If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
child protective services overhaul....
Kane wrote
I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious fact checking. There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and giving little credibility. The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and most recipients will round file such letters. Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to reform CPS based on facts, not this trash. Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from within. Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to clean up their act. Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are factual errors but did not point out the exact errors. It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved, or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their slow march across the land. Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any immediate and swiftly corrective action. He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the First portion of the US Constitution we know as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion and negotiation, rather than those rights being sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out. Did you know that most states have legislated the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof for Juvenile Court cases? Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law that says that because of the Liberty Interest involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING. (75%) Do you wonder WHY states have actually legislated a system which does NOT fulfill such an important federal requirement to safeguard civil rights? WHY didn't the states THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal and controlling standard required? WHY run ENTIRE state court systems that do not fulfill this overriding standard? Even MORE interesting is that one could sincerely argue that the legal standard for Child Removal as a huge LIBERTY INTEREST should be BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT? That is the burden of proof for cases involving potential incarceration because it involves a LIBERTY Interest. In light of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and the meaning of a LIBERTY INTEREST, Why should the burden of proof regarding the removal of a child from their family be any less? Santosky v Kramer didn't go far ENOUGH, and even this moderate requirement has not been enforced as the standard throughout the USA. Bar Associations, attorneys en masse, legislatures and peoples reliance on the "Brotherhood of the Bar" have ALL failed to see this simple damning truth. The use of PREPONDERANCE as the standard burden of proof is wrong, and has been FOR YEARS. Should we quibble about the technicalities of dotted i's or crossed t's which slow down the required and OVERDUE changes, or should we press our imperfect complaints? The rubber stamp crowd would infiltrate, misguide or steer Family Rights advocates to WATER DOWN the venom of Citizen Outrage that CPS agencies and their Juvenile Courts DESERVE. Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa TOP POST of this thread by fx Feb 7th 10:32 PM http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html Step One is to start a series of letters. Write your Congress Person, your Governor, Your State Represenative, Write the President and the Vice President, write the FIrst Lady, write the Media and tell them all that these violations of the US Constitution will not be tolerated! SAMPLE LETTER - FEEL FREE TO COPY AND USE AS A FORM LETTER! Dear President, (Governor, Represenative etc.) Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child Protective Services). For example, in one Sate they are known as DCF (Department of Children and Families.) While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percent of those truly abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph. I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources. Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Here they are. 1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974. 2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 4. Social Security Title IV-E funds. The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential" abuser. The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them through Hell. Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse? 1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess. 2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances. 3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting. 4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it's not there. 5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the field. 6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law! 7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide. Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts. Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington. CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4) Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5) As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home. The calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an abusive home, there are 17 unabused children removed from loving non- offending homes nationwide. Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day! 1. It's unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. - Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) 2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment - Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588 3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person's home without a search warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999) 4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991) 5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989) 6. The 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) 7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998) What can be done to change this for a better, more healthy Child Protection System? I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy feely civil complaint and should be investigated as a crime. II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause. III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it. IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and has been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a system that will abuse them. V. Make CPS legally investigate those who sign up to be foster parents. They do not do this today, and many foster parent who want the money for fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught! VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police! VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location. VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation. IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to face their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is not done. X. The Children are to be tracked on a weekly biases so no more children vanish in the system. XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster Care, the Child's current Physician will need to provide a copy of the diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in the Foster Parents losing their certification for Foster Care. XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of a Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is found not guilty won't have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals or families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only report listed. Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of others where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off than where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the innocent children who are never abused are also killed. Injustice against one American is injustice against all Americans. Help us put the Justice back into Child Protective Services and get them focused on finding and saving abused children. It's time we removed them from the profitable business of tearing loving non-offending families apart. Sincerely, Your Name Here |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
child protective services overhaul....
On Feb 8, 2:21 pm, "Greegor" wrote:
Kane wrote I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious fact checking. There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and giving little credibility. The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and most recipients will round file such letters. Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to reform CPS based on facts, not this trash. Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from within. I've never been either. I have supported relatives fostering and adopting and acted in their behalf. Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to clean up their act. Never mind the public has had 30 of proganda from child abusers that want to be left alone to abuse their children without society -- their neighbors -- interfering. Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are factual errors but did not point out the exact errors. We have spent years hashing this out here, and again and again I've shown that many of the claims are errors and lies. I'm not going to relist them all for yet another punk child abusing propagandist. It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved, You now have become a certified mind reader? Why not show where I've done what you claim, Greg? or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their slow march across the land. Intimidate?One: you are not a family rights advocate. You are lying evil little pus pocket that has repeatedly attacked both successful parents who have posted advice here, and NEW PARENTS THAT HAVE COME HERE FOR HELP. Two: Do you feel intimidated? What real Family Rights' adovocate feels intimidated by me, Greg? List them all here. Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any immediate and swiftly corrective action. Well, what's the score on "immediate and swiftly corrective action," Greg? How you doing? The little girl home now, on the 6th anniversary of her removal to the safety of her grandparents home? He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the First portion of the US Constitution we know as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion and negotiation, rather than those rights being sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out. "He" does? Odd, I seem to have an entire nation agreeing with me. The Constitution is continually tested and interpreted Greg. In fact that's what YOU so impotently attempt to do. Did you know that most states have legislated the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof for Juvenile Court cases? That would mean what, Greg....following your advice and forcing CPS to go to trial to terminate people's parental rights? Stand up in court and challenge state laws against recording others secretly while you are involved in a child custody case. Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law that says that because of the Liberty Interest involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING. (75%) You people amaze me. I THIS your excuse for advising people to force the state to take them to TPR, Greg? Want to jump up in the middle of a tpr trial and scream out the name of this case and it's finding and have the judge and everyone else laugh at you, AND TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY? No DA in his or her right mind, no matter how much **** you managed to throw, TO AVOID GETTING THE CHILD HOME EARLIER, is going to recommend going to TPR without the evidence required, and that, little boy, is all this case determined. And the states STILL can remove the child during the investigation, little boy; Santosky v. Kramer (No. 80-5889) ___ Syllabus Opinion [ Blackmun ] Dissent [ Rehnquist ] HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version Syllabus SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 455 U.S. 745 Santosky v. Kramer CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT No. 80-5889 Argued: November 10, 1981 --- Decided: March 24, 1982 Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is "permanently neglected." The New York Family Court Act (§ 622) requires that only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" support that finding. Neglect proceedings were brought in Family Court to terminate petitioners' rights as natural parents in their three children. Rejecting petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality of § 622's "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, the Family Court weighed the evidence under that standard and found permanent neglect. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, the Family Court ruled that the best interests of the children required permanent termination of petitioners' custody. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal to that court. Held: 1. Process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state- initiated parental rights termination proceeding. Pp. 752-757. (a) The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Pp. 752-754. (b) The nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: the private interests affected by the proceedings; the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335. In any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the public and [p746] private interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants. The minimum standard is a question of federal law which this Court may resolve. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard. Pp. 754-757. 2. The "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by § 622 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 758-768. (a) The balance of private interests affected weighs heavily against use of such a standard in parental rights termination proceedings, since the private interest affected is commanding, and the threatened loss is permanent. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. Pp. 758-761. (b) A preponderance standard does not fairly allocate the risk of an erroneous factfinding between the State and the natural parents. In parental rights termination proceedings, which bear many of the indicia of a criminal trial, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Coupled with the preponderance standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination of parental rights. A standard of proof that allocates the risk of error nearly equally between an erroneous failure to terminate, which leaves the child in an uneasy status quo, and an erroneous termination, which unnecessarily destroys the natural family, does not reflect properly the relative severity of these two outcomes. Pp. 761-766. (c) A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence is consistent with the two state interests at stake in parental rights termination proceedings -- a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the child's welfare and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. Pp. 766-768. 3. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. A "clear and convincing evidence" standard adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. Determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Pp. 768-770. 75 App.Div.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d 319, vacated and remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a [p747] dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 770. This is ALL about TPR and has been the law for most states for a very long time, dummy. Do you wonder WHY states have actually legislated a system which does NOT fulfill such an important federal requirement to safeguard civil rights? Oh, really? You can provide the statutes regarding TPR, can't you Greg, and show where they state is not required to come up with a preponderance of evidence, right? WHY didn't the states THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal and controlling standard required? Interesting question. You made a ranting claim that I had not provided specific instances of where the letter of bull**** we are discussing lied or was in error. Well, child I can point right now. Just by asking you to provide proof of our two claims. And all you need is ONE or two citations from state statutes where they do not match or exceed the federal finding. By the way, not everyone agrees with the "goodness" of this finding, child. It's very very dangerous for children. This "finding" was a supreme court screwup of major proportions, ignoring the rights of children being equal to that of the parents. Here's a Harvard law school paper by what appears to be a very sharp student that lays it out nicely. http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewconten...rvard/students WHY run ENTIRE state court systems that do not fulfill this overriding standard? It is NOT an overriding standard, and it ignores the rights of the child, child. Even MORE interesting is that one could sincerely argue that the legal standard for Child Removal as a huge LIBERTY INTEREST should be BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT? It is. A TPR trial is something quite different than a shelter hearing. If you read the arguments carefully Greg, what you are looking at is a clear attempt to use Federal law to cap state law. Are you suggesting now that the law and courts is suddenly your friend? That is the burden of proof for cases involving potential incarceration because it involves a LIBERTY Interest. The childs? Not to be abused, and or killed in the care of their parents? In light of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and the meaning of a LIBERTY INTEREST, Why should the burden of proof regarding the removal of a child from their family be any less? Show us the proof of your claim, stupid. And show us where the child's "liberty interest" should take a secondary position to the parents. Santosky v Kramer didn't go far ENOUGH, and even this moderate requirement has not been enforced as the standard throughout the USA. You might not like what legal scholars, and those DECENTING SC justices had to say, but it's very worth a read: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~pa...s/santosky.htm Bar Associations, attorneys en masse, legislatures and peoples reliance on the "Brotherhood of the Bar" have ALL failed to see this simple damning truth. Nope. They have seen this was SC screwup of major proportions, Greg. The use of PREPONDERANCE as the standard burden of proof is wrong, and has been FOR YEARS. Nope. Not according to the dessenting SCJs, and many a legal scholor, Greg. Should we quibble about the technicalities of dotted i's or crossed t's which slow down the required and OVERDUE changes, or should we press our imperfect complaints? Yes...that we should, if by your i's and t's you mean the continual scrutiny of this finding. The rubber stamp crowd would infiltrate, misguide or steer Family Rights advocates to WATER DOWN the venom of Citizen Outrage that CPS agencies and their Juvenile Courts DESERVE. Venom? What venom? Scared Bunny Rabbit's don't have 'venom' unless they are from Monty Python, stupid. Real crusaders BEAT CPS regularly. Ever case where a child is returned, and an allegation overturned is a reform crusade successfully carried out, Greg. And you spit at these people like the simple little **** you obviously are. And the rest of the country knows that that 1982 decision was a piece of crap dangerous to the safety of children. You do know, of course, it was a 5/4 decision, right? Know what that means in terms of the courtroom, Greg, and the state legislatures? Kane Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa TOP POST of this thread by fx Feb 7th 10:32 PM http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html Step One is to start a series of letters. Write your Congress Person, your Governor, Your State Represenative, Write the President and the Vice President, write the FIrst Lady, write the Media and tell them all that these violations of the US Constitution will not be tolerated! SAMPLE LETTER - FEEL FREE TO COPY AND USE AS A FORM LETTER! Dear President, (Governor, Represenative etc.) Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child Protective Services). For example, in one Sate they are known as DCF (Department of Children and Families.) While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percent of those truly abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph. I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources. Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Here they are. 1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974. 2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 4. Social Security Title IV-E funds. The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential" abuser. The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them through Hell. Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse? 1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess. 2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances. 3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting. 4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it's not there. 5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the field. 6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law! 7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide. Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts. Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington. CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4) Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5) As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home. The calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an abusive home, there are 17 unabused children removed from loving non- offending homes nationwide. Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day! 1. It's unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. - Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) 2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment - Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588 3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person's home without a search warrant. Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999) 4. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991) 5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989) 6. The 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) 7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998) What can be done to change this for a better, more healthy Child Protection System? I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy feely civil complaint and should be investigated as a crime. II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause. III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it. IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and has been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a system that will abuse them. V. Make CPS legally investigate those who sign up to be foster parents. They do not do this today, and many foster parent who want the money for fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught! VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police! VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location. VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation. IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to face their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is not done. X. The Children are to be tracked on a weekly biases so no more children vanish in the system. XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster Care, the Child's current Physician will need to provide a copy of the diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in the Foster Parents losing their certification for Foster Care. XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of a Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is found not guilty won't have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals or families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only report listed. Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of others where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off than where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the innocent children who are never abused are also killed. Injustice against one American is injustice against all Americans. Help us put the Justice back into Child Protective Services and get them focused on finding and saving abused children. It's time we removed them from the profitable business of tearing loving non-offending families apart. Sincerely, Your Name Here |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
child protective services overhaul....
Kane wrote
I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious fact checking. There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and giving little credibility. The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and most recipients will round file such letters. Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to reform CPS based on facts, not this trash. Greg wrote Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from within. Dan Sullivan Kane has never been a CPS CW or a professional lobbyist. Liar. "professional" wasn't my claim. It was your way to try to dodge the truth. Greg wrote Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to clean up their act. Dan wrote Are you placing the responsibility for that on Kane, too? Ambivalent. He was a cog and wishes he was again. Were the death camp guards guilty for perpetuating the operation of the facilities? Greg wrote Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are factual errors but did not point out the exact errors. Dan wrote Then you can point out the errors. This is called a snipe hunt, a time waste. Greg wrote It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved, or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their slow march across the land. Dan wrote Slow march? Dan wrote As in your six year odyssey from your idiocy Dan wrote in Iowa... to your current state of idiocy in Iowa?? You know nothing then. Your ignorance is bliss. Greg wrote Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any immediate and swiftly corrective action. Dan wrote You went from a slow march to immediate and swiftly corrective action... which is it? Both actually. There are fits and starts. The conclusion is inevitable, but never fast enough. Greg wrote He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the First portion of the US Constitution we know as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion and negotiation, rather than those rights being sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out. Dan wrote Which would they be exactly? Your ignorance is bliss. Greg wrote Did you know that most states have legislated the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof for Juvenile Court cases? Dan wrote Which states would they be? All but one. One state now mandates CLEAR AND CONVINCING as the burden of proof. Greg wrote Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law that says that because of the Liberty Interest involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING. (75%) Dan wrote I [doubt] that would make any difference. Your ignorance is bliss. Greg wrote Do you wonder WHY states have actually legislated a system which does NOT fulfill such an important federal requirement to safeguard civil rights? Dan wrote Exactly why is that, Greg? If you have an answer, please offer it. I don't care if this problem was deliberate or through sheer stupidity. The double standard must stop. Greg wrote WHY didn't the states THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal and controlling standard required? Dan wrote Exactly why is that, Greg? Please offer your guesses. Greg wrote WHY run ENTIRE state court systems that do not fulfill this overriding standard? Dan wrote But it isn't an "overriding" standard, is it, Greg? Santosky v. Kramer is controlling FEDERAL caselaw. It pertains DIRECTLY to the BILL OF RIGHTS. Greg wrote Even MORE interesting is that one could sincerely argue that the legal standard for Child Removal as a huge LIBERTY INTEREST should be BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT? Dan wrote State your case, Greg. Do you intend to contribute anything Dan? Greg wrote That is the burden of proof for cases involving potential incarceration because it involves a LIBERTY Interest. Dan wrote OTOH it also could mean leaving a child or children in their own home with a child abuser, such as yourself, Greg. I am not a child abuser. The caseworker LIED to make a case. They trampled on the BILL OF RIGHTS. Greg wrote In light of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and the meaning of a LIBERTY INTEREST, Why should the burden of proof regarding the removal of a child from their family be any less? Dan wrote Because the investigation has just begun. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Santosky v Kramer Must be CLEAR AND CONVINCING FIRST! The Nazilike needs of petty bureaucrats to push their paperwork does NOT trump the required CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. Greg wrote Santosky v Kramer didn't go far ENOUGH, and even this moderate requirement has not been enforced as the standard throughout the USA. Dan wrote You said before this standard was "overriding." Which is it, Greg? Controlling caselaw and Bill Of Rights. Most agencies and Juvenile Courts are too busy rubber stamping to realize they violate sacred Citizens Rights. Greg wrote Bar Associations, attorneys en masse, legislatures and peoples reliance on the "Brotherhood of the Bar" have ALL failed to see this simple damning truth. Dan wrote Why is that, Greg? Time for you to actually contribute Dan. Greg wrote The use of PREPONDERANCE as the standard burden of proof is wrong, and has been FOR YEARS. Dan wrote What have you done to fix it, Greg? Your ignorance is bliss. Dan wrote In your long six year odyssey... Greg wrote Should we quibble about the technicalities of dotted i's or crossed t's which slow down the required and OVERDUE changes, or should we press our imperfect complaints? Dan wrote What have you done to enact these changes, Greg? Greg wrote The rubber stamp crowd would infiltrate, misguide or steer Family Rights advocates to WATER DOWN the venom of Citizen Outrage that CPS agencies and their Juvenile Courts DESERVE. Dan wrote Please give three examples of your venom, Greg. Are you going to contribute anything Dan? Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa Greegot AT hotmail.com TOP POST of this thread by fx Feb 7th 10:32 PM http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html Step One is to start a series of letters. Write your Congress Person, your Governor, Your State Represenative, Write the President and the Vice President, write the FIrst Lady, write the Media and tell them all that these violations of the US Constitution will not be tolerated! SAMPLE LETTER - FEEL FREE TO COPY AND USE AS A FORM LETTER! Dear President, (Governor, Represenative etc.) Nationwide, there are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (Child Protective Services). For example, in one Sate they are known as DCF (Department of Children and Families.) While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percent of those truly abused children. The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph. I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am petitioning for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence. I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources. Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Here they are. 1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974. 2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 4. Social Security Title IV-E funds. The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong. If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the "best interests of the child" as she is a "potential" abuser. The largest targeted type of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you. While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family, she could report them and put them through Hell. Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse? 1. Agents who never had children and don't understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess. 2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice. They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances. 3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting. 4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it's not there. 5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn't even have to be related to the field. 6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law! 7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide. Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts. Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington. CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4) Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5) As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home. The calculated average is for every 1 abused child removed from an abusive home, there are 17 unabused |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Don't ignore my reply, Greg. child protective services overhaul....
On Feb 8, 3:54 pm, "0:-" wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:21 pm, "Greegor" wrote: Kane wrote I suggest before anyone sign and send this they get into some serious fact checking. There are errors and outright lies in this letter. If it's taken seriously enough they will be checked by the recipient's staff and giving little credibility. The claims, for the most part, are well known propaganda ploys and most recipients will round file such letters. Go to the trouble to find out the truth. Make your complaints to reform CPS based on facts, not this trash. Yes, take it from Kane, the former Oregon Caseworker and lobbyist for the agencies to slowly, ever so slowly reform from within. I've never been either. I have supported relatives fostering and adopting and acted in their behalf. Never mind that the agencies have had over 30 years to clean up their act. Never mind the public has had 30 of proganda from child abusers that want to be left alone to abuse their children without society -- their neighbors -- interfering. Please notice that Kane (Donald L. Fisher) says there are factual errors but did not point out the exact errors. We have spent years hashing this out here, and again and again I've shown that many of the claims are errors and lies. I'm not going to relist them all for yet another punk child abusing propagandist. It would be his wish to tie up any action in technical trivia and complaints vague enough they cannot be resolved, You now have become a certified mind reader? Why not show where I've done what you claim, Greg? or generally intimidate Family Rights advocates in their slow march across the land. Intimidate?One: you are not a family rights advocate. You are lying evil little pus pocket that has repeatedly attacked both successful parents who have posted advice here, and NEW PARENTS THAT HAVE COME HERE FOR HELP. Two: Do you feel intimidated? What real Family Rights' adovocate feels intimidated by me, Greg? List them all here. Kane and the hyena pack hoplessly pretend they are Family Rights advocates in the hope they can gently guide Family Rights AWAY from any immediate and swiftly corrective action. Well, what's the score on "immediate and swiftly corrective action," Greg? How you doing? The little girl home now, on the 6th anniversary of her removal to the safety of her grandparents home? He thinks that the rights GUARANTEED in the First portion of the US Constitution we know as the Bill Of Rights are up for debate, discussion and negotiation, rather than those rights being sacred, protected and GUARANTEED, flat out. "He" does? Odd, I seem to have an entire nation agreeing with me. The Constitution is continually tested and interpreted Greg. In fact that's what YOU so impotently attempt to do. Did you know that most states have legislated the PREPONDERANCE (51%) standard of proof for Juvenile Court cases? That would mean what, Greg....following your advice and forcing CPS to go to trial to terminate people's parental rights? Stand up in court and challenge state laws against recording others secretly while you are involved in a child custody case. Santosky v Kramer is controlling Federal law that says that because of the Liberty Interest involved in Juvenile Court cases, the legal burden of proof is CLEAR AND CONVINCING. (75%) You people amaze me. I THIS your excuse for advising people to force the state to take them to TPR, Greg? Want to jump up in the middle of a tpr trial and scream out the name of this case and it's finding and have the judge and everyone else laugh at you, AND TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY? No DA in his or her right mind, no matter how much **** you managed to throw, TO AVOID GETTING THE CHILD HOME EARLIER, is going to recommend going to TPR without the evidence required, and that, little boy, is all this case determined. And the states STILL can remove the child during the investigation, little boy; Santosky v. Kramer (No. 80-5889) ___ Syllabus Opinion [ Blackmun ] Dissent [ Rehnquist ] HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version Syllabus SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 455 U.S. 745 Santosky v. Kramer CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT No. 80-5889 Argued: November 10, 1981 --- Decided: March 24, 1982 Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is "permanently neglected." The New York Family Court Act (§ 622) requires that only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" support that finding. Neglect proceedings were brought in Family Court to terminate petitioners' rights as natural parents in their three children. Rejecting petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality of § 622's "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, the Family Court weighed the evidence under that standard and found permanent neglect. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, the Family Court ruled that the best interests of the children required permanent termination of petitioners' custody. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal to that court. Held: 1. Process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state- initiated parental rights termination proceeding. Pp. 752-757. (a) The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Pp. 752-754. (b) The nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: the private interests affected by the proceedings; the risk of error created by the State's chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335. In any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the public and [p746] private interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants. The minimum standard is a question of federal law which this Court may resolve. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard. Pp. 754-757. 2. The "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by § 622 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 758-768. (a) The balance of private interests affected weighs heavily against use of such a standard in parental rights termination proceedings, since the private interest affected is commanding, and the threatened loss is permanent. Once affirmed on appeal, a New York decision terminating parental rights is final and irrevocable. Pp. 758-761. (b) A preponderance standard does not fairly allocate the risk of an erroneous factfinding between the State and the natural parents. In parental rights termination proceedings, which bear many of the indicia of a criminal trial, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Coupled with the preponderance standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination of parental rights. A standard of proof that allocates the risk of error nearly equally between an erroneous failure to terminate, which leaves the child in an uneasy status quo, and an erroneous termination, which unnecessarily destroys the natural family, does not reflect properly the relative severity of these two outcomes. Pp. 761-766. (c) A standard of proof more strict than preponderance of the evidence is consistent with the two state interests at stake in parental rights termination proceedings -- a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the child's welfare and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings. Pp. 766-768. 3. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. A "clear and convincing evidence" standard adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. Determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Pp. 768-770. 75 App.Div.2d 910, 427 N.Y.S.2d 319, vacated and remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a [p747] dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 770. This is ALL about TPR and has been the law for most states for a very long time, dummy. Do you wonder WHY states have actually legislated a system which does NOT fulfill such an important federal requirement to safeguard civil rights? Oh, really? You can provide the statutes regarding TPR, can't you Greg, and show where they state is not required to come up with a preponderance of evidence, right? WHY didn't the states THEMSELVES legislate up to the Federal and controlling standard required? Interesting question. You made a ranting claim that I had not provided specific instances of where the letter of bull**** we are discussing lied or was in error. Well, ... read more » |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
child protective services overhaul.... | Greegor | Spanking | 2 | February 9th 07 03:49 AM |
As promised ... (SIDS) | Greegor | Foster Parents | 69 | December 3rd 06 10:16 AM |
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 7th 05 11:00 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |