Summary Judgement Entered Against Ohio Family Rights

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has confirmed what Suzanne Shell has been claiming all along: That Ms. Shell is the owner of the copyright in Parents Guide to the System. 

Defendant Ray Lautenschlager, who has admitted he operates 
under the non-business alter-ego Ohio Family Rights, has been found liable for wilful copyright infringement of this book in Shell v. Ohio Family Rights, et. al. The images here are from the summary judgment entered against Mr. Lautenschlager.

The basis of this finding is that Ms. Barnes exceeded the authority granted under the license granted to her by Ms. Shell, which invalidates the permissive use, making this entire work an infringement of Ms. Shell's copyright.  

Ray Lautenschlager got it wrong, along with all supporters of Cheryl Barnes, when they called Ms. Shell a liar and a thief for asserting her property rights to this book. All supporters of the plagiarist Cheryl Barnes are now on notice that they may not distribute, display, or share this book without committing copyright infringement. 

Ray Lautenschlager has been left holding the bag for damages awarded to Ms. Shell. Just like his same supporters left Leonard Henderson hold the damages bag for their copyright infringements. Funny, how quickly these so-called family advocates desert their leaders when the rubber hits the road.

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:

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.

September 19 ·

!!!!!!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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

How Not to Spank Your Child. . . Unless You're a Judge?

The video of a judge allegedly beating his sixteen year old daughter in 2004 has gone viral, and has even garnered the attention of mainstream media.

The video was secretly recorded by the daughter and provides viewers with a sensational display. But what does it really represent? An abusive father? Perhaps. Permit me to draw some parallels from my extensive child welfare case files.

I'll start with my own case in 1991. My thirteen year-old son had willfully disobeyed an instruction to perform a certain, benign task. . . making his lunch for school. I discovered it the next morning just before he left for school. He wanted to partake of the school's hot lunch, again, which I would have to pay for. The school refused to let him go hungry as a consequence of not bringing his lunch. I couldn't afford the school lunches. He was manipulating the school to undermine my rules. When confronted with his disobedience, he yelled back. This defiance earned him eight, measured and deliberate swats.

He was told at the outset he would get eight swats. He bent over the bed as instructed. He didn't move, or cry or scream during the spanking. My husband was calm, not angry, and gave the swats without excess force and without striking any other part of the body except the boy's buttocks. Then my son went and made his lunch.

Then he told his counselor at school my husband had beaten him. My son was placed in foster care for the weekend. We were investigated by the child welfare agency for child abuse. They harassed me and repeatedly tried to impose services--despite their admission that I was a good parent--but never filed a dependency complaint. My husband was charged with misdemeanor child abuse. He went to trial(!!) and was acquitted.

How is it that a benign spanking that was not administered in anger, that caused no bruising, could be so harshly prosecuted?

Based on my observations, it has a lot to do with my husband and I not being a judge, or a caseworker, or a cop, or an elected official. . . a member of that privileged class that is such a (wink, wink) secret.

I previously posted about a Wisconsin mother who was charged with a felony for spanking her child with her hand and was charged with felony child abuse. Her case involves prosecutorial misconduct and more. . .because, like me, she isn't a member of the unspoken privileged class in this country.

Based on the reaction of law enforcement and child welfare agencies, the judge/father's spanking would be considered abuse. This is an illustration of the double standard that is institutionalized in this country.

This judge, according to reports, sits in judgement on other parents's parenting practices. Has he ever exercised his discretion to determine that a parent who spanked their child less vigorously than he repeatedly spanked his child was abusive? I sure would like to know.

Let's examine what this video and the news reports reveal: Surprise! This child is not the innocent victim she wants the world to believe.

The child was willfully disobedient. Repeatedly. She remains unrepentant for her disobedience, in fact, is boldly defiant to this day that her wrongdoing contributed in any way to the conduct she complains of. She has been empowered by the child welfare system and society to refuse to correct her disobedience just because daddy was too harsh with her. Her disobedience and unrepentance is, therefore, justified.

But was the spanking really that harsh? She wriggled and screamed during the swats, but the instant daddy was gone, she barely even sniffled and was able to move about without any indication that she was suffering any pain. I am not convinced she was suffering any severe pain. Still, one must concede that the intention of a spanking is to inflict pain, pain being a proven motivator to refrain from the conduct that caused the pain.

But Judge Daddy was wrong, too. Whacking away at whatever part of his child's body he could reach with the belt while she dodges the swats indicates his rage and a desire for retribution, not correction. It places his child at increased risk for injury, and injury is not the proper objective for a spanking. I know of one instance where a boy was dodging his dad's belt and the belt struck him in they eye, costing him his sight. Kids dodging spankings is dangerous for them.

The girl was wrong not to bend over the bed as instructed and take the punishment that her father was entitled to administer, regardless of whether or not she agreed with it. Kids don't get to tell mommy and daddy they can't correct them. Hillary's refusal to comply is another layer of willful disobedience by this (gag) poor little girl. She intended to push Judge Daddy's buttons and make him escalate.  Evidently, it worked.

Judge Daddy screaming threats and insults also serves more to feed his own rage than correct his child. This wasn't done out of loving concern to insure she grew up with the desired values and respect for authority.

Now, watch the video to see if you really missed the points I raised.


If there were bruises, they could, unless one is a judge, satisfy an element for criminal child abuse, but any statute of limitations has to have run out. And, if one were to apply the rationales espoused by the child welfare system, if a man beats his kid, he beats his wife and he is a violent offender.

I do agree with the daughter, that this is a shocking display of lack of control by the judge when provoked by a mere child, giving rise to legitimate concerns about his ability to set aside his emotions and be fair and impartial on he bench. This judge was caught on tape, being exactly who he really is, unaware that he was playing to the world. But I must also concede that the people you love the most can make you far more angry than anyone else can.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that the girl was also caught on tape. She was exposed to the astute observer for being the nasty brat she was, for the world to see. She knew she was being taped, and played to camera to create outrage and gain sympathy. The real offense, in my mind, is that she didn't think she was doing anything wrong when she defied her father's instructions.

Think of how much more sympathetically it could have played if she had meekly assumed the position across the bed and taken the swats obediently. Oh, I see, that would not have enraged Judge Daddy into a whipping frenzy like her outright and defiant disobedience did.

And she continues her masterful manipulation of the rest of the world. She has convinced the world she is the innocent victim. She's not innocent. If you think she is innocent, you're an idiot and you deserve several kids just like her.

And if she's a victim, so is her father. She's victimizing him for provoking him into being an imperfect parent and setting him up for public humiliation. Her premeditated public exposure is no less vicious than his spontaneous spanking. She has personally exposed him to danger. He has received threats against his life. This has happened to me, too, because of a news story. It is patently irresponsible to maliciously expose anyone, much less a family member, to suffer threats against their life and safety from the the increasing unstable members of the public who cannot moderate their own emotional responses, and feel a sense of entitlement to take out their anger on the target of their outrage.

 She was, and is, a self-absorbed brat who still cares for nothing but herself. Otherwise, why would she need to publicly humiliate her father seven years after the fact and be a public victim?

They are both in denial about any wrongdoing on their own part. They are both immature children unworthy of respect.

Adopted Teens Beaten, Starved, and the Court Knew

One feature of courts taking jurisdiction over children has always shocked me. How many times judges, Guardians ad litem and child welfare professionals know the child is being abuse or neglected, and turns a blind eye, or even in some misplaced desire to prove the allegations wrong so that their personal agendas are protected, places the child with the abuser.

Okay, justice is supposed to be blind, but when the scales of justice are tipped by the weight of evidence, it is not justified to put your thumb on the other side and call the scales balanced.

Here is a story of teenage twins who had years of reports about their adoptive parents beating, abusing and starving them, and the professionals and the judge saw fit to place the children with the abusers. Just look at them in this Facebook photo, they look so nice, so loving. They MUST be good parents. Yeah, right.

After twenty years of observations into the child welfare system, this outrageous practice, this lack of discernment, this shocking blindness to facts still renders me speechless.

Babies Stolen and Sold for Adoption

A BBC documentary has exposed a baby trafficking ring in Spain, perpetrated by the Catholic church.

A similar child trafficking ring was exposed in Kansas recently. Children were taken by SRS (Social and Rehabilitative Services) from parents at birth. These were parents who had older children taken, allowing the agency to seize subsequent children as they were born. However, the removal of the infant was not included in the official records of the agency.

The birth certificates of the stolen newborns were filled in with the names of the adoptive parents, and the parents were told the infant either died, or parental rights were terminated. Parents report not having the benefit of court hearings. One mother reportedly had several children taken by this method.

The ignorance of the parents was exploited by unscrupulous professionals masquerading as state action, and newborns were redistributed without benefit of judicial review.

Funny how this never got any widespread media coverage.

Foster children killed in car crash, not wearing seatbelts

Austyn Ackinson, 11; Tony Mitchell, 4; Tayla Mitchell, 10; Andy Dawson, 13; and Jeremy Franks, 17 were children in the home of Howard Mitchell in Kit Carson, Colorado. Three were foster children. Two were legal orphans that were adopted by Mitchell.
Now, they are dead. The Denver Post reports:

Howard Mitchell loaded 12 children into his van Thursday morning, preparing for the drive he made twice each weekday — three times during football season — from Kit Carson to the children's school in Eads.
Mitchell and five children, ranging in age from 4 to 17, were killed when the 15-passenger van he was driving slammed into the back of a semitrailer truck on U.S. 287 about 2 miles south of Kit Carson.

According to the article, the children were not wearing seat belts or in car seats. The father, who was the driver, was a sheriff's deputy. 


There is no mention in the article about the loss suffered by the parents of the killed children. Like they don't even count? Like they were bad parents and they deserved to lose their children?


As in any state, it is state law that children are in car seats or seat belts. But many parents across the country complain that the caseworker transports their children without putting the little ones in car seats and without buckling up the older ones. It enrages them that their children are removed for a dirty house, but that the state employees and service providers can place their children in danger by transporting them without restraining them. 


It makes one wonder why the state employees and service providers are not held to the same standard of care as the parents are.


This is not the first time that foster children have been killed during transport and not have been restrained. It is a common practice in child welfare agencies nationwide. 


This family was licensed to have eleven children, well above the number usually permitted to foster caregivers. One can conclude that this status was an indicator that they were excellent care givers, better than most parents and caregivers.


If this is an example of the best of foster caregivers in Colorado, we should be concerned. These caregivers evidently didn't care about other people's children enough to insure their safety in the car. 


There is no excuse for a sheriff's deputy transporting anyone's children without proper restraints. There is no excuse for a foster caregiver transporting children without proper restraints. 


There is no excuse. 


More news stories.

How it's done in Fremont County, Colorado

A reader posted a comment to my story about Aging Out in Foster Care. I didn't approve it for publication because it contained her phone number. Having been the victim of phone terrorism by abusive, opinionated jerks who made threats of violence and death against me and my family, I cannot allow this publication to expose anyone to potential abuse or threats. However, I take this opportunity to publish her comments as an illustration of how helpless family members are when confronted with a child welfare system:

Who is a good attorney in fremont county colorado that will fight the DHS to save my nephew. I tried to call around and find someone and no one wants to fight the welfare they say what ever the welfare wants to do they will do.

Fremont County Justice Center
Canon City, Colorado

I am very familiar with Fremont County, Colorado, it's child welfare practices, the business going on in the courts, and the players.

These two sentences should raise the concerns of anyone interested in the administration of child welfare and the fair administration of justice in the courts of Fremont County. As this blog reports, this reader confirms that local attorneys are unwilling to represent family members in dependency court because they cannot mount an effective case.

Implicit in this statement is the admission that the courts cannot be relied upon to rule fairly on the law and the merits against an agency out of control.

The Colorado Department of Human Services has repeatedly been informed of the multitude of questionable practices by Fremont County Department of Human Services. The Office of Attorney Regulation has repeatedly been informed that the representation of parents and children is severely compromised in Fremont County dependency cases, and why and how. The Colorado Supreme Court has been advised that the courts in Fremont County undermine public confidence in the judicial process by their refusal to conduct child welfare cases pursuant to the law and the merits.

They've known for over ten years.

Nothing has been done by any supervising agency to correct any of these issues. However, anyone complaining or working for reform of these wrongs has been targeted for retaliation by each of these government institutions. This retaliation includes the unjustified removal of children as a means to control adult political conduct and adverse court rulings without supporting evidence--complete with onerous fines--against offending political activists.

Re ipsa loquiter.

Arnold & Porter Files Pro Bono Lawsuit for Fathers Seeking Custody

Washington D.C. engages in a practice that is duplicated in every state across the country. . .when a custodial parent is investigated for child abuse or neglect and the child is removed from the custodial parent, the agency does not place the child with the non-custodial parent who was not accused of abuse or neglect.

Instead, the agencies will often make the non-custodial parent to prove their fitness before placing the child with his own parent. If the non-custodial, non-accused parent lives in the same state, they will conduct a home study and background check at the very least, which can take months. These are often nit-picky and require the non-custodial parent to prove adequate housing, child care, income, school, etc. If there is a new spouse or live-in partner, that person will also have to be background checked and undergo invasive questioning and intrusions.

Or, as D.C. does, they will often require an out-of-state non-custodial parent to complete the ICPC (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children) an even more invasive process which can take six to twelve months.

The ICPC was not intended to be invoked when placing a child with his own parent, it was only designed for out-of-state foster care or adoption. I'm not a lawyer and I knew that this bureaucratic dragnet was not intended to be invoked when placing children with their own parent. One can only conclude that these legal experts intentionally misused the law to keep children in foster care longer and milk the system for the federal funds attached to warehousing children in foster care rather than sending them to the own parent.

This practice violates every protection written into the child welfare laws, that a parent is presumed fit, and absent proof of unfitness, cannot be deprived of the care, custody and control of his own child.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief  to force D.C. to stop this practice and monetary damages. While it purports to represent non-custodial fathers and their aggrieved children, I must observe that non-custodial mothers are not excluded from this egregious misuse of government power.

The law requires the agency to place the child with his parents. If one parent is unfit and the other is fit, it's a no-brainer. .  the law mandates the agency.place the child with the fit parent who wasn't accused of abuse or neglect. But it's not as profitable for the agency as placing the child in foster care and making a fit parent prove his fitness.

I applaud Arnold & Porter for taking on this important issue on behalf of aggrieved parents and children in Washington D.C.

Papa John's Pizza supports false child abuse reports?

A Denver Papa John's delivery driver smelled marijuana at a home where he made a delivery. So what does he do? He calls the police, reports the odor, and states there was child in the home. The police raid the home, naturally.

Denver Post reports that the Papa John's customer is an authorized medical marijuana user. I remind the reader that medical marijuana use is legal in Colorado. Additionally, most jurisdictions do not recognize that adult drug use automatically constitutes child abuse or neglect. . .there must be proof of harm to the child before state intervention is justified.

Papa John's reportedly stands behind their employee's actions.

Puh-leese. I say Papa John's needs to train it's employees about the presumption of innocence, and about the penalties for making a false report of child abuse, and about the effects of removing a child from the family home when the child is not in legitimate danger.

After all, that's what this was. . .a false report of child abuse. And Papa John's supports that.

So, how does this employee know what marijuana smells like. . .has he/she inhaled?

Institutionalized abuse of dependent children

Starting with New York City, where a woman used aliases to adopt a dozen legal orphans, and proceeded to abuse them for years, unreported. One child is even missing and presumed dead, yet she collected funds for this missing child for years. She's telling all, laying the blame on the agencies.  The kiddies are unable to function after years of her abuse, and are suing the agencies.


In another story, we have a toddler escaping from the foster home, unnoticed, and drowning. Authorities deem it to be a tragic accident. Funny, when kids get out of their biological parent's home, it's neglect, and all the surviving kiddies are seized to protect them from improper supervision, and are denied the comfort of their parents during their grief for their lost sibling. 


In Illinois, a child's death is ruled homicide, but nobody has been arrested yet. This was in a foster home. 


In New Jersey, a physician -- one of those trusted mandated reporters -- stabbed her adopted daughter over a hundred times for a childhood infraction. 



In Denver, an adopted child is brutally abused and malnourished by this couple.  The caregiver was frustrated with the child, "Marquez admitted she does feel overwhelmed with caring for the girl because she often cries for her mother. She said the 6-year-old girl, who should be completing first grade, wasn't going to school because she wasn't toilet trained."  


Yes. these children want their parents, which makes it very difficult when someone else is charged with caring for them. 


That the normal solutions aren't working for many foster children and legal orphans is so obvious, that any agency's failure to recognize it and alter their practices to cater to the child's best interests shows that they are not fulfilling their mandate to act in the best interests of the children. Their jobs don't suffer for that failure, the courts don't suffer for that failure, the attorneys representing the parties don't suffer for that failure. The children suffer, grievously. 


I have interviewed many caseworkers over the years. I always ask some of the same questions. One of these questions is, "Do you make your recommendations based on the best interests of children in general, or on the best interests of each individual child." Every single one has responded that it is too much work, too involved to make recommendations based on the best interests of each individual child, that they are acting according to the best interests of children in general.


Which is a major reason why children are harmed more than they are helped by child welfare intervention. 


There are better solutions that can be implemented in the current child welfare scheme. But they require more effort on the part of case workers. They cost less, and they have better outcomes, but they are just too darned labor intensive. Which is why so many children are simply warehoused in foster care and redistributed to state-approved parents, who are left to deal with children who want their real mommy and daddy and never stop wanting them. 


This is never going to change, no matter how hard the child welfare professionals try to make it change. 


I tell the parents I work with that there are certain practices and inequities in the child welfare system that are not going to change, and they must learn to work within those parameters, because we cannot change them. Working within the system's flaws is more productive and successful than fighting the system. The state has deep pockets, unlimited resources and unassailable credibility.  No one can defeat that and it is foolish to try. 


But child welfare professionals also have certain obstacles presented by the inherent nature of childhood attachments to their parents, and no matter how hard they try, they cannot overcome those bonds. Yet they foolishly continue to try.


I had one case where a six year-old little girl was refusing to bond with the foster care giver, so the agency (Greely County, Colorado) and psychologist attempted to force the child to bond by regressing her to infancy.


They put her into diapers, fed her only bottled milk, forced her to crawl on her hands and knees and wouldn't let her walk or talk, except to call the foster caregiver "mommy." They forced the child to engage in eye contact with the care giver. They traumatized the child, and the child never bonded with the care giver. 


This child had been removed from a mother who had had abdominal surgery and whose request for respite care during her recovery was denied by the Greeley agency. Mom was on pain killer, and fell asleep. The child got into her purse and took some Tylenol. Mom rushed the child to the emergency room. The child's stomach was never purged by the staff, but they reported mom to child welfare. 


Children want their mommy and daddy. You can't change that. It's about time child welfare agencies conceded to that fact and changed their practices to work within those parameters. Until they do, the kiddies will always defeat their agenda and undermine any positive outcomes simply by doing what comes most naturally to them. . .loving mommy and daddy. 

Criminal charges dismissed against Maryanne Godboldo

According to wxyz[dot]com, a judge has dismissed the charges against Maryanne Godboldo arising out of her standoff with police when they arrived with child welfare and a S.W.A.T. team to take her child into custody.

The reason cited was that the removal order was illegal. And it was, according to Federal law and state law.



Like that's a surprise? This is a typical shortcut taken by child welfare agencies nationwide, one that is easily proven and challenged by competent counsel for the parents and children. However, finding a courageous and competent attorney to challenge this kind of legal shortcut is virtually impossible, and the practice continues, unchallenged, in dependency court.

Hyper-vigilant child welfare agencies, their counsel and judges purposely err, citing that it is necessary to err on the side of the child rather than striving not to err. The practice of ignoring constitutional and procedural protections associated with child welfare seizures is institutionalized nationwide, all in the name of protecting children.

And, it would seem most people don't have a problem with this kind of rights violations. After all, we need to protect the kiddies from their abusive parents, even if we have to do violence to the constitution in the process, don't we?

Parents: Breeders for the State

A Detroit mother who resisted child welfare attempts to place her teenage daughter on a psychotropic drug that is not approved for children has been found by a jury to have neglected the child. Another story here.

According to reports, the Maryanne Godboldo had removed her daughter from Rispardal under medical supervision, and was proceeding with alternative treatment for the child's medical issues. Ms. Godboldo stated her daughter was suffering severe side effects from the powerful drug.

Michigan child welfare objected, and sent a SWAT team to take custody of the child, then placed her in a residential treatment facility and put her back on the drug.

There is plenty of online commentary and articles about all the wrongs being perpetrated upon this family in the name of protecting the child. Just do a search to read all about the service providers connections to big Pharma, and other conflicts of interest surrounding the administration of child welfare in Wayne County, Michigan. There is also the unfortunate incident of mom facing down the SWAT team when they attempted to seize the child, and mom is facing felony charges.

I see this case as an outstanding example showing that parents are nothing more than breeders for the state, and that despite the clearly established rights of parents to make decisions for their children, that if you make the subjective "wrong" decision, you will lose your child.

According to all accounts, Ms. Godboldo was a conscientious mother, very involved in her daughter's life. Nothing indicated that this child was neglected, she was under a doctor's care. Certainly, Ms. Godboldo is not the kind of parent intended to be rehabilitated with a child welfare intervention. Yet, this Michigan agency expends extensive government resources in their efforts to control this parent's decisions regarding the care and upbringing of her child.

Just another day in child welfare.

ClickonDetroit[dot]com has a video of this child welfare court proceeding.

CBS New reports here

Flash Mobs Prompt Curfews and Invoke Child Welfare

I remember the campaign when I was much younger, at 10 p.m. on television, "Parents, do you know where your children are?" In this child-centric society we don't even dare ask that, until it gets violent.

In a schizophrenic response to unsupervised children causing public mayhem at night, committing assaults and roaming the streets in flash mobs, Philadelphia has instituted a curfew for children under 18, complete with fines and penalties upon the parents and threats of putting the naughty kiddies into foster care.


This response is schizophrenic because parents are afraid to discipline their children for fear of child welfare agencies intruding into the privacy of the family after the brat hotlines his parents for exercising parental responsibility by daring to discipline or correct their child. Now, parents are going to be punished for doing as the child welfare agencies have demanded for decades, not spanking the brats.

Face it, far more children are placed in foster care for purported abuse allegedly arising out of discipline than for not being disciplined. Child welfare agencies have tied mommy and daddy's hands, and now the kids are running amok.

Contrary to popular, bleeding heart liberalism, this issue  is much less about poverty or lack of education than it is about the well-intentioned nanny state punishing parents for controlling their kiddies, for  instilling a sense of responsibility and a work ethic, for building character, and for punishing bad behavior. Kids are protected by child welfare agencies from having chores, family responsibilities, structure to guide them and are insured parents impose no consequences for wrongdoing.

Now, we are reaping what the child savers have sowed.

Flash mobs of kids who have no sense of right and wrong, only a sense of entitlement. Kids hooked in to social media to coordinate their violence. Kids who have been taught by the schools and the government that the world revolves around them and owes them a living, unfettered happiness and no consequences, complete with child welfare agencies to insure that none of these ideals are infringed by their parents.

This is not to say the all of the parents are blameless. Some of these parents are lousy parents. They don't supervise their kids because they don't want to, because their priorities place these kiddies lower than their own desires.

And haven't we as a society been conditioned to that? Schools are free day care for working parents. Having abdicated responsibility for the care of the kiddies during the day, it's only reasonable to extend that into the night. Or, parents have been convinced by the "experts" of the cop-out fallacy that by the teenage years, a child is going to do what he wants and there is nothing mommy and daddy can do to stop them, we may as well resign ourselves to that fact. As long as the law give parents permission to abdicate their parental duties under threat of a child welfare intervention, you will have kids running amok.

Before social media, it was pretty much one kid and a few friends who ran amok. Social media connected youths are now more powerful, much like collective bargaining, have become a force to be reckoned with. An undisciplined, narcissistic, immature, emotionally charged force, with raging hormones, unreasoned anger, and rebellious of authority. These are the predictable fruits of thirty years of child welfare laws.



Mr. Mayor, unless the legislature ties the hands of child welfare when they intrude into families who are at least trying to control their kiddies, your sanctions against the parents of bratty teens and threats of foster care are futile. Child welfare agencies are far scarier than your puny little sanctions. As for the threats of foster care, any attorney who represents responsible parents who get lassoed into this dragnet can simply argue that the parents are damned if they do discipline and damned if they don't.

Social Worker Charged with Faking Records

It is rare we see a criminal prosecution of any child welfare professional for any reason. Kentucky, as every state, has laws against tampering with public records, but no matter how many complaints are made, there is almost never a prosecution. In El Paso County, Colorado, several years ago, we held a press conference and presented the DA with proof of the crimes. She declined to prosecute, referring us to the impotent Citizen's Review Panel.

That's not to say caseworkers conduct themselves with the utmost integrity, because, for whatever reason, they often don't.

The most common complaint by parents who are involved with child welfare agencies is that case workers falsify reports to the court, that the child welfare files are full of false information.

My investigation into the accuracy of child welfare records is consistent with the complaints by parents. The records, for whatever reason, are inaccurate in varying degrees. Okay, fine, the caseworkers are overworked, and they get things wrong. I've seen them mix up facts between cases, surely an honest mistake. I've seen case records from one case misfiled in the record of another case. I've seen case files "disappear" and get lost.

And, as this story so clearly describes, they deliberately falsify records and reports to the court. It is very easy to falsify subjective evidence, like visitation reports or interviews with parents, children and collateral witnesse or in their conversations with service providers. In this kind of "he said, she said" situation, the judges always believe the caseworker.

But I've also seen caseworkers deliberately tamper with objective evidence, including the results of drug tests.

In this instance, as often happens with unscrupulous child welfare caseworkers, they misrepresent the visits they made to the family, or to the child, or discussion they had with service providers, or making referrals.

This is egregiously harmful to parents and children, because these records follow the parents AND THE CHILDREN for the rest of their lives, wherever they go. Any child welfare agency in any state has access to these records. And because there is absolutely no provision under any state law whereby errors in these records can be corrected. In fact, in many states, the parents suffer retribution when they try to have the errors corrected, up to and including termination of parental rights.

 But there is more involved with falsifying records. When caseworkers falsify that the child was in danger in the home, fraud against the federal government comes into play under Title IV E of the Social Security Act. This is presented to the court, which is perjury. This is much bigger than tampering with public records.

Hats off to Kentucky. I've seen plenty of bad child welfare practices in Kentucky, hopefully they won't back out of this prosecution. Hopefully, this is only the beginning of reigning in these abuses.