Source: https://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/child-protective-services-historical-review-and-current-system-written-by-william-wesley-patton/
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 03:16:46
Document Index: 621504036

Matched Legal Cases: ['in casu', '§ 903', '§ 903', '§ 11166', '§ 901', '§ 906', '§11165', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2']

Child Protective Services- Historical Review and Current System Written by William Wesley Patton | How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children
No ancient civilization considered child protection to be a governmental function. In ancient Rome, for instance, fathers were vested with an almost unlimited natural right to determine the welfare of their children. The welfare of minors was a family matter, not a governmental interest or obligation. Most other governments of the ancient world provided no limits to a father’s right to inflict corporal punishment, including infanticide.
In addition to the case-by-case determinations by the chancery court regarding children’s property and guardianships, Parliament, in 1601, promulgated the Poor Law Act, which, among other provisions, provided the government jurisdiction to separate children from pauper parents and to place poor children in apprenticeships until the age of majority (21 for males and 16 for females). In 1660 Parliament passed the Tenures Abolition Act, which presaged the end of feudalism, including guardianships in chivalry that had formed the basis for the earlier Court of Wards and Court of Chancery over the guardianship of both children’s and the Crown’s inheritance and property interests. (“Guardianships in chivalry” provided that when a tenant on a lord’s land died leaving an heir under the age of majority, the lord could control the minor heir’s inheritance until the child became an adult.) The Tenures Abolition Act was revolutionary because it vested in the father the right to appoint a guardian for his child heir, which was previously forbidden under the feudal inheritance laws.
From 1660 until 1873 the Court of Chancery administered equity jurisdiction in conflicts between private parties over testamentary guardianships. It was during these equity determinations that the Court of Chancery expanded the substantive scope of child protection to include, in addition to inheritance and property, concerns over a ward’s rights to marry, to a particular type of education or school, to the choice of religious training, and to child custody arrangements. In 1839 Parliament dramatically expanded the court’s jurisdiction to determine the best interest of children through the Custody of Infants Act, which provided court jurisdiction to over-ride a father’s parental rights, including rights to custody and visitation. Most historians would agree that by the nineteenth century governmental concern in the child’s best interest were perfected directly through the doctrine of parens patriae, rather than indirectly through legal contests over property and guardianships.
The child protection policies of the early American colonists closely mirrored those of seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Britain. The colonists emphasized two aspects of English child protection theory: “the common law rules of family government; and the traditions and child-care practices of the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601” (Thomas, p. 299). Although colonial remedies of placing pauper children into involuntary apprenticeships or into poorhouses initially followed English legal customs, soon colonial theorists expanded court jurisdiction over juveniles to include contexts beyond poverty. For instance, in eighteenth-century Virginia, courts separated children not just from poor parents, but also from parents who were not providing “‘good breeding,’ neglecting their formal education, not teaching a trade, or were idle, dissolute, unchristian or ‘uncapable”‘ (Rendleman, p. 210). Calvinist notions of poverty as idleness and sin permitted court expansion into the normative definitions of the “best interest” of children.
Until the mid-1800s, child protection laws did not differentiate among different classes of children; so that dependent children, status offenders, and juvenile delinquents were either housed together in poorhouses with adults or involuntarily apprenticed. However, by 1830, “an embryonic reform movement had begun,” which removed dependent children from the teeming poorhouses and placed them in large orphan asylums. (Thomas, pp. 302–303). Due to the refuge movement (1824–1857), private corporations such as the New York House of Refuge (founded in 1824) received public funds and cared for both neglected and delinquent children in large institutions that separated juveniles from adult criminals and paupers. However, by the mid-1850s an anti-institution movement had developed, with the goal of placing poor city children in country foster placements rather than in large city institutions. Even though numerous state statutes were promulgated in the nineteenth century to care for abused and neglected children, government machinery was inadequate to implement sufficient protection.
In 1875 in New York, the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC) was founded to help enforce child protection laws. However, since the SPCC was composed primarily of “wealthy, white men, almost all of them Protestant,” who hired middle-class men as family investigators, the families that were targeted were largely poor immigrant families, who were judged by middle-class mores and vague standards such as “without proper parental guardianship” (Schiff, p. 413). The numerous competing reform movements and children’s aid societies of the mid-to late 1800s focused on the child as a member of a family group, not as an autonomous individual, and most emphasized removing children from their own families and placing them into a different home environment. By 1879 the New York Children’s Aid Society had sent 48,000 children out of New York to live with other families. After its first fourteen years, the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children “investigated nearly 70,000 complaints of ill-treatment of 209,000 children. Prosecutions were pursued in 24,500 of these cases, resulting in almost 24,000 convictions and the removal of 36,300 children” (Schiff, pp. 413–414).
By the beginning of the twentieth century the tide had turned away from family separation and toward family preservation. At the 1909 White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children, it was declared that “[h]ome life is the highest and finest product of civilization. It is the great molding force of mind and of character” (Tanenhaus, p. 550). The twentieth century ushered in a dramatic shift away from private child protective services in favor of governmental control by public agencies authorized under both federal and state child protection statutory schemes. In 1899 Illinois promulgated the first juvenile court, whose stated purpose was to provide for the care and custody of children in a manner that was an alternative equivalent to that of their parents. By 1920 all but three states had a juvenile court system.
But the goal of family reunification was rarely realized by the early juvenile courts, because few services were made available to assist poor uneducated parents in curing the conditions that led to state intervention. Instead, children remained in out-of-home placements for considerable periods of time. For instance, in Chicago, the city with the nation’s first juvenile court, the rate of family reunification in 1921 was about the same as in 1912 (70%), but in 1921 more children were staying in institutions for longer periods than in 1912.
The Constitution and Child Protection Laws
Between 1875 and 1900 numerous challenges to the vague legal definitions of child dependency and the informal legal proceedings leading to the separation of parents and children were denied. Early court decisions did not speak in terms of parents’ constitutional rights to rear their children, did not closely circumscribe the state’s parens patriae power to protect children, rejected arguments based upon criminal law analogies, and failed to articulate procedural due process protections for families caught in the child protection legal maelstrom.
Although state and county juvenile courts continued to evolve and to provide different levels of due process in child protection proceedings, the modern child dependency court development was shaped by several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which formalized the court process. In Meyers v. Nebraska (1923) the Court held that parents have a fundamental constitutional liberty interest in rearing their children. Based upon that liberty interest, the Court held in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981) that, under certain circumstances, parents are entitled to court-appointed attorneys when they face involuntary termination of their parental rights in child protection proceedings. And in Santosky v. Kramer (1982) the Court held that the state has the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of parental rights is necessary to protect children. Local juvenile courts no longer had unbridled discretion to informally and permanently separate parents and children. However, the U.S. Constitution became the sounding board only in cases involving permanent severance of parental rights. States are still free to provide fewer due-process procedural rights in temporary child protection cases.
Federal Statutory Policy
In the 1980s and 1990s the autonomy of state child protection schemes was further compromised and homogenized by a series of federal statutes. In 1980, Congress passed the first comprehensive federal child protective services act, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-272), which focused on state economic incentives to substantially decrease the length and number of foster care placements. This act also required specific family reunification services, reflecting the goals of the 1909 White House Conference. However, in 1997, in order to cure many of the defects in the 1980 act, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which shifted the focus from family reunification to expeditious permanency for children in adoptive placements. All state child protection systems adopted the federal guidelines as a requirement for receiving federal subsidies. Thus, because of constitutional and federal statutory requirements, the genesis of America’s child protection system has led to great uniformity among state programs.
See also: CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT; CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, subentry on CURRENT SYSTEM; VIOLENCE, CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO.
ABRAMOWICZ, SARAH. 1999. “English Child Custody Law, 1660-1839: The Origins of Judicial Intervention in Paternal Custody.” Columbia Law Review 90:1344–1391.
COGAN, NEIL HOWARD. 1970. “Juvenile Law, Before and After the Entrance of Parens Patriae.” South Carolina Law Review 22:147–181.
COUPLET, SACHA M. 2000. “What to Do with the Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing: The Role of Rhetoric and Reality about Youth Offenders in the Constructive Dismantling of the Juvenile Justice System.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148:1303–1346.
ESPENOZA, CECELIA M. 1996. “Good Kids, Bad Kids: A Revelation about the Due Process Rights of Children.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 23:407–545.
FOX, SANFORD J. 1970. “Juvenile Justice Reform: An Historical Perspective.” Stanford Law Review 22:1187–1239.
LOKEN, GREGORY A. 1995. “‘Thrownaway’ Children and Throwaway Parenthood.” Temple Law Review 68:1715–1762.
MACK, JULIAN W. 1909. “The Juvenile Court.” Harvard Law Review 23:104–122.
RENDLEMAN, DOUGLAS R. 1971. ” Parens Patriae: From Chancery to the Juvenile Court.” South Carolina Law Review 23:205–259.
SCHIFF, CORINNE. 1997. “Child Custody and the Ideal of Motherhood in Late Nineteenth-Century New York.” Georgetown Journal on Fighting Poverty 4:403–420.
SCHWARTZ, IRA M.; WEINER, NEIL ALAN; and ENOSH, GUY. 1998. “Nine Lives and Then Some: Why the Juvenile Court Does Not Roll Over and Die.” Wake Forest Law Review 33:533–552.
SCHWARTZ, IRA M.; WEINER, NEIL ALAN; and ENOSH, GUY. 1999. “Myopic Justice? The Juvenile Court and Child Welfare Systems.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 564:126–141.
SCOTT, ELIZABETH S. 2000. “The Legal Construction of Adolescence.” Hofstra Law Review 29:547–582.
TANENHAUS, DAVID S. 2001. “Growing Up Dependent: Family Preservation in Early Twentieth-Century Chicago.” Law and History Review 19:547–582.
THOMAS, MASON P. 1972. “Child Abuse and Neglect Part I: Historical Overview, Legal Matrix, and Social Perceptions.” North Carolina Law Review 50:293–349.
In the United States, methods for protecting abused and neglected children have progressed over the years. During the colonial era, the policy was to house pauper children in poorhouses or assign them to apprenticeships, while in the early nineteenth century the preference was to place these children in orphanages and industrial schools run by private societies. During the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, state child-dependency statutory schemes became prominent, based upon the state’s jurisdiction, through parens patriae (“father of the country,” used in law to denote the government’s power to protect its citizens), to intervene in family affairs for the protection of at-risk children. Contemporary children’s services are characterized by a shift in power from state to federal policy control, with a resultant structural uniformity among state child-protection models.
Federal child-protection policy has historically favored family preservation over the institutionalization of dependent minors. As early as 1909, through the White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children, the federal government identified the importance of the home as the central forum for child development. Until recently, the history of child protection in America has reflected this presumption of family preservation being preferable to moving an at-risk child to a possibly better or safer environment. However, it was not until 1980 that Congress passed the first comprehensive federal child protective services act, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (Pub. L. 96-272), which focused on state economic incentives to substantially decrease the length and number of foster care placements. This law also required specific family reunification services, reflecting the goals of the 1909 White House Conference.
In 1997, however, in order to cure many of the defects in the 1980 act, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which shifted the focus from family reunification to the best interests of children in expeditious permanency, which aims to rapidly finalize a permanent custodial home for minors rather than placing them temporarily in a series of different foster homes. Unlike the lengthy reunification services under the 1980 act, which often resulted in the termination of parental rights after two or three years of juvenile court intervention, the 1997 act required states to engage in “concurrent planning” at case intake. The federal goal of child protection had substantially shifted toward the child’s individual needs, rather than primarily attempting family reunification through state services. In fact, in cases involving allegations of serious abuse, the 1997 act deleted the prior requirement of state reunification services and permitted states to immediately seek to sever parental rights and place children into the new preferred placement, adoption. The 1997 act created adoption subsidies and incentives to states. This federal adoption preference soon resulted in unprecedented increases in the number of dependent children being adopted.
Problems with the 1997 Act
Even though the 1997 act reduced the time within which dependent children placed outside the home would remain in temporary placements and increased the number of adoptions, it has also created new problems. First, the federal adoption subsidy program has convinced many potential foster parents to become adoptive parents, thus reducing the number of temporary placements for abused children. The adoption subsidy has also driven social service agencies toward decisions to sever parental rights in close cases, rather than continuing family reunification and temporary foster placements.
The greatest impact of this new rush to permanent adoption has been on sibling relationships. Most state statutory schemes do not recognize that significant sibling bonds are a sufficient reason to continue temporary placements, rather than splitting siblings into different adoptive homes. Child welfare theorists argue that the speedy adoption permanency requirement of the 1997 act is having a significant deleterious cultural impact on poor and minority families. “Black families, who dominate foster care caseloads, are the main casualties of this shift away from a service provision toward coercive state intervention, which includes the requirement to relinquish custody of children as a condition of financial assistance” (Roberts, pp. 1641–1642).
Prior to the 1997 act, dependent children often lived with many different foster families in different neighborhoods, and they therefore lacked any continuity in their formal education, either with teachers or with curricula. For instance, in 1993 California foster children “attend[ed] an average of 9 different schools by the age of 18 … [and] demonstrate[d] significantly lower achievement and lower performance in school” (Kelly, pp. 759–760).
Choose an Area of Study – Select One – Arts & Humanities Business Communication & Media Cosmetology & Beauty Criminal Justice Culinary Arts & Food Service Education Graphics & Multimedia Healing Arts Health & Medical Services Hospitality & Restaurants Legal Professions Skilled Trades Technician Careers Technology
Choose a Concentration – Select One – Accounting & Related Services Acupuncture Administrative Services Advertising Aircraft Maintenance Alternative Medicine Animation & Video Graphics Architecture Aromatherapy Audiovisual Technician Autobody Repair Automotive Engineering Technology Aviation Avionics Technician Baking and Pastry Arts Barbering/Barber CAD Drafting and Design Chemistry Climate Control (HVAC) Clinical Assistant Clinical/Medical Lab. Technician Colonic Hydrotherapy Commercial & Advertising Art Computer Installation & Repair Computer Media Applications Computer Science Computer Support Services Computer Systems Security Computer Systems Technology Construction Management Corrections Cosmetology/Cosmetologist Court Reporting Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Culinary Arts Curriculum and Instruction Dentistry Support Services Design Design & Visual Communications Diagnostic & Treatment Technician Early Childhood Education Education and Teaching Electrical Technician Electrician Engineering Technology Esthetician & Skin Care Fashion and Apparel Fashion/Apparel Design Film and Theater Film/Video & Cinematography Finance Financial Services Food Services Foreign Languages Forensics General Business General Education General Studies Graphic Design Hair Styling & Hair Design Healing Arts Healthcare Administration Healtheology Herbalism/Herbalist Homeopathic Medicine Hospitality & Restaurants Hospitality Management Human Resources Industrial Electronics Technician Information Systems Interior Design Intermedia/Multimedia Laboratory Technician Legal Administrative Assistant Legal Assistant/Paralegal Licensed Practical /Vocational Nurse Training (LPN, LVN, Cert, Dipl, AAS) Make-Up Artist/Specialist Management Manicurist/Nail Specialist Marine Maintenance Marketing Massage Therapy Medical Assistant Professions Medical Insurance/Biller Mental & Social Health Services Naturopathic Medicine (ND) Networking Nursing Nutrition Pharmacy Technician/Assistant Photography Plumbing Technology/Plumber Psychology Publishing & Digital Imaging Radio & Television Technician Radiologic Technology/Science – Radiographer Recording Arts Technology Reflexology Rehabilitation & Therapy Restaurant & Food Services Secondary Education Security Services Software Development Spa Therapy Surgical Technologist Systems Administration Teacher Training Telecommunications Telecommunications Technology Tourism & Travel Management Ultrasound Technician Veterinary Medicine Visual Arts Web Design Web Design and Internet Welding Technology/Welder X-Ray Technician
Start Date – Select One – Less than 1 month 1-3 months 3-6 months 6 months – 1 year Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
This educational discontinuity results in a continuing introduction and departure of new and different friends and teachers, inadequate transfer of educational records, and lost academic credit. Even though “60% of children in foster care have measurable behavior or mental health problems … [and][a]pproximately 35–45% … have developmental problems,” most do not receive appropriate diagnosis for special education classes or psychological treatment (Practicing Law Institute, p. 115). It is clear that children with disabilities trapped in this legal maelstrom are not receiving the education promised by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which established legal means “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living.”
The Decline in Child Dependency Cases
Child neglect and abuse reports increased an average of 6 percent annually from 1985 to 1991, when the number of reports reached 2.9 million. However, since 1991 there has been a continual decrease in the number sexual abuse reports, with a 26 percent decline from 1991 to 1998 in the number of reports and an average decline for all states of 37 percent in substantiated cases. In Los Angeles County, which has more foster children than any other county in America, the number of foster care children dropped from 18.7 per thousand in 1997 to 13.1 per thousand in 2001, and the number of reported child abuse cases dropped from 71.2 reports per thousand in 1996 to 53.1 per thousand in 2000.
In 1990 the United States Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect determined that the most significant factor in failing to provide dependent children with adequate services was the overload of cases. If the decline in the number of reported child abuse cases continues, and if social services agencies do not respond by a corresponding reduction of current staff, it may become possible to provide dependent children the social services and educational services commensurate with their needs.
See also: CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT; CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, subentry on HISTORICAL OVERVIEW; VIOLENCE, CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO.
BAKER, KATHERINE K. 2001. “Alternative Caretaking and Family Autonomy: Some Thoughts in Response to Dorothy Roberts.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 76:1643–1650.
JONES, LISA, and FINKELHOR, DAVID. 2001. The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
KELLEY, KATHLEEN. 2001. “The Education Crisis for Children in the California Juvenile Court System.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 27:758–773.
MYERS, JOHN E. 1994. “Definition and Origins of the Backlash Against Child Protection.” In Excellence in Children’s Law. Denver, CO: National Association of Counsel for Children.
PRACTICING LAW INSTITUTE. 2000. “Early Intervention and Special Education Advocacy: A Missing Link in the Representation of Children in Foster Care.” Practicing Law Institute, Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series, Criminal Law and Urban Problems 185 (C0-0016):103–166.
RIVERA, CARLA. 2001. “State’s Children Facing Fewer Risks, Study Says.” Los Angeles Times November 28:3.
ROBERTS, DOROTHY E. 2001. “Kinship Care and the Price of State Support for Children.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 76:1619–1641.
SANDERS, DEBORAH. 2001. “Toward a Policy of Permanence for America’s Disposable Children: A Survey of the Evolution of Federal Funding Statutes for Foster Care from 1961 to Present.” In Advocacy for Children and Families: Moving from Sympathy to Empathy. Denver, CO: National Association of Counsel for Children.
THOMAS, MASON P. 1972. “Child Abuse and Neglect, Part I: Historical Overview, Legal Matrix, and Social Perspectives.” North Carolina Law Review 50:293–349.
Read more: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1828/Child-Protective-Services.html#ixzz0WweGfI5q
9 Responses to Child Protective Services- Historical Review and Current System Written by William Wesley Patton
Lupe Slifko says:
GARY RICHARD ROSENTHAL says:
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. TO THE GOVERNER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AoA – Administration on Aging ACF – Administration for Children and Families AHRQ – Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CMS – Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services FDA – Food and Drug Administration HRSA – Health Resources and Services Administration IHS – Indian Health Service NIH – National Institutes of Health OIG – Office of Inspector General PSC – Program Support Center PHS – Public Health Service Operating Divisions: Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) Administration on Aging (AoA) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) PLEASE SAVE OUR ￼ CHILDREN CPS NEGLECT CHILD PROTECTION & SERVICES ABUSE (CPS) My Lifes work Before CPS ￼ I AM Gary Richard Rosenthal sr. husband & NEWBORN father of 6 The Velasco Rosenthal Family in Ventura California I HAVE PROOF From Very Credible surveilance cameras and CAMERA phones RELIABLE MEDIA CARDS and VIDEO AND all the ONLINE BACK UP video and pictures ONLINE STORAGE OF each day with our beautiful HAPPY CHILDREN That children we raised are great kids and with good memories of every day to until a Very incrediblely mean cps caseworker named Dora Saenz Belden unbelievablelie abuse on a 9 month pregnant girll that witnesses say was alone and subjected to cps worker threatening her in front of everyone at the AHA IN CAMERILLO DORA ‘S coercion , forcing a 9 month pregnant girl with 3 small daughters to sign documents under duress is bad. The deliberate actions of Dora were caught on tape and we have received witnesses letters and Doras resignation is now complete. Insufficient at the public inquiry and response unit wrote and According to Judy Weber county welfare directors association cwda Barry Zimmerman I received waiting while in grief desperation, and despair also are thousands, or perhaps millions, of people out there needing help because of social service injustice And the office of the Ventura Ca human services agency compaint dept and the childrens services operations buraeu (csob) and horrifying very profitable child least protective insufficient services and emotionely destructive to familial relationships of all parents child least protective insufficient services falsely accused by cps reports cps lies and cps kidnapping and cps severe abuse of power and uses it against innocent kids and families for target low income neighborhoods and/or dwellings as high risk category families that need their children removed from them as preventitive measures, Ii saw their powerpoint docs and I read the how to represent children attorney from the american bar association and how to representation parents in child welfare cases read their manuals and the welfare and institutions code 300.-.386. … cps supervisors are training case workers these future possible abuse or neglect risk category preventitive theories and manipulating cps workers who are misguided with former statistical outdated research into thinking that cps can predict the future by taking the offspring of poor and to busy with kids or ignorant of civil rights or 2 parent apts housing projects insufficient funds where there are kids in playgrounds they question to find possible disagreement in parents with opinions to classify and act out this collaborative courts justice program and pretend to convince judges that domestic violence is the answer and the man must move out and we are taking the kids to moniter and observe them for 6 months and now you go to anger mngmnt and parent and counseling and aspiranet willl come to your home and teach you how to raise the kids you already raised. The team decision meeting TDM is also to gather evidence to substantiate the cps RIDICULOUSLY FALSE allegation. Because their allegation is not just that and if this were a proper investigation by a trained detective or attorney than the false cps allegations would be completely unfounded. deliberate violation of my and my families civil rights and fit extended family members able AND willing to take them in to protect from the cps abusive behaviors by cps child stealer workers and keep them in line. What these cps ladies do for a larger share of govt funds is wrong and destructive to stable families causing emotional unstable families. Im Now depressed in with severe seperation anxiety and am worried of our three daughters and newborn son that cps worker DORA Saenz-Belden waited for so that she could take 4 kids and not 3 as she doesn’t score points for three according to HER risk assesment of future child abuse for Calworks recipients. Which we are not on Calworks, After having our first daughter Alisa Mother and Eva langoria”s cousin Elizabeth ina velasco who was a high fashion MODEL and former RUNWAY model for VERSACE Macys, Nordstrom, etc. while raising Alisa continued her education towards College Graduated and earned her Degree while I Gary Rosenthal, worked since I was 13, to help support my mom and myself also graduated and am a lead actor aka Gary Cruz in the feature film Vatos and MEMBER OF THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD since 1993 have over 100 tv & film &commercial credits 2ND JOB AS the public resource coordinater for the law offices of Anthony igwemezie 14 YEARS we both worked and switch to self employed on time to bond with our newborn baby as always. UNTIL NOW Certified Nurse Assistant Elizabeth and I also worked as a 10 year Property Managers team the two of us parents of 4 very beautiful well mannered well fed well maintained well taught well protected well attended to well raised well groomed children until a telephone call from ventures cps worker dora saenz belden, in august 2010 alerting me to court hearing notice that she would mail to me since I also support my mom.in L.A.and was busy buying my mothers monthly groceries that I was shocked to receive a makeshift summons and a booklet about a detention hearing for my 4 children. I was not even worried because this was obviously because I had not ever hit nor abused nor neglected my children since they have been born (including my 2 older sons 11 and 16 yr old who has been flown to boston for a tour of Harvard and yale do to his gifted abilities and 4.0 g.p.a. (^NEWSPAPER ) OUT OF POVERTY and are among actors SECURING A POSITION @ MY PALETTE Along side Gary Cruz, Or as an independent researcher, those of you willing and able learn innovative communication skill ,commit, volunteer time,, and respond to community at a level that they can understand; you will cover all other disadvantaged groups in our community. AMAZED BY HIS delivery OF THE YES YOU CAN. @ THE 2008 DEAF EXPO in ONTARIO CA. ACTOR GARY CRUZ (Gerardo-|VATOS 2008 DVD) commissioned to work alongside key GABRIEL MARTINEZ (TRU TV ) AND of partners and members of the adult Deaf Community (through well-established local networks) and deaf children at a local school. These key Primary partners were involved in the work and included representatives from the SOUTH FILM INSTITUTE… GARY ROSENTHAL IS (MIS)REPRESENTED BY COUNTY COUNCIL RICHARD GILLMAN AND GILLMAN WONT view evidence WONT ANSWER PHONE WONT LISTEN OR WONT CALL MY WITNESSES. GILLMAN TOLD ME HE “IS NOT GOING TO TRIAL BECAUSE WE MIGHT LOSE.” ATTY. NAJERA AND ATTY. GARCIA SAID SAME TO 15 OTHER PARENTS THAT I QUICKLY INTERVIEWED OUTSIDE AT THE EAST COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN 4353 VINYARD OXNARD CA. FOIA Requester Service Centers Each FOIA office in HHS has a FOIA Requester Service Center that processes relevant FOIA requests. AoA – Administration on Aging ACF – Administration for Children and Families AHRQ – Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CMS – Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services FDA – Food and Drug Administration HRSA – Health Resources and Services Administration IHS – Indian Health Service NIH – National Institutes of Health OIG – Office of Inspector General PSC – Program Support Center ROSENTHAL! FOOZBALL TABLE DONATED BY GARY PHS – Public Health Service THE FOLLOWING IS THE LETTER I SENT TO MY COUNTY APPOINTED FOR THE TYPE OF REPRESENTATION THAT I NEED 9:51 AM 10/13/2010 From: GARY ROSENTHAL (323)377-7575 TO : COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY’S of SUPERIOR COURT OF CA. COUNTY OF VENTURA (DEPENDENCY) Mr.. 1.GARCIA/ 2.NAJERA/ 3.HESS/ 4.Wolf/ 5.GILLMAN/ ONE OR MORE OF You have been appointed as an attorney in the Ventura county juvenile court to represent my kids , my fiancee, or myself, Be on my side I need your help. I am fighting for the release of my FOUR children from state custody. THIS CASE HAS NO MERIT AND I am innocent of any wrongdoing. The caseworker made assumptions about me that are false. My children were well mannored and well nourished and well protected and cared for PRIOR to their REMOVAL BY CPS WITHOUT REASONABLE EFFORTS and according to foster -(Carrie) and many witnesses, statements ,and other proffesional opinions from those who do not have our kids for financial gain are all saying our always happy fun loving children obviously need to be at home with their birth parents, for their well-being – mentally, emotionally, and physically. While you are my attorney, please keep in mind that you are working for me, not for the county that pays you. As my attorney I expect you to give me the best legal entation available. I therepresrefore request face-to-face meetings with you at ALL TIMES OF DISCLOSURE OR INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW MATERIAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO OUR CASE AND to make sure you are actively working on my case, and not letting ANYTHING slide BY YOU. I understand that many court-appointed attorneys tend to simply guide parents through the juvenile court system, advising them to plead guilty (SUBMIT) to charges to make things easier for everyone else in the courtroom. This is not the kind of representation I’m requesting. I’m asking you to be actively involved in proving my innocence. I’m hereby asking that you take my case to trial and make the caseworker prove all charges. Since they are false charges, I think it would be in my best interest, and the best interest of my children, f I were to fight to prove my innocence with a full trial. Do not under any circumstances ask me to plead guilty to false charges against me. I GARY ROSENTHAL (STAY AT HOME DAD)HAD BEEN SUCCESFULLY RAISING WELL AND WELL ATTENTDED TO NEWBORN SON; ISAIAH VELASCO ROSENTHAL AND THREE PRECIOUS DAUGHTERS; TIFFANY VELASCO ROSENTHAL AND SOPHIA AND ALISA VELASCO. DIAGNOSED WITH A LEARNING DISORDER ALISA WHO WITH A IQ SCORE OF 70 IS MENTALLY RETARDED AND AFTER YEARS OF EVALUATIONS AND PATIENCE AND OUR SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL EMPLOYMENT SACRIFICES TO HELP ALISA WITH EVERYDAY TASKS AND/OR HOURS REEXPLAINING HOMEWORK AND COUNTLESS OTHER TIMES SPENT WORKING WITH HER. EVEN IN SPITE OF DIAGNOSED MARKED ADHD-ADD ALISA WAS DOING VERY WELL IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AT RANCHO ROSAL AND ONGOING IEP / SELPA PROGRAM MEETINGS THAT WE AS PARENTS ARE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN FOR THREE YEARS NOW INCLUDING TEAM DECISION MAKING. NOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DID NOT SUBMIT ALL THE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT LIKE SHE SAID AND CARMEN MOORE IS WITHHOLDING MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND EYE WITNESS STATEMENTS WHICH PROVES MY INNOCENCE. YES, IM SURE YOUVE HEARD OF THE CPS VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION 4TH 14TH AMENDMENTS AND… IM NOT GONNA GO INTO THAT NOW . As you know, parents involved in CPS cases have to complete a ‘service plan’ yet many do so and still do not get their children returned. I would like to avoid doing any ADDITIONAL COSTLY AND DISTANT kind of ‘services’ and request that you QUESTION all services, and/or force the caseworkers to prove the need for any services requested. I do not want to be in the position of many parents in these cases forced to have psychological evaluations when there is no evidence of ABUSE OR NEGLECT Please honor my request, protect MY BESTAND MY CHILDRENS BEST INTERESTS, and see that my time is not wasted by unnecessary court-ordered ‘services’. a waste of taxpayer money. Do everything you can to resist these services in my case. As you are my attorney I’m trusting you to fight these issues individually and fiercely. I expect you to be 100% aware of what is happening with my case at all times, and to inform me immediately of any changes. I expect you to obtain and share with me a complete copy of the case file including all case narratives AND COURT TRANSCRIPTS. I expect you to help me compile substantial evidence to prove my innocence in this case by preponderance of the evidence. I expect you to produce legal paperwork including a complete response to all caseworker reports, declarations supporting my side of the case, and other documents as needed, and to present those documents to the judge or juvenile court referee who hears our case. I GARY WORKED FOR THE LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY IGWEMEZIE FOR 13 YEARS AS WELL AS A 10 YEAR PROPERTY MANAGER OF 6 APARTMENT BUILDINGS / 202 COMBINED UNITS. I HAVE STUDIED AND PASSED THE REAL ESTATE COMPUTRAINER COURSE WITH 98% AVERAGE OF 6 TESTS OF 150 QUESTIONS OF ALL 900 POSSIBLE EXAM QUESTIONS — expect you to do everything you can to prevent my name from being included on the central index, blacklisting people workking with children. I am innocent and my name should not be included on that list. I HAVE BEEN IN OVER 100 MOVIES TV SHOWS AND COMMERCIALS AND I AM A MEMBER OF S.A.G. SINCE 1993 WITH CURRENT DUES PAID (I HAVE WORKED AT A DAYCARE DURING SUMMER VACATION FROM SCHOOL AND PLAN TO PURCHASE MORE PROPERTIES AND OPEN SEVERAL OF MY OWN DADDY DAY CARE CENTERS.OR SENIOR LIVING OR NEIGHBORHOOD REAHABILITATION WITH HUD A AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION GRANT OR OTHER CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR THE COMPANY I OWN CALLED THE MY PALETTE CO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LET MY CHILDREN GO ALSO SHOULD MAKE IT KNOWN TO YOU THAT I AND TWO OTHERS HAVE BEEN PULLED OVER AND SEVERLY BEAT UP BY MONTERY PARK POLICE BATTONS AND FISTS AND RENDERED UNCONSCIENCE AND ARRESTED FOR RESISTING ARREST. WHEN I TOLD MY BOSS (THE ATTORNEY) AT WORK THE REASON WHY I COULD NOT GO INTO I THOUGHT I WOULD LOSE MY JOB, ON THE CONTRARY THE LAW OFFICE THAT I WORKED FOR WAS APPAULED AND WE SUED AND $90,000 SETTLEMENT WAS GONE AFTER ALL THE MEDICAL BILLS AND ATTORNEY FEES. THE ONLY DILEMA THAT I STILL HAVE IS THE EMOTIONAL DAMAGE THAT HAS CAUSED ME TO BE RUDE WHEN SEE A POLICE OFFICER AND/OR AM RACIALLY PROFILED FOR THE 34 TICKETS I HAVE BEEN GIVIN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND I WON 24 IN TRIAL. I HAVE PROOF AND ONGOING COUNSELING AND LETTERS TO ACLU ETC… REGARDING FALSE REPORTING AND THE ARREST RECORDS FOR NOT COOPERATING WITH POLICE. I KNOW MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY POLICE I WAS USUALLY A FUN LOUD HAPPY ENRGETIC JOLLY CONFIDENT OPTIMISTIC HARD WORKING WELL GROOMED PERSON. , “YOU’RE THE FUNNY DADDY” (from the Kids) FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED CHILD PROTECTED SERVICES, SELF REFERED INVOLVEMENT,AND INTEREST IN PAY BONUS FOR THE CALWORKS 4 CHILDREN AND VELASCO = HIGHER POINT SYSTEM RISK PROBABABILITY FOR ABUSE/NEGLECT WITHOUT MERIT UNECESSARY REMOVAL OF OUR 4 CHILDREN BECAUSE VELASCO WAS NOT ON CALWORKS AND SELF SUFFICIENT AND THERE WAS NO ARGUING IN FRONT OF OUR CHILDREN WHO WE ARE ALWAYS AWARE OF AND USUALLY BUSY WITH THE THREE KIDS WE HAVE AND NOW FOUR. LIKE MOST HEALTH CONSCIENCE PARENTS WHO EXERCISE THERE IS NO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS WE LOVE TO IMPROVE OUR BODY AND MIND. THERE ARE ONLY NORMAL AGREEMENTS OR DISAGREEMENTS OF OPINIATED NON-ABUSIVE EDUCATED PARENTS AND WHTEVER IT IS, IS RESOLVED QUICKLY IN COMPRIMISE BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN ARE UPMOST PRIORITY. AND ONE MORE REASON WHY THEY ARE SO CONFIDENT. MY MOM SHOSHANA RAISED ME THE BEST SHE COULD AS A SINGLE MOTHER AND I FEEL SHE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB AS A PARENT LIKEWISE I ALWAYS AM SURE TO DO THE BEST I CAN FOR ALL MY CHILDREN AND I AVOID ANY CONFLICT AS I HAVE LEARNED AND TOOK PARENTING CLASSSES FOR MONTHS AND COUNSELING AND MARRIAGE THERAPY DURING A CUSTODY – DIVORCE COURT CASE IN 2001-2002 YOU SEE MY X WIFE KIDNAPPED MY SON TO CANADA ONCE FOR A YEAR AND I WAS ABLE TO GO AND I WENT BY PLANE AND BY BUS ONLY TO BE TURNED AROUND AT THE BORDER WITH NO PASSPORT THIS WAS AROUND SEPT 01 AND I GOT A PASSPORT AND DROVE BACK 19 HOURS AND CHECKED INTO A MOTEL AND FOUND MY SON THE NEXT DAY WITH ONLY THE CITY OF VANCOUVER AS MY INFO. BUT WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT THE HAS WHO HAS DONE THIS TO ME WITHOUT “Good cause” NOR EXPLANATION TO ANY OPTION.TO PROVE MY INNOCENCE. “Good cause” defined as an unavoidable conflict which seriously affects the health, safety, or welfare of the family I EVEN BOUGHT A FOOZBALL TABLE FOR THE PROJECTS! ￼￼ REALLY BELIEVED THAT LIFE WAS FAIR. BUT I GUESS MY TEACHER SAYS THAT JEALOUSY TAKES MANY FORMS ! ALSO IS WHY I FELT ALIENATED WITH DESPAIR AND MY DR. SAYS NOW I SUFFER EXTREME DEPRESSION AND SEPERATION ANXIETY AND PTSD. ITS WEIRD REALLY WEIRD I HAVE NEVER IMAGINED LIKE THIS BEFORE AND FELT SO HELPLESS AND BURDENED AND UNABLE TO DO ALL THE normal daily routines WERE THINGS I DID WITH MY KIDS AND was fun CAUSE I GOT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND IF I DIDN’T KNOW THE ANSWER WE WOULD LOOK IT UP TOGETHER and NOW TO GET THROUGH AN HOUR OF LAUNDRY OR making A PIZZA is no fun while missing MY LITTLE ONES . I HAVE WRITTEN SEVERAL COMPLAINT FORMS AND REPORTS TO STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AND DISCIPLINARY AGENCIES REGARDING CPS AND JUDGE TARI L.CODI JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT . HAVE RECIEVED LETTERS IN AGREEMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE I SUBMITTED TO THEM INCLUDING WRITTEN STATEMENTS PICTURES AND VIDEO THAT WAS RECORDING SINCE SOMEONE BROKE INTO THE APARTMENT ON CHRISTMAS DAY AFTERNOON 2009 AND VANDALIZED MY CAR AND MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO ALLOW US TO SEE THEIR CAMERAS UNLESS WE MAKE A POLICE REPORT. I HAVE INCLUDED THE EMAIL FROM THE POLICE AND ABATEMENT LETTER REGARDING THE COMPLAINT I FILED FOR THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY THE ABUSE FACT IS CHILD WELFORE SOCIAL WORKERS COERCE UNJUSTLY AND MENTALLY ABUSE POLICE OFFICERS CONDITIONED ANGERED EXESSIVE FORCE PHYSICALLY ABUSE JUDGE TARI L. CODI SCREAMS ”LIAR“ and been extremely bias and abusive upon our first appearance her judgement rendered as she continues insulting our good names and belittling us and while my integrity and ethical values were somehow obsolete my lawyer Garcia instructed me PRIOR UPON ENTRANCE KEEP my mouth shut FOR THE COURTS DURATION Judge Codi was YELLING HER PERCEPTIOUS OPINIONS ie: “I THINK YOUR BOTH LIARS”!!!!!!!…” loud ALL THIS HEARING JUDGE TARI L.CODI ‘S MALICIOUS VERBAL ATTACKS AGAINST US PARENTS ,I AND ACCORDING TO OTHERS,AS A GOOD PARENT AM ACTIVE LISTNING AND ADHERANCE TO MY COURT APPOINTED REPRESENTATIONS DIRECTIONS OF NO TALKING IN COURT THE WITHOUT PROPER DEFENCE TRANSCRIBES A TRAGIC MISREPRESENTION AND IS NOT JUST EXTREMELY IMPARTIAL AND UNNECCESSARY ACTIONS FORMED PRIOR A FIRST APPEARANCE , BIAS OF TARI CODI AND UNETHICAL BY JUDICIARY STANDARDS RESULTING IN ADVERSE PREJUDGEMENT. AWAITING OUR CASE TO BE CALLED I WITNESSED OTHER LITIGANTS INCLIDING THOSE UPON EXITING HER COURTROOM SAID “WOW SHES MEAN” AND OTHERS COURT COMMENTS AS WELL. Judge Codi’s outburst of anger causes fear in the court in just minutes AND IS VERBALLY EMOTIONALLY ABUSIVE WE WERE UNAWARE THE PEPONDERANCE OF JUDGE CODI LIES AND CPS DORA LIES AND THAT NOW TO US BLAME SHIFTS BURDEN OF PROOF AND SHIFTS OUR CHILDREN TO CPS AND SHIFTS ALL OUR INCOME TO CPS AND THEY WONT LET US SPEAK. I HAD TO SAY : THIS ISNT FAIR THESE ARE GOOD KIDS AND WE ARE GOOD PARENTS . WHAT THE HECK IS THIS ? HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? AT LEAST LET THE KIDS STAY WITH THEIR FAMILIAR GRANDMOTHERS AND ALSO FAMILY MEMBER, MY MOM IS IN LA AND SARA IS IN FILLMORE THEIR GRANDMA SARA, GIVE THE KIDS TO THEIR GRANDMA SARA. ￼ THE FACT IS THEIR GRANDMAS ARE GOOD TOO. SARA VELASCO IS A RETIRED 35 YEAR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE FOR THE U.S. GOVT. SARA VELASCO IS MODEL FEDERAL CITIZEN SARA VELASCO IS ALSO A TRUE HARD WORKING AMERICAN MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER AND SHE ALSO LOVES OUR BEAUTIFUL BABIES So then assignment of carmen moore cps who is really nice and we invite her into home and to see the kids with us at casa pacifica and we were honest and open with her and we could tell that this was going great . Well she was very confused when she saw all the witness letters and our precious children and the foster lady called while she was there saying she doesn’t understand why they took these kids it was amazing that almost –!————simultaneously cps carmen said the excact same thing. I don’t understand why they took these kids they should have offered you something else instead of courd or made some type of reasonable effort instead of court however at the time the mother was 9 months and overdue pregnant and having the baby and she couldn’t go anywhere or answer the phone due to no recepttion in the maternity ward at st. john pleasant valley hospital in camarillo. When we were in our fourth meeting with carmen she said there is no reason to worry because her and the child attorney agreed the children coming home for a 60 day visit wekk we get to court and carmen had an attormnet who told the judge meanwhile the report was good except for where carmen recommends dependants for my well raised children and aNd al l the attorneys in the court room said send the children home and the screaming judgesaid no I disagree with everybody I thaught he was moving out? Why I said we are both good parents just give us our kids back. Judge tari l codi said no I don’t care I think theyre liars so no kids and by this time they were already in casa pacifica and they got lice and alias was bruised up so bad on her shoulder I took a picture and luckily while they were at casa pacifica we could see them everyday once they were out carmen told mother to get a restraining order on me and they will give her the the kids that same day I was putting on a face mask to feel better about myself and I went for a walk with the mother upon returning 10 minutes later I noticed a cop car in the lot and all of a sudden the mother gets on the phone and goes to the cop and says that she wants a restraaing order and they gave her one that carmen requesting one to and planning this and now I had to pack what I could and leave somewhere I started to pack with a court order in my hand crying and worried if ill see my kids again soon and I called after I left and called carmen and she was the one who I was told is the court appointed social worker wow she told her supervisor and her supervisor Kathy di inca and I apologized to carmen for calling so much but I just wanted to be a family again and it still doesn’t make sense as I am typing this right now . Well Kathy di inca and carmen moore went to court without me and got a restraing order against so that now I cannot go to any place ofher employment but they only told me about it they didn’t serve me with it just like how the didn’t properly serve petition. NOW I called lots of times to the agency that wont allow me to see my kids and Carman Moore CPS, Social WORK-ING WITH POLICE TO FILE harrassment RESTRAING ORDERS against me so that I cant go To offices where the visit is scheduled. Now for as how much I am hurting I rather it be me and not my children , AS this is painful My Kids and I don’t show their feelings in the same ways when something stressful happens. When they are sad or stressed, my kids are very smart and I encourage them to express their feelings AND they usually are able to know what they are feeling and why they are upset. They may explain to people around them, “I’m really down because my dad is in the LA,” or .” Since they can recognize and name their feelings THEY CAN also do things to help themselves. This can mean getting support from people around them or doing little things for themselves like THINGS THAT IVE TAUGHT THEM LIKE RIDING BIKES OR READING OR ABC TRACING LETTERS OR DOING THE CHORES AND DISHES OR ORGANIZING THEIR HOMEWORK BY LETTER OR DATE“ Sorry if I THIS LETTER IS LONG—I’m having a hard time because I’m worried that I’ll lose my MIND MAYBE taking a JOG or asking a neighbor to watch A MOVIE WITH ME a couple of hours. MIGHT HELP. OK 2 GLASSES OF WATER AFTER A GOOD JOG .THAT IS MUCH BETTER. Young children usually don’t have the experience or the words to say things like, “I’m worried because my MOM OR DAD is sad that IM AT MY grandma It is usually pretty easy to tell and I’m also KEEN AND EMPATHETIC kind of emotions or changing moods of my Kids and I even realize that they are having all of these mixed-up feelings! When young children are stressed, they often show their feelings by changing their behavior. Sometimes little things like not getting to watch their favorite TV show will make them cry hard or become very angry. Other times, they may start clinging to their parents and refusing to leave them or to go to school. They may fight with their sisters or Sophia may feel that nobody likes her and AlISA may start having trouble with things that they used to be able to do. Or Tiffany who was potty trained may start needing diapers again, or may begin sucking her thumb after having stopped. These behavior changes are my kids’ ways of saying, “Hey, Mom and Dad, where are you , you were always here for me. come and get me!” Heartbreak is all you can do for and youR FAMILY . giving to family and protecting your kids in a nurturing happy safe and healthy daily SET OF RULES AND ROUTINES WHILE REWARDING providing OF toys and CLEAN clothes OF THEIR CHOICE and HEALTHY food and SAFE shelter AND all being HAPPY PLAYING OUTSIDE OR INSIDE THE HOUSE ON WEEKENDS BBQ AND children are at the park with you and than FEW DAYS LATER they start school and they are gone Gone ? HOW, WHAT WHAT SOCIAL WORKER,? WHO WHY? IS THERE A WAY TO KNOW ? NO, WHY ? HOW ? WAIT ? SOMEBODY HELP? NO ! ITS GOTTA BE SOME MISTAKE HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN WITHOUT A REASON … and than your trying not to cry and stay strong but you are crying and you don’t understand – For proof the world still ain’t right should look no further. Than VENTURA California’s HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY C.P.S. AND THIER CHILD ABDUCTION DEPT ! CPS ACTIONS CAUSED NEEDLESS EMOTIONAL STRESS AND WITHOUT MERIT OR WHAT MOST WOULD CONSIDER A FINDING OF FACT SEVERE MENTAL ANGUISH ON THE POOR FAMILY AND CHILDREN BY C.P.S. CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES MALICIOUSLY HURTING OR UNJUSTLY PUNISHING TO CAUSE MENTAL ANGUISH TO POOR LOVING FAMILIES WITH INNOCENT GOOD HONEST FAIR PARENTS RAISING WELL ADJUSTED INNOCENT GOOD CHILDREN STARTED CRYING HERE! and heartbreak, certainly, is this not. H S A C P S Cps perpetrated A crime to kidnap 4 children and prevent contact and provide abusive threats and coercion while never offering any help. Why ? RELATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE RESPONSIBLTHAT FOSTER-THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO PREVENT THE UNNECCESSARY REMOVAL OF OUR CHILDREN–AND THE MENTAL ANGUISH YOU HAVE CAUSED US AND APROX 1172 FRIENDS SO FAR AND OTHER PEOPLE I HAVE CALLED OR TEXT AND BY VARIOUS MEANS OF COMMUNICATION DISCRIMINATION IS REAL AND IN THE FORM OF: AREA HOUSING AUTHORITY (AHA) COUNTY OF VENTURA CALIFORNIA MENTIONS THAT THEY DON’T LIKE THEWAY I LOOKAND DRESS AND I TALK ON THE PHONE SO LOUD AND WALK AROUND LIKE I OWN THE PLACE USING TENANTS TO CREATE PAPER TRAIL FOR FUTURE EVICTION FILING OF U.D. CIVILIAN neighbors that are miserable and usually overweight False law enforcement calls based on ulterior motives MOSTLY UNHAPPY SCORNED SINGLE FEMALE MOMS AND RESENTFUL NEIGHBORS HARBORING ENVY SEEING JOY IN WHILE HEARING LOUD LAUGHTER WITH MY KIDS FROM ME. A MAN RAISING HIS KIDS WELL AND SUPPORTING HIS MOTHER AND CHILDRENS MOTHER Law Enforcement OFFICERS racial profiling and issues gary 34 tickets and I spend hours in court and won 26 after I get deliberate BIAS Harrassement Service Calls to non occurring claim of incidents & UNETHICAL REPORTING Falsification (INCLUDING POLICE EAVESDROPPING AND WAITING WHILE LISTENING FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG BEFORE WE FOUND THEM AT OUR PORCH LISTENING AT THE WINDOWS AND THEN WHEN I ASKED WHAT IS GOING ON THE OFFICERS START PLAYING TAPE RECORDERS WITH NOTHING ON THEM AND LEAVE. ANOTHER TIME A FEW OF US NEIGHBORS WERE TALKING ABOUT WELFARE AND A THE JOB MARKET COMPARISON AND ANOTHER OFFICER HAD SAID HE GOT A CALL AND BEEN LISTENING FOR A WHILE AND JUST KEEP IT DOWN ISN THE KITCHEN OR CLOSE YOUR DOORALSO PINATA FOR SOPHIAS BIRTHDAY PARTY HAD TO STOP CPS DORA SAENZ- BELDEN SELF REFFERED & COURT PETITON THAT NIGHT WHILE THE KIDS WERE SLEEPING THE CPS WORKER DORA SAENZ BELDEN WENT TO grandmas house to KIDNAPP THEM TO BRING OUR GIRLS AND THE NEWBORN BABY TO FOSTER HOME TO SEE IF ADOPTION WOULD BE POSSIBLE. 2.ATTY. GARCIA – ATTORNEY KNOWING THE PROPNDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IS NECCECCARY, KNOWING WE HAD NO IDEA WHY THIS HAPPENED. GARCIA SAID THAT WITH THE WAY I LOOK AND THE COLOR OF MY SKIN I MIGHT BE MISCONSTRUED AS HOSTILE AND DON’T WORRY IT WILL BE FINE JUST DON’T TALK YOU STILL HAVE YOUR KIDS AND MOST PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEM BY KNOW ATTY Andrew Wolf. The criteria shall include but not be limited to Determine the child’s circumstances through a full and efficient investigation; Assess the child at the moment of the determination; Examine each option in light of the two child welfare paradigms; psychological parent and family network; and Utilize medical, mental health, educational, social work and other experts. CPS CARMEN MOORE for B1) Witholding EVIDENCE AND material witness statements info AND LIE TO US DELIBERTAELY Carmen moore WITHHELD MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND B2) OMISSION OF WITNESS MATERIAL EVIDENCE STATEMENTS AND COULD HAVE PROVEN A DETERMINING FACT IN OBTAINING A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE PARENTS FAVOR I was wondering why she started to tell us about her personal life and sent laizon to contest her in court and on purpose because she told us that she must do something for A REVIEW BALENCING of her excessive case loads or meetings at work and couldnt go to court, BUT court worker CARMEN MOORE LIED social workers are required to be at the hearings and cannot fail to attend because her personal interests, and /or of her case load or required cps ob duties Kathy di inca – carmen moore supervisor Teresa Stanley- dora belden supervisor JUDGE – TARI L .CODITHE JUDGE IS PREJUDICE, FRIEGHTENING VERY INSULTING, GARY .IS A GOOD FATHER BUT JUDGE CODI CONTINUED HER SCREAMS “AND I HAD NOT SAID A WORD.AT ALL TIMES IT SEEMED LIKE JUDGE WAS GOING TO JUMP TOWARDS ME OVER THE BENCH AS I AM IN SHOCK AND FEAR FOR MY SAFETY.AS SHE PREJUDGED, BLAMED, YELLED, RIDICULOUS AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS A fairly reasonable person aware of the facts would not permit judge Codi to initiate, entertain or consider ex parte communications with Carmen Moore or Elizabeth Velasco regarding a matter pending or impending before judge Codi would be able to be impartial. Tari L Codi is a person who judges impartially in all matters to the extent mistakes continue in rule shall promptly cause recuse pending or matter in the doubt caused from witnesses that may refer to the director-of hsa and complaints about judge codi acts of misconduct AND to refrain from manifesting hearings until i receive further written materials on the matter and from which the judge shall not discuss the matter, witness. (JUDGE CODI) -” LIARS , YOUR BOTH LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!” FACTS OF and that proof my evidence by preponderence is favorable and new substantial acts of misconduct; for no acknowledgement, no service, no notice of trial nor disposition and hearing words and actions are bias or prejudice based on questions of my relation to 1 of my daughters race, gender based rulings and announcements in court of pre biased prejuduce ie (JUDGE CODI)- “I was under the impression that HE was going to move out and I want HIM out!!!!!!!!!!!!!1″ JUDGE CODI referreed to and knowing my economic status and disability insists on us returning another day and so that she can actually read the file to see what is going on here. Here negligence prohibits justice by way of deliberate lack in case information once again prevailed and we returned to expect good news from a good report but then judge screamed again and went against all social reccomondations and councils recomendations including against the childs attorney who recommended best interest of the child to go home with us who then argued at least for visit at least for 60 days. Codi said NO! Terrible Tari L. Codi CRUEL demeaner and bias based dishonesty occurred in the judge’s official capacity,against parties, witnesses, counsel, our 4 babies and others On this, the during judges third episodes insults , i broke silence and said ” THIS IS RIDICULOUS , WE ARE BOTH GOOD PARENTS” oops,my voiced complaint fueled more prejudice against Fathers integrity of Gary Rosenthal and this is a judicial commision department concern for the emotional wellbieng of judge TARI L. CODI and those subjected to judge involves unequal application of justice on the gender based intentional, premeditated, negligent, TARI L. CODI judicial misconduct of Service and Demeanor of the Judge: motivated by a desire to satisfy and acknowledg personal venal interest, justice Judge Codi’s acts occurred and has shown no personal circumstances warrant the impropriety of judge’s vindictive conduct; of unexceptional impartial judicial duties, IT is unfair, and contributs to the fear and oppression in courts, and to minority, race, ethnicity, national origin, orientation, religion.or civil rights violations of a justice system that is insensitive to ITS culture or diversity while targeting low income communities and working against those who cannot afford a lawyer. DIVISION VI. CODE OF ETHICS FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS Preface As the agency charged with enforcing standards of judicial conduct in order to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary, the California Commission on Judicial Performance (commission) recognizes the importance of observing high standards of ethical conduct in the performance of its responsibilities. The Code of Ethics (Code) set forth in these policy declarations describes ethical standards expected of a commission member. The Code does not confer any substantive or procedural due process rights other than those provided by law, or create a separate basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. For purposes of this Code, the judge who is the subject of a complaint, an investigation, or formal proceedings before the commission shall be referred to as the “subject judge.” 6.1 Recusal (1) A commission member shall recuse himself or herself if: (a) The member does not think he or she is able to act fairly and impartially in a matter; (b) The member or an immediate family member is the subject of the investigation; (c) The member served as a lawyer in any proceedings that are the subject of the investigation; (d) The member has a case pending before the subject judge either as a litigant or in the member’s capacity as a lawyer; (e) A lawyer with whom the member practices is involved in the complaint; (f) The member has a bias or prejudice for or against the subject judge; or (g) A reasonable person aware of the facts would entertain a substantial doubt that the member would be able to be impartial. (2) If a member determines to recuse himself or herself: (a) The member shall recuse himself or herself promptly; (b) The recused member may, but is not required to, state the reason(s) for his or her recusal; (c) The recused member shall leave the room, not comment further or otherwise participate in the commission’s consideration of the matter from which the member is recused; and Policy Declarations of the Commission on Judicial Performance Page 2012/22/2010 The criteria shall include but not be limited to Determine the child’s circumstances through a full and efficient investigation Assess the child at the moment of the determination; Examine each option in light of the two child welfare paradigms; psychological parent and family network; and Utilize medical, mental health, educational, social work and other experts. SENDING…. TO US Operating Divisions: Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) Administration on Aging (AoA) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Indian Health Service (IHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Cancer Institute (NCI) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Staff Divisions: Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR) Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL) Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (CFBNP) Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Intergovernmental Affairs and Regional Representatives (IGA) Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Office on Disability (OD) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) Office of Global Health Affairs (OGHA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) Surgeon General Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a realist, worried that the Court was overstepping its boundaries, and the following is from one of his last dissents:[38] I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the States. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. Yet I can think of no narrower reason that seems to me to justify the present and the earlier decisions to which I have referred. Of course the words due process of law, if taken in their literal meaning, have no application to this case; and while it is too late to deny that they have been given a much more extended and artificial signification, still we ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the States, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court’s own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the States may pass. Today, the Court focuses on three types of rights under substantive due process in the Fourteenth Amendment,[] which originated in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4. Those three types of rights are: the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (e.g. the Eighth Amendment); restrictions on the political process (e.g. the rights of voting, association, and free speech); and the rights of “discrete and insular minorities.” The Court usually looks first to see if there is a fundamental right, by examining if the right can be found deeply rooted in American history and traditions. Where the right is not a fundamental right, the court applies a rational basis test: if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then the law is held valid. If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. This test inquires into whether there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation of the right, and whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest. Privacy, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, was at issue in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), wherein the Court held that criminal prohibition of contraceptive devices for married couples violated federal, judicially enforceable privacy rights. The right to contraceptives was found in what the Court called the “penumbras”, or shadowy edges, of certain amendments that arguably refer to certain privacy rights. The penumbra-based rationale of Griswold has since been discarded; the Supreme Court now uses the Due Process Clause as a basis for various unenumerated privacy rights. Although it has never been the majority view, some have argued that the Ninth Amendment (addressing unenumerated rights) could be used as a source of fundamental judicially enforceable rights, including a general right to privacy, as discussed by Justice Goldberg concurring in Griswold.[37] investigating agency for further information. Practice Issues: Questions sometimes arise for child welfare agencies with regard to whether the agency has met the “contact” requirements outlined above or how the agency can meet those requirements in certain difficult circumstances. The following are some examples and suggestions for possible resolutions. • Occasionally, the suspect is not contacted because his or her whereabouts are unknown and the child welfare agency has not been successful in its efforts to locate him/her. In that case, the agency should send written notice of the listing to the suspect at his or her last known address and document that notice in the referral contact. Thereafter, the agency may submit its report of the investigation to DOJ, listing the suspect’s name and other identifying information and explaining the reason the suspect could not be contacted, including the efforts the agency made to locate the suspect and verification that notice was sent to the suspect at his/her last known address. A report completed in this manner should meet the completeness requirements of 11 CCR § 903 and, therefore, be accepted by DOJ for inclusion in the CACI. • When the suspect is not contacted because he or she has been deported or has been incarcerated in a facility that will not allow agency contacts with the suspect, the child welfare agency should send written notice of the listing to the suspect at his or her last known address and document that notice in the referral contact. (A good practice would be to send the notice to both the last known local address and the facility where the suspect is detained, if known.) Thereafter, the agency may submit its report of the investigation to DOJ, listing the suspect’s name and other identifying information and explaining the reason the suspect could not be contacted as well as the efforts the agency made to attempt contact. A report completed in this manner should meet the completeness requirements of 11 CCR § 903 and, therefore, be accepted by DOJ for inclusion in the CACI. CCTA | Gomez v. Saenz Settlement: Training for CW Workers & Supervisors |May 2009 32 • Sometimes, when a law enforcement agency and the child welfare agency are both investigating a referral, the law enforcement officers request or even direct the child welfare worker not to contact the suspect. How such situations should be handled will vary between counties, but some possibilities might include: o Follow the formal protocol established between your agency and law enforcement agencies in the county addressing which agency is responsible for the various aspects of a joint investigation, including which agency is to report the outcome of the investigation to DOJ. (See Penal Code § 11166.3(a). If there is no such formal protocol, your agency might want to work on completing one.) o If no such protocol has been established yet, discuss with the assigned law enforcement officers who should be responsible for the various aspects of the investigation and come to an agreement with them on which agency will report the outcome of the investigation to DOJ. Document the discussion and the agreements reached in the referral contact. o In the absence of a protocol or an agreement with the investigating law enforcement officers, the child welfare agency may elect to submit its report to DOJ, with an explanation of why conducting an interview of the suspect was not, in the language of 11 CCR § 901, “appropriate.” (Note that the possibility DOJ will get reports from more than one agency on the same incident of suspected or known child abuse or neglect is contemplated in 11 CCR § 906. This regulation provides that, if the agencies reached different outcome determinations, DOJ is to inform them in writing of the discrepancy.) o The child welfare agency may elect not to submit a report to the DOJ, on the ground that the law enforcement agency is responsible for filing a report. Note: If you are interested in reviewing the DOJ regulations relating to the CACI, they can be found on the Internet by going to the State of California Home Page (www.ca.gov) and, in the section labeled Government Links, selecting Laws & Regulations. Once at that site, select “California Code of Regulations.” You will have several choices, including “Search for a Specific Regulatory Section” and “List of CCR Titles.” If you select “Search for a Specific Regulatory Section” you will enter “11” in the space for “Title” and one of the section numbers between 900 and 911 in the space for “Section.” If you select “List of CCR Titles” you would select “Title 11. Law,” then click on the + sign by “Division 1. Attorney General.” The regulations will be found in “Chapter 9. Report of Child Abuse.” CCTA | Gomez v. Saenz Settlement: Training for CW Workers & Supervisors |May 2009 33 Gomez v. Saenz Settlement Field Checklist Competent and thorough investigations Who must be contacted for an interview during a Child Welfare investigation (Division 31-125): 8 Interviews with all minor children who are subject of allegations, any other minor children in the home, and at least one adult who has information regarding the incident. When these assessments do not result in an unfounded determination, then additional interviews are required. 8 Unless it is already clear the allegations are unfounded, conduct interviews with all children present at the time of the in-person investigation and all parents who have access to the child or children alleged to be at risk of abuse (non-custodial parent shall be considered to have access if he or she has regular or frequent in-person contact with the child). 8 In coordination with law enforcement as needed, interview of alleged perpetrators when determination is not unfounded. 8 Collateral contacts with persons having knowledge of the condition of the children. 8 When appropriate, consider use of family meeting and Team Decision Meeting to encourage engagement. Other investigatory responsibilities: 8 Cross-report all appropriate allegations to the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction. Consider manner and timing of law enforcement collaboration. 8 Records checks and consideration of prior CWS/CMS history. 8 When appropriate, law enforcement background checks of adults with access to the child. 8 Completion and documentation of a county-approved safety threat assessment conducted at the time of the first in-person response and CCTA | Gomez v. Saenz Settlement: Training for CW Workers & Supervisors |May 2009 34 recorded within two working days on all referrals requiring an in-person response. 8 Evaluation of gathered information as meeting one or more of the definitions of child abuse or neglect and evaluation of the appropriate referral disposition based upon Penal Code §11165.12. 8 Completion and documentation of a county-approved risk assessment tool in all cases determined substantiated or inconclusive prior to closure of the referral or development of a case plan. 8 Supervisory and cross-system consultation regarding basis of the referral finding and any need for services. 8 Reporting as required, findings of the investigation to the Department of Justice. Interviewing implications: 8 Knowledge and use of an age-appropriate protocol and questioning techniques for children. 8 Consideration of most effective and least intrusive strategies for obtaining needed information. 8 Capacity to engage defensive and resistant parents in discussion about private family topics. 8 The use of non-adversarial approaches to full disclosure of reported allegations, consequences of investigation and reporting requirements. Essential Disclosures: 8 All parents with legal custody shall be advised of how the referral allegations are being concluded and the basis of this conclusion. 8 All parents and alleged perpetrators who are not parents shall be advised of the consequences of the referral disposition when it is reportable to DOJ for listing on CACI. CCTA | Gomez v. Saenz Settlement: Training for CW Workers & Supervisors |May 2009 35 8 In coordination with supervisor and law enforcement, a reasonable plan for follow-up with suspects not contacted at the request of law enforcement pending criminal investigation. 8 Written notice via mail shall be sent to the suspect in the form of an SOC 832, SOC 833 and SOCI 834 following a telephone or in-person contact to advise them of the referral disposition. CCTA | Gomez v. Saenz Settlement: Training for CW Workers & Supervisors |May 2009 36 Documentation implications Once a request for grievance review has been made, the information you record in your case record will, in part, serve as a basis for considering the adequacy of your decision. As a result, careful documentation of all investigatory actions and the basis for the referral determination is essential. • All interviews, conversations and written contacts must be part of the CWS/CMS referral record (or in a county-approved case file) that supports the basis for the referral disposition. o Document allegations reported in the referral and associated information to support or refute. Describe the setting and manner in which interviews occur. 􀂃 Describe concretely the child’s or children’s general appearance and status of wellbeing. Describe marks, bruises, emotional states, pallor, energy level, hygiene and attire. Describe in detail observations in the home, behavior, appearance, emotional state and response of each parent. Describe in detail, if appropriate, the home conditions. 􀂃 Include contacts with other children in the home, even if they are not subject of allegations. 􀂃 Include contacts and information from service providers and collateral contacts and include specific information about medical status, medical reports, police reports and any other information used as the basis for the finding. 􀂃 Include contacts describing any family meetings, TDM or staffing that support your determination. o Document findings of safety threat and risk assessments. o Document cross reporting of allegations to law enforcement. o Document referral disposition and include specific basis for this conclusion. CCTA | Gomez v. Saenz Settlement: Training for CW Workers & Supervisors |May 2009 37 o Document advising the family, particularly named suspects, of findings and their right to file for grievance review both verbally and in writing. CCTA Printed with permission from the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. The Abuse & Neglect Standards were drafted by the American Bar Association Representing Children Standards of Practice Committee. Plans for providing counsel for children “must be designed to guarantee the professional independence of counsel and the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship.” The Commentary strongly asserts there is “no justification for . . . judicial preference” to compromise a lawyer’s relationship with the child client and notes the “willingness of some judges to direct lawyers’ performance and thereby compromise their independence.” NOT THE COURT’S ROLE IN LAWYER COMPENSATION JJ-1. Assuring Adequate Compensation. A child’s attorney should receive adequate and timely compensation throughout the term of appointment that reflects the complexity of the case and includes both in court and out-of-court preparation, participation in case reviews and postdispositional hearings, and involvement in appeals. To the extent that the court arranges for child representation through contract or agreement with a program in which lawyers represent children, the court should assure that the rate of payment for these legal services is commensurate with the fees paid to equivalently experienced individual court-appointed lawyers who have similar qualifications and responsibilities. Commentary — JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS § 2.1(b) recognize that lawyers for children should be entitled to reasonable compensation for both time and services performed “according to prevailing professional standards,” which takes into account the “skill required to perform…properly,” and which considers the need for the lawyer to perform both counseling and resource identification/evaluation activities. The RESOURCE GUIDELINES, at 22, state that it is “necessary to provide reasonable compensation” for improved lawyer representation of children and that where necessary judges should “urge state legislatures and local governing bodies to provide sufficient funding” for quality legal representation. Because some courts currently compensate lawyers only for time spent in court at the adjudicative or initial disposition stage of cases, these Standards clarify that compensation is to be provided for out-of-court preparation time, as well as for the lawyer’s involvement in case reviews and appeals. “Out-of-court preparation” may include, for example, a lawyer’s participation in social services or school case conferences relating to the client. These Standards also call for the level of compensation where lawyers are working under contract with the court to provide child representation to be comparable with what experienced individual counsel would receive from the court. Although courts may, and are encouraged to, seek high quality child representation through enlistment of special children’s law offices, law firms, and other programs, the motive should not be a significantly different (i.e., lower) level of financial compensation for the lawyers who provide the representation. J-2. Supporting Associated Costs. The child’s attorney should have access to (or be provided with reimbursement for experts, investigative services, paralegals, research costs, and other services, such as copying medical records, long distance phone calls, service of process, and transcripts of hearings as requested. Commentary — The ABUSE AND NEGLECT STANDARDS expand upon JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS § 2.1(c) which recognizes that a child’s attorney should have access to “investigatory, expert and other nonlegal services” as a fundamental part of providing competent representation. J-3. Reviewing Payment Requests. The trial judge should review requests for compensation for reasonableness based upon the complexity of the case and the hours expended. Commentary — These Standards implicitly reject the practice of judges arbitrarily “cutting down” the size of lawyer requests for compensation and would limit a judge’s ability to reduce the amount of a per/case payment request from a child’s attorney unless the request is deemed unreasonable based upon two factors: case complexity and time spent. J-4. Keeping Compensation Levels Uniform. Each state should set a uniform level of compensation for lawyers appointed by the courts to represent children. Any per/hour level of compensation should be the same for all representation of children in all types of child abuse and neglect-related proceedings. Commentary — These Standards implicitly reject the concept (and practice) of different courts within a state paying different levels of compensation for lawyers representing children. They call for a uniform approach, established on a statewide basis, towards the setting of payment guidelines. JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARD § 2.1(d) states that YOU WILL LET MY CHILDREN GO ! NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN All children subject to court proceedings involving allegations of child abuse and neglect should have legal representation as long as the court jurisdiction continues. These Abuse and Neglect Standards are meant to apply when a lawyer is appointed for a child in any legal action based on: (a) a petition filed for protection of the child; (b) a request to a court to change legal custody, visitation, or guardianship based on allegations of child abuse or neglect based on sufficient cause; or (c) an action to terminate parental right These Standards apply only to lawyers and take the position that although a lawyer may accept appointment in the dual capacity of a “lawyer/guardian ad litem,” the lawyer’s primary duty must still be focused on the protection of the legal rights of the child client. The lawyer/guardian ad litem should therefore perform all the functions of a “child’s attorney,” except as otherwise noted. These Standards build upon the ABA-approved JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS RELATING TO COUNSEL FOR PRIVATE PARTIES (1979) which include important directions for lawyers representing children in juvenile court matters generally, but do not contain sufficient guidance to aid lawyers representing children in abuse and neglect cases. These Abuse and Neglect Standards are also intended to help implement a series of ABA-approved policy resolutions (in Appendix) on the importance of legal representation and the improvement of lawyer practice in child protection cases. In support of having lawyers play an active role in child abuse and neglect cases, in August 1995 the ABA endorsed a set of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: IMPROVING COURT PRACTICE IN CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT CASES produced by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The RESOURCE GUIDELINES stress the importance of quality representation provided by competent and diligent lawyers by supporting: 1) the approach of vigorous representation of child clients; and 2) the actions that courts should take to help assure such representation. These Standards contain two parts. Part I addresses the specific roles and responsibilities of a lawyer appointed to represent a child in an abuse and neglect case. Part II provides a set of standards for judicial administrators and trial judges to assure high quality legal representation PART I—STANDARDS FOR THE CHILD’S ATTORNEY A. DEFINITIONS A-1. The Child’s Attorney. The term “child’s attorney” means a lawyer who provides legal services for a child and who owes the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation to the child as is due an adult client. Commentary — These Standards explicitly recognize that the child is a separate individual with potentially discrete and independent views. To ensure that the child’s independent voice is heard, the child’s attorney must advocate the child’s articulated position. Consequently, the child’s attorney owes traditional duties to the child as client consistent with ER 1.14(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In all but the exceptional case, such as with a preverbal child, the child’s attorney will maintain this traditional relationship with the child/client. As with any client, the child’s attorney may counsel against the pursuit of a particular position sought by the child. The child’s attorney should recognize that the child may be more susceptible to intimidation and manipulation than some adult clients. Therefore, the child’s attorney should ensure that the decision the child ultimately makes reflects his or her actual position To the extent that a child cannot meaningfully participate in the formulation of the client’s position (either because the child is preverbal, very young or for some other reason is incapable of judgment and meaningful communication), the attorney shall substitute his/her judgment for the child’s and formulate and present a position which serves the child’s interests. Such formulation must be accomplished through the use of objective criteria, rather than solely the life experience or instinct of the attorney. The criteria shall include but not be limited to Determine the child’s circumstances through a full and efficient investigation; Assess the child at the moment of the determination; Examine each option in light of the two child welfare paradigms; psychological parent and family network; and Utilize medical, mental health, educational, social work and other experts. The following resources are recommended reading regarding assessing children’s best interests: 1.	The Best Interests of the Child, The Least Detrimental Alternative, the landmark trilogy of Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, Before the Best Interests of the Child, and In the Best Interests of the Child, by Goldstein, Solnit, Goldstein and Freud, Copyright Ó 1996 The Free Press, New York, NY. 2.	Representing Children in Child Protective Proceedings: Ethical and Practical Dimensions, by Jean K. Peters, Copyright Ó 1997, LEXIS Law Publishing, Charlottesville, VA. 3.	Advocating for the Child in Protection Proceedings: A Handbook for Lawyers and Court Appointed Special Advocates, by Donald Duquette, Copyright Ó Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco, CA. 4.	The Child’s Attorney, by Ann M. Haralambie, Copyright Ó 1993 American Bar Association, ABA Section of Family Law, Chicago, IL (Call 303/864-5320). 5.	Handling Child Custody, Abuse and Adoption Cases, by Ann M. Haralambie, Second Edition Copyright Ó 1993 Shepard’s McGraw-Hill, Colorado Springs, CO, now published by Clark, Boardman, Callaghan, Deerfield, IL. 6.	Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Research Preview, Jeremy Travis, February 1996. (3)	It is possible for the child client to develop from a child incapable of meaningful participation in the litigation as set forth in section B-4 (2), to a child capable of such participation during the course of the attorney client relationship. In such cases, the attorney shall move from the substituted judgment exception of B-4 (2) to the default position of client directed representation described in section B-4 “Client Preferences.” Children’s Bureau Child and Family Services Reviews Steps in the Review Process Updated March 2007 The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) were authorized by the 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act (SSA) and are administered by the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Children’s Bureau launched the review system in fiscal year 2000, with several States beginning the Statewide Assessment phase of the process. The steps in the review process are as follows: Determine the Date for the Review The Children’s Bureau Central and Regional Office staff determine the dates for the reviews in collaboration with State child welfare agency officials. Reviews must be conducted within the timeframes specified in 45 CFR 1355.32. For LikeLike
tladams1972 says:
Me and wife have 3 kids that we fight for 2years now csb take our kids out of the hospital for no reson at all will u help us
Keep fighting…we are
NO ONE under ANY circumstances should EVER call ANY government authority to police political correctness into family life. The family is sacred and sovereign. The family is in fact an independent and autonomous living entity that declared its own creation and which has its own immune defense system. It heals itself as it grows and fixes glitches within its body politic. To forcibly dismember a family is technically committing MURDER ON A LIVING BEING ! ! Violence begets the same karma. The family politic is the REAL driving force propelling our great species –-AND NOT short lived socialist empires with their scorched earth final implosions.
Willette D Harmon says:
Since 2009 my family has been going through a turmoil trying to get four children out DCFS in Georgia. They delayed and misguided the family. Then they said because of the length of time the children was place on adoption status. The we the family reside in Miami,Florida and have made many trips to Georgia to hearings. This whole ordeal started when my nephrew called his Grandmother in Miami and said he no longer wanted the two older girls. We went to Georgia and brought the two girls to miami. We notice that the girls had been physically abused and contacted DCFS. DCFS came to Miami and took the two girls instead of giving us the other two children. My sister who was supposed to get the children called December of 2012, to DCFS about the children as of January 31, 2013 we came across on the Internet the children appearing on Fox 5 news in Atlanta Georgia a story called Wednesday Child, reported by Karen Graham about Mya, Michelle, Mindy and Isaiah Jackson wanting to be adopted and have a family.We the family are reaching out to any one who can help us to have the childre returned to their exstended family
EVERYONE, PLEASE JOIN US AS WE ALL FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN, CPS/SS/FAMILY COURT IS CONTROLLED BY ORGANIZED CRIME, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE SO POWERFUL. I WILL BE WRITING A PAPER ABOUT THE BATTLE BETWEEN ORGANIZED CRIME AND OUR ‘TRUE’ GOVERNMENTS, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT, RIGHT NOW, WE JUST JOIN TOGETHER AND FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN, WORLDWIDE…
Esmeralda ANAYA says:
HI . I JUST WENT TO TELL U MY STORY HOW THEY TOOK MY DAUGHTER AWAY FROM ME WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS..I DID ALL THE CLASS AND THE CPS WORKER SAID IT WASN’T EFFIE.. SO I DID IT AGAIN .. SHE WASN’T HELPING THEY THEY SHOULD. SHE WAS HELP THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD MY DAUGHTER.. I LOST FULL CUSTODY OF MY DAUGHTER. BUT THEY DIDN’T CHECK THERE BACKGROUNDS.. HOW DO I NOW THAT IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAD MY DAUGHTER IS THE GRANDPERANT’S .. I WAS LEAVE WITH THERE DAUGHTER IS MY EX MOTHER IN LAW.. SHE TOLD ME THAT HER MOM US TO ABUSE HER ALL THE TIMES AND THAT SHE SCARED FOR HER GRANDDAUGHTER TO HAPPEN SOME TO HER.. I TOLD MY CPS ..WORKER BUT SHE DIDN’T LISTING THEY THINK THAT I’M LIE.. MY EX MOTHER IN LAW WENT TO GET HELP FOR HER SELF.. I JUST PRAY TO GOD TO KEEP MY DAUGHTER SAVE..MY STORY IS SO LONG.. I DON’T NOW WHAT TO DO TO GET MY DAUGHTER BACK.. I HOPE SHE OK… THEY TOOK MY OTHER DAUGHTER AWAY FROM ME BUT I DID GET HER BACK .. THE GRANDPERANTS ASK ME TO GIVE THEM MY CUSTODY OF MY YOUNGS BABY BUT I TOLD THEM NO I’M GOING TO FIGHT FOR THEM TO GET THE BACK.. AND THEY DIDN’T LIKE THAT.. I JUST WENT SOMEBODY TO HELP ME TO GET MY OLDER DAUGHTER BACK .. THE PEOPLE THAT SHE WITH THEY ARE NOT GOOD PEOPLE HER OWN DAUGHTER SAYS THAT..
1,728,496 hits
dshs.wa.gov/ca/pubs/manua…
dphhs.mt.gov/cfsd/cfsdman…
pamroachreport.blogspot.c…