Sunday, November 6, 2016

Wiener Probe Triggers Child Welfare Investigation



 WARNING: GRAPHIC CHILD ABUSE CONTENT exposing--again--government protection of child abusers who hold positions of power or prestige. The graphic image contained in this blog has been previously published in the Village Voice, on my website at profanejustice.org, and other publications over the past ten years. I have been turned in to the FBI for kiddie porn in an attempt to cover up this case and silence me, and the FBI has investigated and determined the photo, while graphic, does not depict kiddie porn. The child is clothed; the father, who was an NYPD officer, is naked. If that offends you, do not continue to read this blog post.
________________________________________________________________________________
According to an opinion piece written by William Donahue, citing his concern for the welfare of the four-year-old son of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin, he recites his participation in this investigation after seeing this New York Post issue covering Weiner's sexting investigation:
Image result for weiner
This news report did not trigger a child welfare investigation.
  • August 31: Citing the stories in the New York Post, [regarding Weiner's sexting with a minor] I file a formal complaint with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the New York branch of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. I ask them to investigate Weiner for sexually abusing Jordan.
  • August 31: The Daily Mail Online, after questioning a spokesman from the ACS, cites my intervention as the trigger that launched the investigation.
  • September 22: The New York Police Department (NYPD) commences an investigation of Weiner. While looking for child pornography and related matters relevant to my request—I asked for a probe of Weiner on the grounds that he may have sexually abused his son—the police found hundreds of thousands of emails sent by Abedin to her colleagues, including to Hillary Clinton (on her private server). The NYPD then contacted the FBI.
  • September 26: I receive a phone call from ACS saying my request for an investigation of Weiner was approved and was underway.
Donahue reasons, "After all, if a man is capable of using his own four-year-old son as sexual bait, and doesn’t mind sexting it across state lines, it is not a grand leap to conclude that he may be capable of doing even more heinous acts in private."

Breitbart confirms ACS is investigating Weiner on suspicions of child sexual abuse of his son.

What strikes me about this situation is how differently Weiner is treated compared to what every other parent in this country faces in similar circumstances,

Don't get me wrong, I think that Weiner's alleged perverted dealings with minor children are a major red flag as to the safety of his son, one that should have triggered an investigation by ACS long before Donahue called in his report.The police routinely refer suspicions of non-criminal child abuse to the local child welfare agency for investigation. Evidently, the NYPD didn't do that in this case. The question is: Why didn't they?

I have seen so many cases where the children were removed from their parents who were accused and investigated on far less evidence than found on Weiner, whose children demonstrated the exact level of harm/injury evidenced by Weiner's son, e.g. no evidence of injury or harm. Many of these parents find themselves in the outrageous position of having to prove their innocence, and have ultimately have lost their children to termination of parental rights proceedings because they could not prove a negative.

The average American would not be able to keep custody of their child under the same circumstances. The child would be placed in stranger foster care. The average American would not be afforded the presumption under the law that the non-offending parent was still fit to maintain custody of the child, and that the offender should be removed from the family home before the child is removed.

The average American parent would not be able to even see their child until they jumped through numerous moving hoops, which could last years. Meanwhile the child welfare agency would be allowed unlimited and unsupervised access to the child, who is coerced to recite the narrative that supports the agency's narrative, thereby validating the case.

It appears that Weiner's son is not in foster care. Is this fair? Or is it an example of a different set of laws for people in power? I have seen this kind of protectionism before in New York City, so it would seem that there are two sets of laws when it comes to child welfare.

In fact, ACS actually protected a police officer who was caught and photographed in bed naked with his young daughter. There was no valid investigation into this incident, despite the fact that the photo and story was published in the Village Voice and featured on local cable access television.

This photo shows father and child on the child’s bed. The man is reportedly her father, Gerard Joseph Murray. While you cannot see it because of the masking concealing the child's identity, the child’s eyes are open and she is looking at her mother, who is taking the photo. Her mother had reportedly caught the father masturbating here only a moment earlier, and she backed out of the room, grabbed her camera and went back to take this photo. Reportedly, this child has consistently disclosed sexual abuse for a number of years until she was placed in the custody of her father by order of the Family court based on the recommendation of New York City Administration for Children’s Services. The mother was jailed for publishing this photo and her story in attempt to protect her child from her father. This photo is reprinted with the mother's permission.

The best interests of the child do not matter when it would mean a parent who enjoys some kind of privileged would be investigated for child abuse, no matter what the letter of the law says. I've seen this for years. The best interests of the child play second fiddle to the best interests of the State and the privileged. Anthony Weiner's son is not subject to protection by the state if, for no other reason than the fact that his mother is a close aide of Hillary Clinton, none other than the promoter of "it takes a village to raise a child" and strong advocate of child welfare intervention. I hope the irony of this association isn't lost on the reader. More indications of different standards for different people.

I am also disturbed by the fact that strangers butting their noses into family situations, lacking any proof of abuse or harm to the child, is presented as representing the high moral ground.

A comment to the Donahue opinion piece by Regula | November 3, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Reply  says, "Thank you for intervening on behalf of the child."

People who intervene without actually witnessing child abuse as defined in the law are not doing good.  Just because someone disagrees with what a parent is doing doesn't make it okay to report it to the child welfare agency.

As an example, I cite this post which Burch wanted to go viral. The person reports this to the police, and the police respond rightly, that what this father is doing isn't against the law. Burch does not know why the father is restraining the child this way, but I would presume it's because she did not obey his verbal commands. I commend this father for finding this non-abusive creative and undoubtedly effective method to reinforce obedience. I say this as:
  1. a mother who took the time and effort to make sure her children learned to be polite rather than annoying, screaming brats in public, out of consideration for others, and
  2. a patron of public stores, restaurants and other public venues where parents are deaf to the irritating and obnoxious screaming of their children, or unable/unwilling to ensure their children do not annoy others, disrupt their meals or otherwise cause a nuisance or danger. 
__________________________________________________________________________________
Child restrained by her hair

Erika Burch added 7 new photos.
!!!!!!PLEASE MAKE THIS GO VIRAL!!!!!!
ME AND ROBERT ARE IN WALMART IN CLEVELAND TEXAS GETTING LUNCHABLES FOR OUR BABIES FOR SCHOOL. ROBERT SAID "DO YOU SEE WHAT THAT GUY IS DOING TO THAT LITTLE GIRL?" I TURNED AROUND TO THIS THIS POS DRAGGING THIS LITTLE GIRL BY THE HAIR OF HER HEAD!! HE HAD HER HAIR WRAPPED AROUND THE BUGGY DRAGGING HER! SHE IS BEGGING HIM TO STOP! SHE WAS SAYING "PLEASE STOP, I PROMISE I WONT DO IT AGAIN PLEASE STOP!" I TOOK MY PHONE OUT SNAPPED PICTURES AND THEN TOLD HIM TO LET THE LITTLE GIRLS HAIR GO! HE TOLD ME TO MIND MY OWN BUSINESS! I SAID NO IM NOT! RIGHT NOW THIS LITTLE GIRL IS MY BUSINESS AND YOU NEED TO LET HER HAIR GO NOW! HE SAID "I GREW UP JUST FINE!" I CALLED THE POLICE! JUST SO HAPPENED A COP WAS IN WALMART. HE CAME RUNNING AS WE ARE EXCHANGING TERRIBLE WORDS WITH THIS BASTARD! LONG STORY SHORT. THE OFFICER SAID IF IT WAS UP TO HIM THE GUY WAS GOING TO JAIL, HIS SERGEANT WAS COMING AND HE HAD TO WAIT ON HIM! WELL HIS SERGEANT TOLD HIM THAT THEY COULDNT TAKE HIM TO JAIL BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VISIBLE BRUISES NOR WAS HER HAIR MISSING!! THIS IS AFTER I SHOW HIM PICTURES OF THIS IDIOT DRAGGING THIS BABY PULLING HER HAIR!! HE SAID IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ABBUSE THERE HAD TO BE BODILY INJURY TO THE CHILD!
PEOPLE THIS IS WHATS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD TODAY! NOBODY STANDS UP FOR ANYONE NOT EVEN CHILDREN!! NOW THIS BABY HAD TO GO HOME WITH THIS MONSTER THINKING THAT NOBODY CARED ABOUT HER AND ITS OKAY FOR THIS ANIMAL TO PULL HER BY THE HAIR OF HER HEAD!!!! IM ATTACHING PICTURES AND A CARD WITH THE CASE NUMBER! IF YOU CARE ABOUT CHILDREN AND CHILD ABBUSE STOP AND SHARE THIS AND CALL IT IN TO CPS!!!!!
THIS IS BEYOND WRONG AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT!!!

THE SERGEANT IN CLEVELAND TX SAID " HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE HIS CHILDREN!" WHAT IN THE HELL!!!! DRAGGING A LITTLE GIRL BY THE HAIR IF HER HEAD IS NOT PROPER DISCIPLINE!!
Robert Burch
___________________________________________________________________________
 This is shocking, Burch is inciting others to break the law. Yes, it is a crime to make a false report of child abuse in every state. This child was not endangered, not injured, and therefore, not in need of intervention. Suck it up, dude, and let others correct their children as they see fit, no matter how distasteful you find it. It is entirely improper for someone like you to undermine parental authority in front of a child. It sends the message to the child that they don't have to respect parental authority and makes you a real jerk. Burch, you didn't learn the important lesson: Mind your own business. The police were right, you are wrong.

Protected children are children who are removed from their family, placed with strangers, and traumatized by that removal. Studies have shown that warehousing children in foster homes harms them more than leaving them in their own homes. If you don't see actual abuse as defined in the law, butt out. If you don't care to learn the law before you make a report, butt out.

Know that if you report someone for child abuse, you cause trauma and harm to the child you are trying to protect. Maybe you don't care about that, which makes you a child protection hypocrite. Maybe you don't believe it, but your belief isn't necessary, I speak as a former foster child. The reality is that all children in foster care suffer grievously simply due to the removal.




Monday, October 19, 2015

God-the-Doctor and the Church of All Life is Sacred

See Video
We often see trending articles and news stories where hotline reports to child welfare agencies or Amber alerts are used to facilitate the seizure of children from their parents by medical staff. These methods are frequently used by medical personnel when a parent questions God-the-Doctor about diagnosis or treatment for their child. A parent who seeks a second opinion, or decides to choose another treatment provider for their child too frequently becomes the subject of a child abuse or neglect hotline report. These reports often appear to be less focused on the best interests of the child than they are a result of the insult to God-the-Doctor's ego. One only has to watch God-the-Doctor in action on this Fox News video to see that they view themselves as the absolute arbiters over the lives of children, the parents be damned, and even the desires and needs of the children be damned.

Often, the parents feel they must flee the jurisdiction to seek the medical care they believe is best for their child. We see this played out frequently in child cancer cases. Parents who seek less toxic, possibly more effective alternative treatments for their child's cancer diagnosis--often with good result--have their children seized and the toxic treatment forced upon them to the child's detriment. At the very least, the child's quality of life is severely reduced. There is no dispute that some medical treatments are toxic, the results questionable, and even diagnoses are faulty. So careful research and prudent decision making is eminently reasonable. Yet, we are expected to put our full blind faith in God-the-Doctor, because the state has decreed it so, if we hope to keep our children.

This has the predictable effect of making parents hesitant to obtain health care for their
children. When the state becomes involved, the parents are denied all access to their child, denied the right--yes, the right--to make medical decisions for their child based on all relevant information, and risk termination of parental rights, often for no better reason than seeking all available information and proceeding with prudence. Contrary to the reports made by God-the-Doctor, the parents are not medically neglecting their child. They are considering all factors, seeking second opinions, praying, and providing interim support and treatment while they make their decision. Invariably, the child does not die during this process.


But God-the-Doctor makes dire predictions that "the child will die" unless they continue to provide their treatment. Seriously, any one of us could die at any time, and God-the-Doctor's philosophy of saving lives depends on the quantity of lives saved, regardless of the quality of life available to anyone. This smacks of a religion based on the sanctity of life. This is the church of All Life is Sacred, worshiping the spark of life with a complete disregard for the quality of the life their sacrificial child is experiencing. They believe it is more worthy to assault the child's body with dangerous, toxic and painful treatments, deprive the child of the comfort and affection of their parents and siblings during this assault. They compel them to be clinically cared for by strangers as a legitimate substitute for the loving care of their own family, rather than to allow them the dignity and respect to have their family make their medical choices and support them during the process. Children alone, afraid and in pain. . and dying or losing valuable life functions, such as the ability to bear children as adults. This is cruel beyond imagining, children serving as a sacrifice to the church of All Life is Sacred who worships God-the Doctor. Sick.

And even if the parent obtains medical care at another facility, they are punished by being arrested, charged with kidnapping their own child, and having the child seized and placed in state custody. It is well established that children raised in state custody for any amount of time suffer severe problems the rest of their lives. These reports making the news tend to demonize the parents for daring to question God-the-Doctor, or even demand proof that his predictions and treatment do more good than harm, never mind being infallible. I have seen relatives die from chemotherapy, and other medical treatment, largely because doctors practice disease management using Ouija board science rather than providing sound health care practices. Granted, they are responding to patient demands for a perfect pill to address symptoms because the patient is often willing to accept treatments that usually involve lifestyle changes to correct the source of the problem. Until this dynamic changes on the part of the doctor, the social problems arising out of disease management practices will persist. The practice of removing children for non-existent medical neglect is institutionalized in our country. It is dangerous to seek medical care for children due to the risk of God-the-Doctor deciding what is best for the child and using state force to compel treatment. Parents need to do their research before taking their child to the doctor, and choose medical providers who do not believe themselves to be God-the-Doctor. They need to know what to expect when seeking medical care for their child and how to mitigate the risk of seizure when taking their child for medical care. Steps to reduce this risk are included in Profane Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights, available on Amazon Kindle.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Is it necessary to fight?

Many advocates recommend fighting child welfare agencies and courts. I don't think this is the right posture to take. Even when I published my first book in 1996, I knew that fighting wasn't the answer. That's why title was "Asserting Your Parental Rights", not fighting for them. Nearly twenty years later, my belief in this reinforced. All those high-profile advocates that that advocate fighting are gone. They had no success with this advice and lost their support base. So, I'd like to leave you all with this thought, that formed the basis of my successful strategies for families who are involved with a child welfare intervention.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Profane Justice now available on Kindle

We are pleased to announce that Profane Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights, 2nd Edition, is now available on Kindle.  To obtain your copy, click on the image of the book.


Friday, October 18, 2013

What did the court say about the defendants?

In its ruling, the court opened by saying, "I have to tell you, Ms. Shell, you have my admiration and my sympathy. You have developed a program and an incisive group of materials for a really commendable purpose in an area where nobody. . .had devoted the time and the energy to do so. I have to tell you that if no one has told you thus far, you are bright, you are articulate, there’s a lot of honor in what you’ve done. And the evidence was uncontroverted that what you produced was useful and valuable.

"I also have to observe that how you were treated is inexcusable. . . Especially when you’ve spent a long time developing something, the purpose of which was to help people."

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Suzanne Shell awarded damages for copyright infringement from Leonard Henderson of AFRA

On October 1, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado awarded author Suzanne Shell $5,000 in damages for copyright infringement against Leonard Henderson. Henderson is the founder of AFRA, American Family Rights Association and has maintained his position as the acting leader of that organization since 2002. Ms. Shell is also entitled to costs from Mr. Henderson, according to the judgment.

Mr. Henderson has publicly stated his intention to discharge this judgment in bankruptcy.


Friday, December 16, 2011

Teaching Children to Protect Themselves and Their Family

Readers can now get Knowing My Rules: Who Do I Trust for Nook and Kindle


This book teaches children how to recognize when it is unsafe to answer questions by police, caseworkers or school personnel, and what to do when faced with unsafe questioning.

We are living in an age where our children have become extremely vulnerable to influences that are destructive to the family unit. It is no secret that children are easily manipulated and even coerced into making false disclosures during child abuse investigations. The children are not to blame for this. The professionals charged with protecting America’s children have an extensive history of validating accusations with a blatant disregard for the truth and at the expense of the best interests of the child. The only way to protect your children is to teach them how to protect themselves when you are not present.