Talk About Network



Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Culture > Civil Liberties > Angry parents w...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 1 Topic 162 of 199
Post > Topic >>

Angry parents who lost their children to CPS showed up at a school

by Ben Ness <noangel@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aug 20, 2006 at 07:21 PM

I've found some interesting reading in my e-mail the other day, a lot of 
unhappy people in Central Arizona all of a sudden, especially on the 
School Board..  Ben



I'm writing to let you know about something Interesting that is 
happening in Coolidge, Arizona. it was recently learned that Child 
Protective Services has conducted dozens, if not hundreds of illegal 
interviews without a search warrant of children in school without their 
parents or attorneys being present, the parents had no prior 
notification that their children would be interviewed by the
authorities....


the Principal at Hohokam School in Coolidge, Arizona.  confirmed that 
CPS has been conducting these interviews for years and he was unaware 
that it was a violation of the constitution until angry parents who lost 
their children to CPS showed up at a school board meeting and dropped 
what was to be the political equivalent of a Nuclear Weapon...

  one of the children's parents address the school board at a meeting 
held on Wednesday August the 9th 2006 in Coolidge and asked the 
following question of all parents in the room "would you want your child 
interviewed at school by the police, child protective services or anyone 
else, without your knowledge, permission or you being present?" of 
course everybody said no! then one of the other parents said it can't 
happen it's illegal!  at which point the person addressing school board 
said that's right!  so why was it done to my children?  he then told 
them what the principal at Hohokam had told him, Then all Hell Broke 
Loose!!!!

He also remarked that he did not appreciate arizonas Child Protective 
Services using the Constitution of the United States as Toilet Paper
in a time of war, while the good Men and Women of our Armed Forces are 
Fighting and Dying for It...

The Pinal County School District is about to become one big lawyer 
Feeding Ground!

this is a direct violation of the Constitution as reaffirm by the 7th 
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Doe v. Heck...

Note: IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR DCF TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION IN ANY 
HOME AND INTERVIEW A CHILD WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (IMMINENT 
“PHYSICAL” DANGER) OR PROBABLE CAUSE.

This also applies to the Illegal Interviews done at public school 
without the parents knowledge.
Question: How is a child in "imminent physical danger" when the child is 
at school?
The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 
US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and 
Child Protective Services (“CPS”) investigations of alleged child abuse 
or neglect are conducted. The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of 
Appeals found that the practice of a “no prior consent” interview of a 
child will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the 
constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to 
the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative 
interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when 
conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable 
cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable 
search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, 
possibly the owner of the private property.The mere possibility or risk 
of harm 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)A due-process violation occurs 
when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a 
“best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof 
of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978) 
End Note.

While Arizona is within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, 
the Constitution of the United States still applies to all 50 States 
equally...

But wait, there is more, he then hands out copies of this document which 
can be found at the House Ways and Means Committee website...


C.P.S is targeting specific families with limited set budgets, where 
child removal is commonly practiced for personal financial gain.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=2296


House Committee on Ways and Means


Statement of Cynthia Huckelberry, Redlands, California, and Sushanna 
Khamis, Yucaipa, California

OVERVIEW OF NEGATIVE IMPACT RELATED TO THE CURRENT CHILD PROTECTIVE 
SERVICE PROGRAM/REVISED:

Child Protective Services was designed to protect children and aid 
families that are in need of assistance in order to maintain the family 
unit. Unfortunately, today we are finding that C.P.S is targeting 
specific families with limited set budgets, where child removal is 
commonly practiced for personal financial gain. The lack of compassion 
exhibited by C.P.S caseworkers towards the impoverished children that 
they serve, further devalues their lives in the eyes of these 
caseworkers. Thus indicating, that a lack of understanding and caring 
related to the circumstances of these financially challenged families, 
creates further dissention, prejudicing these C.P.S workers from the 
very people they serve.

Within this document, the information provided will serve as an insight 
into the true source of the problems that plagues C.P.S today. Also, it 
will provide possible solutions that may be utilized to best serve a new 
restructured Child Protective Service Agency.

HOW C.P.S LEGALLY REMOVES CHILDREN FORM PARENTAL CUSTODY

C.P.S systematically removes children from their families, whom do not 
meet the criteria for removal, through vague and ambiguous 
interpretation of their own codes and policy and procedures. They are 
able to operate in this manner by selecting specific target groups.

The target groups that C.P.S has tagged are the poor, disabled, elderly, 
and the undereducated.  Parents/guardians unfamiliar with the law, with 
limited or no financial means to secure impartial unbiased legal 
representation, blindly trust the courts.  Therefore Child Protective 
Service is able to manipulate the court system to secure foster care or 
adoption status of these children for profit.

Example: Each child placed in foster care has an annual value of $30,000.

More monies are available, up to $150,000 dollars per child, for those 
that meet the special needs criteria. After 24 months- during the 
concurrent foster care /adoption process, placement becomes final, where 
upon an $8,000 dollar bonus is dispersed to the county from the State. 
This bonus money is then divided amongst individuals that enabled the 
adoption process to be completed. This is not necessarily a positive 
solution for these children, but a personal financial gain to workers. 
Thus, this leads us to believe that some of the decisions made by C.P.S 
officials serve only as a means to enhance their personal budgets.

Upon removal, C.P.S creates a plan for reunification that is designed to 
promote the family’s failure.  These case plans do not allow the 
families the time needed to comply nor do they have the financial 
resources needed to meet the court assigned criteria.  Unbeknownst to 
the families, the courts, lawyers, and C.P.S workers falsely interject 
foster care criteria when family criteria should be utilized. Workers 
may also place long-term program demands on the parents that purposely 
overrun the 24-month time period.

This then allows the state to complete the adoption process to outside 
individuals.

In other cases, failure to protect –WIC 300b was cited to obtain removal 
of the children, when the custodial parents acted protectively, in 
accordance to the law, after a crime was committed against one of their 
children.  Currently all children from these cases remain in “protective 
custody” under the authority of C.P.S.

FAMILY COURT CUSTODY REMOVAL - PARENT ALIENATION SYNDROME

Let it be known, that Family Court officials regularly remove custody of 
children from one parent to another (usually mother to father), citing 
parent alienation syndrome. C.P.S agrees to serve as the tool to enable 
custody transfer, a corrupt process observed by the FBI. Where, in 
truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in family court under 
the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse or conflict of 
interest related to the right to privacy laws.  FBI Agent/Lawyer Brenda 
Atkinson- San Francisco can verify this information by calling her at 
(415) 553-7400.

Child Protective Service also submits false documentation so as to 
provide a supportive basis necessary to substantiate their decisions. 
Thus the truth is purposely obstructed altered or omitted to justify 
case plans.

In many cases, C.P.S has failed to investigate additional outside 
reports from various professionals and agencies such as children’s 
physicians, police agencies, school system, etc.

WHY DOES CPS SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVE CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND 
PLACE THEM IN FOSTER CARE?

Since Clinton enacted the adoption and Safe Families act in 1997, this 
has lead to widespread corruption within the child Protective Services 
Agency and outlying neighboring agencies.  By systematically removing 
children from predominantly poor families, C.P.S is able to secure 
foster care/ adoption status for these children with little or no 
parental encumbrance.

Thus C.P.S victimizes those families that have no means available, to 
properly investigate C.P.S corrupt activities directed at their family.

Since Federal and state matching funds generate the budget for C.P.S, 
the single means utilized to elevate the budget is to increase foster 
care and adoption caseloads.

Bonus incentives for adoptions are currently $8,000 per child. $4,000 is 
given to the foster parents and another $4,000 is placed in a general 
fund, to reward workers for completing their job duties.  Workers in 
this county, state that they do not personally financially benefit from 
this fund.  Thus it leads us to believe, that other neighboring agencies 
are benefiting form this fund, in return for deceptive practices that 
support C.P.S decisions.

BABY TRAFFICKING

False Allegations of drug abuse have been logged against mothers and 
their newborn infants as a means to place these infants into protective 
custody.  The hospital staff has allowed C.P.S to remove infants (a 
hospital violation) prior to verification of blood and urine drug screen 
tests.  C.P.S is mandated to secure verification of drug allegations via 
blood and urine results, prior to removing the newborn infant from the 
hospital.  All cases known to us resulted negative for the mother and 
the newborn, but these infants were never returned, and were adopted 
outside of kinship.

In the past year, the FBI has arrested and imprisoned C.P.S workers who 
were actively involved in baby trafficking for profit.  These C.P.S 
workers knowingly abducted infants from the hospital where they in turn 
networked them into legal adoption agencies.  Augustus Fennerty, FBI 
director for Crimes against Children (Washington D.C) can verify this 
information. (202) 324-3000

CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY

Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers 
placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe for 
child sex trade industry.  This can be verified through Ted Gunderson, 
(retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565.

SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE

For the families in relation to our group in San BernardinoCounty, it 
has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that 
approximately half the children in foster care have been molested.

These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by the 
foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that 
these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to 
complaints, without any investigation into these allegations.  C.P.S 
officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but 
failed to follow through with a criminal investigation.

In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an “oasis’’ 
for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time committing 
a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that delivers a 
never ending supply of victims

SYSTEMATIC FRAUDULENT MANEUVERS UTILIZED TO ENHANCE C.P.S BUDGET

     * C.P.S manufactures multiple nonexistent /fictitious abuse case 
scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.

     * C.P.S concurrently processes these children from foster care to 
adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of 
bonuses.

     * C.P.S provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts 
(commissioners, psychologists, monitors, court mandated behavioral class 
instructors, court appointed legal counsel), in order for them to 
financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system.

     * C.P.S victimizes innocent impoverished families, draws them into 
a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for commerce.

MALICIOUS OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES

     * C.P.S is utilized by family court officials, as an adverse tool 
to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to 
“parent alienation syndrome”.

     * Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in 
family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse 
or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws.

     * C.P.S utilizes coercive measures to persuade parents to submit to 
statements of prior alleged abuse, when these actions were nonexistent. 
   In other words, forcing desperate parents to “plea bargain” to a 
C.P.S fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care.

     * C.P.S fabricates portions of investigations, where such duties 
have never been physically performed, to purposely mislead or direct a
case.

     * C.P.S knowingly abandons children into foster care, conscious of 
the fact that some foster care parents and or individuals in the home 
physically and sexually abuse the children in their protective custody.

     * C.P.S intentionally fails to prosecute parents accused of child 
abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been
committed.

     * C.P.S represents themselves in positive personas, by omitting, 
altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or 
government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly 
grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well 
being of children.

     * C.P.S ignores crimes committed in foster care, such as the 
atrocious acts of unexplained deaths.

     * C.P.S fails to question these individuals for their abusive 
conduct, whereby, if it were not a foster care parent, these individuals 
would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

SHOULD CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE BE RESTRUCTURED?

The police should determine if a child has a true need for protection 
from his parents, since child abuse is a criminal offence.  Thus, C.P.S 
should be incorporated with Crimes against Children Units that are 
currently located within police, sheriffs and FBI agencies.

The merging of the two would reduce the amount of false allegations 
reported, since complaints made to a police unit is a criminal offence. 
  Also, the police have the training and resources needed to conduct a 
thorough investigation. This allows them to determine that if a crime 
has been committed that warrants the need for foster care.

A parent/guardian under the suspicion of the crime “Child Abuse” would 
meet the criteria for removal. This would activate the foster care 
system.  Only then would the foster care system be utilized as a 
response to a possible or suspected crime.

Thus in turn, this would eliminate the unnecessary utilization of the 
foster care system that has been grossly misused in the past. 
Unwarranted victimization of children and their families would be 
greatly reduced and soaring costs would be contained. This would 
minimize the number of future cases that fall through the cracks and get 
lost in the system.

WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE SOCIAL WORKERS PLAY IN THE NEW CHILD PROTECTIVE 
SERVICE?

     *  All caseworkers must have a bachelor’s degree in social work 
from an accredited college.

     * All states must create bachelor level licensing for social workers.

     * All workers must have a current license to work within any state 
or county in the United States with reciprocity.

     * All social workers must have a preceptor for at least three 
months prior to individual casework.

WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM WITHIN THE 
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNITS?

Other members from various agencies should be inclusive to this unit, 
since they bring their specific expertise to complete a proper 
investigation. It is our opinion that the following individuals who 
should comprise this team are as stated: Registered Nurse, School 
Principal, Detective, and Social Worker.

SHOULD AN OUTSIDE AGENCY SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEW THE CHILD PROTECTIVE 
SERVICE TEAM’S PERFORMANCE?

All agencies must have an outside quality control board that monitors 
case investigations on a random basis and when requested by the public. 
  This Board must include members similar to the Child Protective 
Service team, with the addition of an individual from the public. No 
member may be employed more than three years, to maintain the integrity 
of the boards’ unbiased decisions.

SHOULD WE MAINTAIN A CHILD ABUSE INDEX LIST?

The child abuse index list shall be maintained only when an individual 
has been prosecuted and convicted by a court of law for a crime against 
a child. Today’s said list shall be destroyed, so as to prevent harm to 
those currently listed who have been accused of a crime against a child, 
but that have never been prosecuted or convicted. And, children should 
never be placed on any list that would categorize them in an adverse 
manner, such as this.

SHOULD THERE BE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO FOSTER CARE?

There should be a limited number of children allowed to be placed in any 
single home under foster care, including adoption. No single family 
shall be allowed to adopt or provide foster care to more than two 
children at any time. The only exception shall be when siblings number 
more than two and are placed in the same single dwelling.  This will 
eliminate the financial incentive for monetary gain related to housing 
foster children and adoptions.

Redlands, California 92373
Yucaipa, California 92399
July 12, 2004

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0542

To our Honorable U.S. House of Representatives,

It is unfortunate that Child Protective Service officials have mislead 
the government into believing, that increased funding is necessary to 
solve the multitude of problems that encompass C.P.S. This agency is 
utilizing the funding issue as the scapegoat for their problems, when in 
actuality the workers themselves, the lack of their personal 
accountability, are the source of the problem. Further funding will not 
solve C.P.S’S current crisis, only the restructuring of this agency will 
provide a solution.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Huckelberry

Sushanna Khamis




by the way the angry families websites can be found at

the cps experience

http://www.thecpsexperience.com/new/

and

Nightmare in America

http://nightmareinamerica.com/

  These web sites are a must see...
  I hope you find this interesting reading



  Crazy Gun
  Shooting News Tips From The Hip...




 1 Posts in Topic:
Angry parents who lost their children to CPS showed up at a scho
Ben Ness <noangel@[EMA  2006-08-20 19:21:46 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Fri May 16 6:31:46 CDT 2008.