Sunday, December 26, 2021
Wednesday, December 22, 2021
Judge Charles Condems Abusive Parents of 5 Adopted Children
This same judge took children from good families and trafficked them thru foster care and adoption. Kids for Cash
Friday, December 17, 2021
Thursday, December 16, 2021
Philly CYS Steals Social Security Money. It’s Not just Philadelphia.
Vaughn Jackson, legal guardian to Zaveonte Winn, 17, and Xavier Winn, 14, at their home in Philadelphia in early December.
Good Information Shared
A parent in a private group complained their children were returned to them after five years of abuse in foster care. Below is my reply, in the hopes that you may some of the information useful if your search for justice includes any similar circumstances.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Abuse while in foster care is a....
Possible cause for a federal civil rights action under:
> 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
> [not] "being able to feel safe and get help if needed!"
Sounds like the basis of a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress
Were the authorities informed of the abuse in foster care and failed to take action to stop it promptly? Were they blind to the abuse?
That sounds like depraved indifference.
> To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.
> https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/
Did they know of the abuse in foster care and fail to properly report it?
That may be a crime.
> A person who, while engaged in a professional capacity or activity described in subsection (b) of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 on Federal land or in a federally operated (or contracted) facility, or a covered individual as described in subsection (a)(2) of such section 226 who, learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse, as defined in subsection (c) of that section, and fails to make a timely report as required by subsection (a) of that section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.
> 18 U.S. Code § 2258.Failure to report child abuse
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258
State child support, parenting time, and child protection are all primarily funded under federal law Title IV-D and Title IV-E. Consider filing complaints.
> HHS Office of Inspector General
> Phone. 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477)
> https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/contact.asp
> HHS Office of Civil Rights
> https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/filing-a-complaint/index.html
Department of Justice Civil Rights
> The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.
> https://www.justice.gov/crt
Anyone may report federal crimes to the FBI.
> (202)324-3000
> http://tips.fbi.gov/
I wish you the best of luck in your search for justice.
Tuesday, December 7, 2021
Tuesday, November 30, 2021
Monday, November 29, 2021
Information for You that Might Prove Your Case.
1. Moreover, although drugs are illegal, a parent’s criminal activity does not authorize the government to separate a family through child neglect statutes.* Kozey v. Quarles, No. 3:04 CV 1724 MRK, 2005 WL 2387708*
2. Finding no exigent circumstances among evidence of cluttered home, the developmental delays of the children, and the lack of educational and medical care for the children because there was no showing of “imminent or likely harm” to the children. *Walsh v. Erie Cnty. Dep’t Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, 740, 749-50 (N.D. Ohio 2003)*
3. Although the federal circuit courts have developed different standards to identify exigent circumstances justifying seizure of a child from his home in the absence of a court order, parental drug use fails to constitute exigent circumstance under any of these standards. Because exigent circumstances require the immediate threat of harm to the child, rather than a mere possibility of harm occurring to the child. *Gates v. Texas Dep’t Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 428-29 (5th Cir. 2008)*
4. Cases in which parents misuse drugs or alcohol but do not neglect their child fail to justify such drastic state intervention. The lack of causation between parental drug use and harm to a child, the child’s interest in staying with his natural family, and the bleak outlook for a child in the foster care system demonstrate that the government’s interest does not outweigh the individual privacy interests of a child in cases involving drug use. “[T]he desire to avoid a domestic dispute cannot form a reasonable basis for depriving [a child] of his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights.” *Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 925-26 (5th Cir. 2000)*
5. Coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelled. * Cassady v. Tackett*
6. "Consent" that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. *Florida v. Bostick (S. Ct. 1991)*
7. Neglect statutes that identify drug use or possession as forms of neglect justifying removal of a child from a home fail to constitute exigent circumstances. Drugs use or possession does not cause direct harm to a child and is not a guarantee of direct harm to a child, but merely poses a possibility of harm to a child. This possibility of harm is not an exigency. *Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 594*
8. Under any of these standards, however, parental drug use fails to constitute an exigent circumstance, for it does not put a child in “immediate jeopardy, ”nor does it pose the threat that the child is “likely to experience serious bodily harm.” *Good, 891 F.2d at 1094.*
9. The mere presence of drugs, or prior use, does not pose the same threat to a child. As the Second Circuit has warned, “if the mere ‘possibility’ of danger constituted an emergency, officers would ‘always’ be justified in making a forced entry and seizure of a child whenever the child was in the presence of a person who had . . . a history that heightens the possibility of danger to the child.” *United States v. Venters, 539 F.3d 801, 808-09 (7th Cir. 2008)*
10. Courts should not accept the standard set by neglect statutes that mere possession, or even use, of narcotics constitutes neglect because it does not necessarily cause “real physical or emotional harm” to the child, nor does it mean that the child is in imminent danger. Furthermore, neglect statutes that incorporate drug use into their definitions of neglect do not fulfill their purpose of protecting children because the immorality of a particular behavior does not necessarily lead to harm. *Roe v. Conn, 417 F. Supp. 769, 779 (M.D. Ala. 1976).*
11. Unlike abuse, which involves some form of negative parental action, child neglect typically presents in the form of parental omissions, and therefore, cases of neglect are substantially less likely to warrant immediate action. *New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 727 (1987)*
12. Evidence of an increased likelihood of harm to a child does not constitute actual or imminent threat of harm to a child. “Imminent danger . . . must be near or impending, not merely possible.” *Nicholson v. Scoppetta (2004)*
13. A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a "best interests" analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. *Quilloin v. Walcott (1978) 434 U.S. 246, 255*
14. Coercion can be mental as well as physical. *Blackburn v. Alabama 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960)*
15. If neglect statutes conflict with the Fourth Amendment, they must be deemed invalid “[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents.” *Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 652 (1972)*
16. “A showing of harm to the child . . . as a prerequisite for coercive state intervention,” statutes incorporating drug use focus on parental behavior and thus “subvert themselves.” “By preserving references to parental misconduct . . . as factors to consider in neglect determinations, statutory law . . . undermines the express requirement that harm to the child be a sine qua non of intervention.” The result of this is that “such cases often begin to resemble criminal proceedings against errant parents.”* Dolgin, supra note 62, at 1227.*
17. The assumption that drug use constitutes neglect inappropriately shifts the focus from the welfare of the child to the behavior of the parent. The parenting, not the supposed quality of the individual who is the parent, should be at issue. *See Dolgin, supra note 62, at 1213, 1235-36; Wald, supra note 304, at 1034;*
18. “Such knee-jerk intervention signals a return to the discredited practice of focusing on the repugnance of parental conduct. . . . Whether prior parental conduct is blameworthy or repulsive should not be of concern to the child welfare system.” *Robin-Vergeer, supra note 314, at 760*
19. A trial court cannot terminate a parent's rights absent this finding of unfitness. Parental deficiencies alone do not render a parent currently unfit, "the proper inquiry is
whether the existing parental deficiencies, or other conditions, prevent the parent from providing for the child's basic health, welfare, and safety. *In re Parental Rights to K.MM, 186 Wn.2d 466, 493, 379 P.3d 75 (2016).*
20. The court explained "absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens' houses. Mere parroting of the phrase "best interest of the child" without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground." *North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family (2001)*
21. An officer who obtains a warrant through materially false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his actions under section 1983. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)
22. Defendants could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker's home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. *Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000)*
23. Miller recognized the fundamental liberty interests by parents in the care, custody and management of their children, an interest which must be balanced against the State's interest in protecting children suspected of being abused. *174 F.3d at 373, 374. Citing Croft and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982),*
24. To act "under color of state law" means the social workers acted beyond the bounds of lawful authority, but in such a manner that the unlawful acts were done while the official was purporting or pretending to act in the performance of their official duties. In other words, the unlawful acts must consist of an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because they are an official. *Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000)*
25. An unreasonable belief of imminent harm to a child will render a seizure unreasonable.
26. Right to Procedural Due Process Violated: The state denied the plaintiff the fundamental right to a fair procedure before having their child removed by the intentional use of fraudulent evidence during the procedure. *Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999)*
27. Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government.* Elrod v. Burns (96 S. Ct. 1976)*
28. The social workers committed a misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of' state law.
29. Plaintiff's clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts would be violated by suppression of evidence and failure to report evidence.* Chrissy v. Miss. Department of Public Welfare (5th Cir. 1991)*
30. Child removals are "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on knowingly false information violates fourth amendment. *Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)*
31. A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent. *Ward v. San Jose (9th Cir. 1992)*
32. The social workers and court officials consisted of two or more persons whom conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate the mother and her minor child, in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the mother by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
33. It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
34. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. *Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Department of Social Services (10th Cir. 1999)*
35. The Court held that where abusive government action by a member of the executive branch is alleged, "only the most egregious official conduct 522*522 can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense.” *.Id. at 375, quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998).*
36. State employee who withhold a child from their family may infringe on the family's liberty of familial association. Social workers could not deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child's mental or physical health. *K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)*
37. Under this standard, executive action will not expose the official to liability unless it is "so ill-conceived or malicious that it `shocks the conscience.'" Id. The Court emphasized that Croft was simply an application of the traditional substantive due process "shocks the conscience" standard. *Miller, 174 F.3d at 376.*
38. Stating that only in rare circumstances can allegations of neglect be so severe or credible that an investigation into the allegations is not required for removal; *Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1011*
39. A defendant in a civil rights case is not entitled to any immunity if he or she gave false information either in support of an application for a search warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor on which the prosecutor based his or her charge against the plaintiff.*Young v. Biggers (5th Cir. 1991)*
40. The Court held that the CYS caseworker, acting on an anonymous tip with multiple layers of hearsay, without any corroborating evidence, and without any evidence that convinced her one way or another that there was any sexual abuse involved, had insufficient justification for such a drastic infringement on parental and children's rights (familial integrity), and so was an arbitrary abuse of government power.
41. The Court noted that there are cases in which a child protective agency is justified in removing either a child or the parent from the home, "even where later investigation proves no abuse occurred."* Id. at 1126 *
42. Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. *Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)*
43. Court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. *H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources (Ala. Ct. App. 1992) *
44. Defendant should've investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstances that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. *Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)*
45. In context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation...a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.' *193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999) and F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id. Tenenbaum v. Williams (2nd Cir. 1999) and F.K. v. Iowa *
46. Child protection workers are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all "government officials". The court ruled "despite the defendant's (child protection worker) exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose request to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door." "The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCFS employee, or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of child abuse, neglect, or dependency".*3:01-cv-7588. Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services.*
47. The Court focused on "whether the information available to the defendants at the time would have created an objectively reasonable suspicion of abuse justifying the degree of inference with the parents' rights as the child's parents." In the absence of such reasonable grounds, the governmental intrusions of this nature "are arbitrary abuses of power." Due process requires the trial court to explicitly or implicitly find by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the parent is currently unfit. *A.B., 168 Wn.2d at 918-19.*
48. Mere drug possession amounts to neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances. Therefore, neglect statutes that explicitly designate drug abuse as child neglect lead to unlawful seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional. *Brokaw v. Mercer Cnty., 235 F.3d 1000, 1010 (7th Cir. 2000)*
Wednesday, November 24, 2021
Friday, November 19, 2021
Thursday, October 28, 2021
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Friday, October 15, 2021
Thursday, October 14, 2021
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
PA Dept of Health Threatening Children
PA Dept of Health and Sec of State threatening children will be removed from their homes and put in isolation camps.
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Friday, September 24, 2021
Wednesday, September 15, 2021
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Tuesday, August 10, 2021
Saturday, August 7, 2021
Tuesday, July 27, 2021
Friday, July 23, 2021
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Friday, July 16, 2021
Luzerne County, PA
LUZERNE COUNTY RETAINS TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS TO CONDUCT REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES
WILKES-BARRE, PA (July 15, 2021) – Luzerne County today announced that it has retained the Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders law firm to conduct an internal review of its department of Children & Youth Services.
“Regaining the trust of families and the broader public is our top priority,” said Romilda Crocamo, Acting County Manager. “We know that won’t be possible without first understanding what happened, how and why. That’s why we retained Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders. We are confident that they – along with the Pennsylvania Attorney General, the PA Department of Human Services and any additional law enforcement authorities that are conducting investigations – will help us achieve this goal.”
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders has handled numerous high profile and significant investigations for state and local government agencies, educational institutions, and large public and private companies. Its Investigations Practice Group typically handles high-profile investigations involving allegations of illegal activity and other misconduct. In those matters, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders lawyers are routinely called upon to provide recommendations about how to improve controls, policies, and procedures, in addition to assessing responsibility.
The Investigations Practice Group includes numerous former prosecutors who have served in United States Attorney’s Offices around the country, the United States Department of Justice, district attorney’s offices, and other state and federal law enforcement agencies.
Saturday, July 10, 2021
Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force NEW
The bipartisan Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force recently released a comprehensive final report with policy recommendations that protect public safety, increase accountability, achieve savings for reinvestment, and improve outcomes for youth, families and communities.
The 30-member task force assessed the state juvenile justice system and reviewed data from court and state agencies and examined how practices can better align with what research says works to improve outcomes for youth and families. The task force received input from more than 500 stakeholders.
If adopted, the policy recommendations are expected to safely reduce the population of young people in out-of-home facilities by 39% by 2026, freeing up nearly $81 million for reinvestment.
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/107543572609159/?ref=notif&hoisted_items=1700957103428655
Tuesday, July 6, 2021
Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Arbitration Award Against Lisa Stevens Schuylkill County
I Served director lisa Stevens of schuylkill county children and youth a 27 page affidavit of proof of claim demand and contract. Now i just have to get my award confirmed at district court. My son, then will be returned to me. Please note my arbitration award not only states that they are to return my child but ms. Lisa stevens owes me as of December 20th 2019 $335,000 plus $5,000 a day for keeping my child from me until he is returned. Now being that I have to take it to district court.... times that by 4 for punitive damages. I don't want a dime I just want my son home, but since she would rather being a heartless, greedy person I will gladly take that money now. PM if anyone is interested in how I did it. It's time we make a stand. It's time to remind everyone about WE THE PEOPLE. Let us take back our children.
Samantha Dunphy
Friday, June 4, 2021
Sunday, May 23, 2021
Friday, April 9, 2021
Wednesday, April 7, 2021
Wednesday, March 31, 2021
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
The corrupt are being exposed in Schuylkill County
If you have stories to tell about the corrupt judges, lawyers and caseworkers tell your story.
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Kids for Cash! The Power to Destroy every Family
Direct quote from Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, www.nccpr.org
The foster system holds perhaps the greatest power a state can exercise over its people: the power to forcibly take children away from parents and permanently sever parent-child relationships.
And if you’re not reading this in New York City, you should do even more checking when your own family policing agency puts out a statement. Because New York City really is one of the least bad child welfare systems in the country (mostly not thanks to David Hansell). Wherever you are, it’s probably worse.
The agency regularly cherry-picks data to disguise the fact that, under Hansell’s leadership, ACS has retreated from reform and subjected more children to the enormous trauma of needless foster care.
https://www.nccprblog.org/2021/03/child-welfare-in-new-york-why-you.html
https://citylimits.org/2019/03/28/opinion-city-is-spinning-child-welfare-stats/
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Monday, March 8, 2021
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Tuesday, February 16, 2021
Monday, February 15, 2021
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Friday, January 8, 2021
Tuesday, January 5, 2021
Kristen Doleva-Lecher Esq might get disbarred.
Once a very good and trusted attorney left a lot of people hanging by not showing up in court or simply took their money and did nothing to help them. Luckily people are starting to file disciplinary action against her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
