Objections and Corrections to the Report of the Social Worker Example

[Parent’s Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State Zip Code]
[Phone #]

[Change this next part to match the header information for your court case. You should be able to get this information from other paperwork already filed in your case. Try to make the header match what they have already done.]

[Center the next four lines and type in all caps:]

IN THE [SUPERIOR] COURT OF THE STATE OF [CALIFORNIA]
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [LOS ANGELES]

SITTING IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION
AS THE JUVENILE COURT

IN THE MATTER OF: JOHNNY DOE, JR (DOB 4-5-1992) JANIE DOE (DOB 2-3-1996) Persons alleged to come within the provision of the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

OBJECTIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE REPORT OF THE CHILD WELFARE CASEWORKER (get numbers from YOUR paperwork) Clerk No. [33637, 33637] Detention Date: March 21, 2000 Disposition Date: June 2, 2000 Review Date: December 15, 2001

To the Honorable INSERT JUDGE’S NAME HERE IN CAPS, Judge of the [Superior] Court of the State of [California], in and for the County of [Los Angeles]:

[Double space the rest of the text. Indent paragraphs ten spaces.]

The Honorable Court above-named is hereby advised that the REPORT OF THE CHILD WELFARE CASEWORKER herein, as prepared and typed is ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT in the following particulars, to wit:

[Here’s where you get to be creative. Go through your caseworker’s court paperwork and find every error, no matter how trivial. Even trivial errors show how incompetent the person is. You will list each error separately with corrections as in the sample. This sample is derived from an actual case I worked on in 1991. The names, dates, and some details were changed. The case I worked on was dismissed after similar paperwork was given to the judge. Remember to double space everything below.]

1. Page One: JOHNNY DOE is not 8 years old. He was 10 as of April 5, 2002.

2. Page One: Mother’s name is ELIZABETH SMITH, not Doe. Address given by caseworker is incorrect.

3. Page Two: COUNT 1: “On or about March 21, 2000, minors were found to be dirty.” Minors were out playing in the yard, climbing trees to get fruit, and doing what most kids do when playing outside, getting dirty. There was nothing abnormal about their being dirty.

4. Page Two: COUNT 2: The caseworker erroneously stated, “Mother has recurrent mental problems that periodically render her unable to care for children.” Mother’s mental problem was temporary due to stress from her husband’s deportation, her father’s death, and the detention of her children by CPS. The problem is not recurrent and does not “periodically render her unable to care for the children” as suggested by the caseworker.

5. Page Three: “November 15, 2000” court date given by the caseworker is incorrect. The correct date is November 12, 2000.

6. Page Three: The Doe children were not taken after the mother was admitted to Bellview Mental Hospital. A caseworker arrived to detain the children from their grandmother’s house and then advised the mother to allow herself to be admitted to Bellview because she was grieving and upset.

7. Page Three: On March 21, 2000 when Janie and Johnny were detained from their grandmother’s home they were not injured, neglected, or abused in any way.

8. Page Three: Problems with police officer on November 1, 1999 occurred when police arrived to arrest Mr. John Doe, Sr. for deportation and the mother was cuffed and beaten by the arresting officer. This arrest does not affect or reflect on the stability of her current home life with her new husband, Mr. Thomas Smith.

9. Page Three: Mother quit her job on June 20, 2001, not “shortly after her marriage” as stated by the caseworker. The job is no longer needed for support of the family as her new husband is earning enough to support them and is willing to do so. Mother is needed at home to care for the children.

10. Page Three: Date of marriage to Thomas Smith is incorrect. The correct date is November 29, 2000.

11. Page Three: “Mrs.”, not “Ms.” – The caseworker knows that Mrs. Smith is not separated from her husband, but throughout the report she implies that Mr. and Mrs. Smith are not together.

12. Page Three: While her husband was visiting family in Nevada, Mrs. Smith called Dr. Hoar only twice for advice during a two week period, not “frequently” as stated by the caseworker, and those calls were only about Johnny’s behavior, not about both children.

13. Page Three: Mrs. Smith has not only “largely complied” with the Reunification Plan, she has completely complied with all aspects of the plan.

14. Page Three: Mrs. Smith never told Dr. Hoar that she “couldn’t handle Johnny anymore and wanted to give him up,” as stated by the caseworker. What actually happened is that Dr. Hoar tried to talk Mrs. Smith into giving him up and putting him in a mental hospital. Mrs. Smith did not want to do that. During the session Mrs. Smith did not state that she had been upset.

15. Page Four: Janie does not have “sporadic behavior problems” in her home or at school as suggested by the caseworker. At home the mother has never seen indications of such problems and has received no such reports from Headstart. Attached please find “Exhibit A” – a letter from Headstart stating they have not observed or complained of any “sporadic behavior problems” from Janie.

16. Page Four: Johnny’s behavior problems are only occasional and not a “continuous problem” as stated by the caseworker in her report. Attached please find “Exhibit B” – an evaluation of Johnny’s behavior by Dr. Goodman in San Francisco, dated November 3, 2001.

17. Page Four: The improvement in Mrs. Smith’s parenting has been going on for years, not just for the last few months. Attached please find “Exhibit C” and “Exhibit D” – certificates of completion provided by parenting class instructors in January 1997 and November 2000.

18. Page Four: There has been no “substantial, recent regression” due to a separation from Mr. Smith. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are still living together; he simply took a two week vacation to Nevada to visit his sick mother. Therefore this should not be used as a basis for the caseworker’s request for another six months of services at taxpayers’ expense.

19. Page Four: Dr. Hoar wants the case prolonged for another six months because once the case is dismissed the mother will find a different therapist, and Dr. Hoar will no longer be receiving CPS money for seeing her and her children. Therefore, Dr. Hoar’s report should not be considered by the court. Mrs. Smith intends to find another therapist for the children when the case is dismissed as the children do not like seeing Dr. Hoar as therapist, and are even afraid to tell this to him. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely the children will progress adequately in therapy. For these reasons, Mrs. Smith’s request to have Dr. Hoar removed from the case can hardly be called “an indication of poor judgement” as stated by the caseworker. She did so solely for the benefit of the children and with concerned regard for their psychological functioning.

20. Page Four: Recommendation that the minors be readjudged dependents of the Juvenile Court is inappropriate as the family has been functioning well during the last six months that they have been together. The case should be closed at this time.

21. Pages Four and Five: Recommendations 2, 4, and 5 are also inappropriate as the case should be closed.

22. Pages Six and Seven: Service Plan for mother and caseworker is inappropriate as the case should be closed.

Executed 10 December 2001 at Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

(Signature) Elizabeth Smith

Sample form created by: Linda J. Martin, http://www.fightcps.com

When you are done, make two complete copies of it. Also write a brief cover letter explaining to your attorney that you want this submitted and used in the next hearing. Include your name and phone number on the cover letter and request that they contact you to discuss it. Take it personally to your attorney’s office and have the secretary DATE-STAMP YOUR COPY. This will give you proof that you submitted this to your attorney.

If you find that you are too late to get this submitted to your attorney before the court date, take 1 copy for the judge and 1 copy for yourself, 1 copy for your attorney and 1 copy for each other party in the case such as the caseworker, the child’s attorney, your wife’s attorney, and even one for the CASA. Every one will need a copy.

Your attorney may ask for a “Continuance” so they can study the document before giving it to the others. This will mean rescheduleing for another hearing on another date. This will also mean that your children will be in temporary care for awhile longer too. That is why it is important to get this to your attorneys office as soon as you can before the court date!!

Declaration of Facts Example

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Email:

Declaration of Facts

I, ______________________________, state:
(Your Name)

1. I am the mother/father of three children: (Names of kids.)

2. This declaration is being written (state reason for writing the declaration of facts – for example, “in support of a motion to return children to mother” or, “to explain my side of the case to the court”.

3. This is in reference to (Case Name, Case Number, Date Filed and the name of the court.)

4. (Just state facts one at a time… I’ll give some examples.) On June 2, 2002 I let my children go to school as usual and while they were there a CPS employee interviewed them without letting me know first.

5. There were no witnesses to this interview and to my knowledge no recording was made.

6. My children were detained by the CPS employee and I was not notified by the school so by 4:30 when they didn’t come home from school I was worried about them and called the school to find out if they knew anything.

7. At first nobody wanted to tell me where my kids were and the phone was handed to three different people. Finally the principal got on the line and told me that CPS took my three kids because my son, Johnny, had a bruise on his arm and said I did it.

8. The bruise happened because he climbed the apple tree and then got scared and couldn’t get down. I climbed up there and grabbed him and had to lower him down by his arm and that’s how he got bruised.

9. By the time I got off the phone with the principal of the school, it was only a few minutes before five PM so I called CPS but only got a recording and nobody would answer. It was Friday and I couldn’t get through to them all weekend and even went to the office twice but it was closed. That was why I didn’t check on them for two days – not because I didn’t care which is what the worker, Judy Jones, made it sound like in court on Wednesday.

10. I haven’t seen my children in three weeks because they say I’m a danger to them. This is not true. In fact most of what they say about me is not true which is why I’m contesting the charges and asking for a full trial to make them try to prove their untrue statements.

11. The CPS employees I talk to on the phone are extremely rude to me. They are Judy Jones and her supervisor, Mr. Smith. Judy Jones said very sarcastically: “You should never have had kids if you were going to hurt them. People like you make me sick.” This woman, Judy Jones, won’t believe this happened in the apple tree.

12. I am requesting a court order for the return of my children immediately.

[NOTE: This last part should state the exact words used, just change the date and place to match your circumstance.]

Executed January, 1, 2018 Town, State

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

_________________________________
(Your Name)

The First Woman to Expose CYS Nancy Schaffer GA She was Murdered for it!

https://www.facebook.com/childsupportreform2017/videos/224314147973049/

Johnstown pediatrician Dr. Johnnie Barto Arrested for horrific sexual abuse.

https://www.facebook.com/PaAttorneyGen/videos/10155375789736981/

Criminals are Foster Parenting

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/02/dcf_handbook_shocker_criminal_past_doesn_t_disqualify_foster

 

CYS Committing Fraud

This is official notice to inform community as well as county and state agency of criminal intent to conceal a fraudulent act against a Federal agency. Note that when a child or children receive or obtain Federal benefits such as SSI or Social security all income for said child support effect eligibility for those benefits.

It has been brought to the attention to several parties that have children placed in out of home placement whom children currently receive both Federal benefits and Administrative order for child support , and that the child support has not been reported to social security division. There has also been children whom have aged out of said out of home placement and have become victims to over payment on their Federal benefits due to the failure from case workers as well as Guardian ad Litem not reporting said income from Administrative child support orders.

It is highly recommended that any and all parents whom have current open or even closed cases report this issue to their local Social security division to assist their children and prevent their children from being VICTIMS of Social Security FRAUD.

This is pertaining to disabled parents whom children have been temporary or permanently removed and placed in out of home placement such as foster care or forced adoption. This also applies to parents whom have had children born premature or born with birth defects that enables said child or children eligible for said benefits and parents have a court ordered administrative child support order.

All that needs to be done is take the child's birth certificate ,copies of social security card, copies of the administrative child support order, a copy of the payment history from the child support web site to verify said payments paid and received for said child that is a victim of Social security fraud.

Parents may also file a Social security fraud report online on behalf of their child , and name their child the victim of the Social Security FRAUD incident.

Breaking the Foster Care Cycle

https://mailchi.mp/risemagazine/generations-in-foster-care-a-guide-to-breaking-the-cycle?e=130165f2b9

Kinship Care UPDATE

Hi Vickie, Kinship Caregiver Navigator Program bill update House Bill 2133 was voted out of the House Children and Youth Committee today! We thank Chairwoman Kathy Watson, Minority Chair Scott Conklin and Representative Eddie Day Pashinski for their leadership on the bill and all the members who voted in support. Thank you to all the organizations who signed-on to PPC’s letter in support of the bill. We sent the letter to committee members ahead of the bill’s consideration. The committee also approved HB 1439 and HR 390, which would allow for temporary emergency guardianship and task the Joint State Government Commission with studying the trend of grandfamilies and the opioid crisis, respectively. PPC also weighed-in in support of both of these pieces of legislation. What You Can Do   If your organization hasn’t signed on to PPC’s letter supporting HB 2133, please join us now! We will soon send a letter of support to the full House of Representatives. You may sign on to the letter here. Are you or do you know a grandparent or other relative raising children outside of the foster care system who will benefit from this new program? Send an email to Ashleigh Brunsink to share your story and let us know what you think about the bill.  What's Next  The kinship bill and the other pieces of legislation will now move through the House process. The House is in session the weeks of April 16th and 30th and we hope that the kinship bill will be passed and sent to the Senate for consideration in the coming weeks.  PPC will keep you updated on any further movement! Please remember to add your organization to the list of supporters by signing onto the letter if you haven’t done so yet. Sign the letter http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/51288/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=24648

2018 Child Welfare Report

http://www.papartnerships.org/socw2018

2018 State of Child Welfare

PPC annually compiles State of Child Welfare data to gauge the performance of Pennsylvania's child welfare system in meeting the needs of the children and families the system serves. We gather comprehensive data for each of the 67 counties, including information on foster care placements, children leaving or re-entering foster care and efforts to reunify children with parents or relatives.
Some highlights from this year's report include the following:

• Foster Care Entries by Age: In 2017, 1 in 3 children entering foster care for the first time were in the 0-2 age group, which has consistently remained the largest age group represented in first-time entries for the past five years. These youngest children are often considered some of the most vulnerable to abuse and neglect by Children & Youth agencies due to their complete dependence on parental caregivers. Interruptions in caregiving at such a young age can be especially challenging in the first three years of life, which are regarded as crucial for infant brain development, temperament and emotional skill-building. According to the federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) 2017 data, the number one reason children were removed from their families and placed in foster care was parental drug abuse. For children of this age, early services to the family are crucial in helping to mitigate trauma and ensure child safety.
  
  
• Foster Care Placement Settings: Pennsylvania has been steadily improving when it comes to placing children in foster care into family settings, rather than in group homes or institutions. But, we can do better. The majority of these settings in 2017 were with non-relatives, and this was true at all points of the foster care system - entry, all children served, children served on the last day of the reporting period and children who re-enter the foster care system. Pennsylvania has two statewide practices that focus on placing children in foster care with a relative or kin: family finding, where caseworkers make every effort to identify and locate relatives willing to serve as foster parents; and, Family Group Decision Making, where family members are included in the team that helps decide the best plan for a child in foster care.  These efforts have been proven to increase the likelihood that a child who must enter foster care will be placed with someone they already know and trust. This is just one benefit of placing children with relatives. Others include a higher likelihood that siblings will remain together, less placement moves, less behavioral challenges, decreased mental health needs and increased family and community connections. Often called kinship care, relative foster home placements should be prioritized when placing children in foster care.
  
  
• Timely Reunification and Failed Reunification: Our state's percentage of timely reunification, defined as children who were reunified with their parents or discharged to relatives within 12 months of entering foster care, increased to over 39% in 2017. Further, Pennsylvania's rate of failed reunification, or when a child re-enters foster care within 12 months of reunification or discharge to relatives, was the lowest recorded to date and has decreased over 13% over the past 5 years. This is good news as Pennsylvania has lagged behind other states on this measure and it indicates that the child welfare system is improving when it comes to appropriately addressing family needs and minimizing the time a child spends in foster care away from their birth families.
  
  
• General Protective Services: One important change in this year's report reflects the changes in how the General Protective Services (GPS) data is reported by the state. GPS reports include concerns of general neglect, not alleging child abuse, such as parental substance abuse, inadequate shelter or supervision, parent-child conflict or truancy concerns.  Last year was the first year this information was reported and GPS reports were reported by the date on which the report was made. This year, GPS reports are reported by the date on which the report was found valid or not valid. This is important to know because it means the timeframe of reports has shifted, therefore comparing 2015 and 2016 data may include some overlapping reports. If you are comparing data across years, be sure to be aware of this important change. Moving forward, GPS reports will continue to be reported by the date on which the report is found valid or not valid; a more accurate measure for reporting.

Data for each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties can be found below.

Citations/Sources

2018 Source Notes

State-level Data Tables

State
Rural
Rural Mix
Urban
Urban Mix

County Tables

Adams

Allegheny

Armstrong

Beaver

Bedford

Berks

Blair

Bradford

Bucks

Butler

Cambria

Cameron

Carbon

Centre

Chester

Clarion

Clearfield

Clinton

Columbia

Crawford

Cumberland

Dauphin

Delaware

Elk

Erie

Fayette

Forest

Franklin

Fulton

Greene

Huntingdon

Indiana

Jefferson

Juniata

Lackawanna

Lancaster

Lawrence

Lebanon

Lehigh

Luzerne

Lycoming

McKean

Mercer

Mifflin

Monroe

Montgomery

Montour

Northampton

Northumberland

Perry

Philadelphia

Pike

Potter

Schuylkill

Snyder

Somerset

Sullivan

Susquehanna

Tioga

Union

Venango

Warren

Washington

Wayne

Westmoreland

Wyoming

Ironic/Hypocritical that there are 2 different standards for CYS criminals and innocent parents being robbed of their children.
http://www.heraldbanner.com/news/appeals-court-overturns-convictions-of-former-cps-workers/article_08c2b35e-329d-11e8-addf-1768a15bbb94.html

Appeals court overturns convictions of former CPS workers

• Brad Kellar Herald-Banner Staff
 
• Mar 28, 2018 Updated 19 hrs ago
 

 

• courtesy Hunt County Detention Center     
• The state’s highest criminal appeals court has overturned the convictions of two former investigators with the local Child Protective Services (CPS) office, who were accused of overstepping their authority when conducting searches in separate cases.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered both Natalie Reynolds and Rebekash Ross not guilty in Wednesday’s unanimous decision. “Based upon our review of the record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that (Rachel and Ross) knew her conduct was unlawful, which is an essential element of the offense of official oppression,” Judge Bert Richardson wrote in the opinion. “We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render a judgment of acquittal.” The Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana upheld the convictions in December 2016, after conducting hearings in Greenville. Reynolds and Ross were each found guilty — Ross in Sept. 2015 and Reynolds one month later —  of one count of official oppression, a misdemeanor. Reynolds and Ross were both sentenced to one year in the Hunt County Jail, suspended for two years, with 30 days in the jail as a sanction, along with a $2,000 fine and community service. Reynolds and Ross were indicted by the Hunt County grand jury in September 2013. Each received three indictments for official oppression and one indictment for tampering with/fabricating physical evidence. The official oppression indictments alleged Reynolds and Ross acted as CPS investigators to have subjected individuals who were under CPS investigations “to search and seizure that the defendant knew as unlawful.” On appeal, Reynolds challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction; while Ross contended the trial court erred because there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction, that she was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial, and that she was denied her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
  In its rulings — which covered 15 pages for Reynolds and 16 pages for Ross, the Court of Criminal Appeals State indicated the prosecution not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that neither Reynolds nor Ross knew her conduct was unlawful.