and (Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, § 471, as added Pub. L. 96–272, title I, § 101(a)(1), June 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 501; amended Pub. L. 97–35, title XXIII, § 2353(r), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 874; Pub. L. 97–248, title I, § 160(d), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 400; Pub. L. 98–378, § 11(c), Aug. 16, 1984, 98 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVII, § 1711(c)(2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2784; Pub. L. 100–485, title II, § 202(c)(1), Oct. 13, 1988,102 Stat. 2378; Pub. L. 101–508, title V, § 5054(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–229; Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, § 13711(b)(4), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 655; Pub. L. 103–432, title II, § 203(b), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4456; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, § 1808(a), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1903; Pub. L. 104–193, title I, § 108(d)(2), title V, § 505, Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2166, 2278; Pub. L. 105–33, title V, § 5591(b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 643; Pub. L. 105–89, title I, §§ 101(a), 106, title III, §§ 306, 308, Nov. 19, 1997, 111 Stat. 2116, 2120, 2132, 2133; Pub. L. 105–200, title III, § 301(a), July 16, 1998, 112 Stat. 658; Pub. L. 106–169, title I, § 112(a), title IV, § 401(o), Dec. 14, 1999, 113 Stat. 1829, 1859; Pub. L. 109–171, title VII, § 7401(c), Feb. 8, 2006, 120 Stat. 150; Pub. L. 109–239, §§ 3, 4(a)(1), 10, July 3, 2006, 120 Stat. 508, 513; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 152(a), (b),July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 608, 609; Pub. L. 109–432, div. B, title IV, § 405(c)(1)(B)(i), Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 2999; Pub. L. 110–351, title I, §§ 101(a), (c)(2)(A), (B)(i), 103, 104(a), title II, §§ 204(b), 206, title III, § 301(c)(1)(A), title IV, § 403, Oct. 7, 2008, 122 Stat. 3950–3952, 3956, 3957, 3960, 3962, 3969, 3979; Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, § 6703(d)(2)(B), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 803; Pub. L. 113–183, title I, §§ 101(a), 102, 104, 111(a)(2), (b), 112(b)(2)(A)(ii), title II, § 209(a)(1), Sept. 29, 2014, 128 Stat. 1920–1922, 1924, 1927, 1941.)
  1. U.S. CodeTitle 42Chapter 21Subchapter I › § 1983

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)___________________________________________________________ U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Title 8: Civil Rights www.justice.gov8-2.000 - Enforcement Of Civil Rights Civil Statutes

8-2.261 - Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq., authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the constitutional and federal statutory rights of persons confined to state and local institutions. These include facilities for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, nursing homes, prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The investigations and litigation focus on a broad range of issues depending on the type of institution and the nature of alleged unconstitutional conditions. Issues include, for example, abuse, crowding, medical and mental health care, fire safety, sanitation, security, adequacy of treatment and training, and education.To initiate suit under the Act, the Attorney General must have reasonable cause to believe that the deprivation of rights is part of a pattern or practice of denial rather than an isolated or accidental incident. At the time of commencing the civil action, the Attorney General must personally certify to the court (1) that he/she has previously notified, in writing, the appropriate state officials of the alleged deprivation, supporting facts, and possible remedy; (2) that he/she has notified, in writing, the appropriate state official of his/her intent to conduct an investigation of the state institution and that the Attorney General has made a good faith effort to consult with the appropriate state officials to advise them of federal assistance that may be available, encouraged the appropriate state official to correct the alleged conditions and pattern or practice, and that the appropriate officials have had reasonable time to take appropriate corrective actions; and (3) that this action is of general public importance.CRIPA also authorizes the Attorney General to intervene in any action commenced in any court of the United States when the Attorney General has reason to believe that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities. A motion to intervene may not be filed until 90 days after the commencement of the action. In the motion to intervene the Attorney General must certify to the court that the appropriate state officials have been notified of (a) the alleged conditions and pattern or practice; (b) the supporting facts giving rise to the alleged conditions; and (c) the minimum measures that may remedy the alleged conditions and pattern or practice. Motions to intervene and certifications must be signed by the Attorney General personally.When complaints of widespread deprivation in conditions of confinement are received by a United States Attorney, they should be forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, for evaluation and review prior to any request for investigation.[cited in USAM 8-2.140]_____________________________________________________________ Reunification; www.childwelfare.gov42 U.S. Code § 671 Federal law has long required State agencies to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to provide assistance and services to prevent the removal of a child from his or her home and to make it possible for a child who has been placed in out-of-home care to be reunited with his or her family Under the provisions of ASFA, reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family are not required when the court has determined any of the following: • The parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as defined by State law. The definition of aggravated circumstances may include, but is not limited to, abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse. • The parent committed murder of another child of the parent. • The parent committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent. • The parent aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or voluntary manslaughter. • The parent committed a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent. • The parental rights of the parent to a sibling of the child were terminated involuntarily. In all States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, reasonable efforts are not required under these circumstances. In addition, several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands provide one or more additional grounds for not making reasonable efforts. The following are examples of these additional grounds: • The parent abandoned the child (33 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).4 Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming • The parent abandoned an infant (10 States).5 Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming • The parent was convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of the child’s other parent (12 States and the Virgin Islands).6 Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. • The child was removed from the home previously due to abuse or neglect and was removed again due to a subsequent incident of abuse or neglect (nine States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).7 Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, South Dakota, and Utah. • The parent was convicted of a sexual offense that resulted in the child’s conception (three States).8 California, Connecticut, and Washington • The parent is a registered sex offender or required to register on sex offender registry (eight States and the District of Columbia).9 Arkansas, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia • The parent failed to comply with the terms of a reunification plan (seven States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).10 Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia • The parent has been incarcerated for a substantial term in relation to the child’s age, and there is no suitable relative to care for the child (eight States).11 Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, and South Dakota • The parent suffers from a mental illness of such duration or severity that there is little likelihood that the parent will be able to resume care for the child within a reasonable time (eight States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).12 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia • The parent suffers from chronic abuse of drugs or alcohol and has refused or failed treatment (nine States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).13 Alabama, California, Florida, Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia • The parent has subjected the child to prenatal exposure to alcohol or a controlled substance (three States).14 Florida, North Dakota, and Utah • The parent indicated a lack of interest in reuniting with the child (two States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).15 Alabama and California Other grounds found in one or two States include: • The parent repeatedly withheld medical treatment or food from the child (Ohio). • A putative father has failed to establish paternity of the child (Montana and Nevada). • The parent allowed the child to be present where a clandestine illegal laboratory is operated (North Dakota and Utah) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(31) Adoption by Relatives In approximately 10 States, State agencies must give preference to relatives when making adoptive placements for children in their custody.16 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. However, in four States, if the child has been placed in foster care with a nonrelative and has been living with the same foster parent for significant period of time when he or she becomes available for adoption, the nonrelative foster parent may be given first preference to adopt.17 California, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee In approximately 33 States, when a parent places the child directly with a relative, the laws provide for a streamlined adoption process, such as not requiring a preplacement assessment or home study unless specifically ordered by the court.18 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia In 14 States, the child must have resided with the relative for a period of time or have established a significant relationship with the relative in some other way.19 Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. Approximately 23 States require a criminal records check of the adopting relatives and other adult household members .20 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Min nesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. 10. national policy should strengthen families to prevent child abuse and neglect, provide support for needed services to prevent the unnecessary removal of children from families, 2. the term ‘child abuse and neglect’ means, at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm; KINSHIP CARE.— The Secretary may award grants to public and private entities to assist such entities in developing or implementing procedures using adult relatives as the preferred placement for children removed from their home, where such relatives are determined to be capable of providing a safe nurturing environment for the child and where such relatives comply with the State child protection standards 2. CONTENTS.—A State plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall contain a description of the activities that the State will carry out using amount received under the grant to achieve the objectives of this title, including— x. provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaul... It is required by federal law public disclosure. Just say no to Gov. Browns bill to hide details from journalists and the public....2. CONTENTS.—A State plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall contain a description of the activities that the State will carry out using amount received under the grant to achieve the objectives of this title, including— x. provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/capta2010.pdf
Read these sources for further language to cite in your complaint ;
If police misconduct is involved; cite from this source;
Reporting fraud of Federal grant funding to the State agency ____________________(name your agency and address) in denial of reunification or kinship placement in accordance with Federal Code requirements under grant funding;

You may also mail a written copy of the complaint and materials you submitted to the FBI to the Criminal Section at:
US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Civil Rights Division Criminal Section รข PHB Washington, DC 20530