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.

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.

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.

Adoptive Parents. . .and Another Missing Adopted Child

Kansas. Again.

Kansas SRS terminated parental rights to the biological parents of a certain child and created a legal orphan. Then allowed these people to adopt him, and paid them a monthly stipend to be his parents. I wonder if family poverty played into Kansas SRS's reasons to seek termination of parental rights?

Doug and Valerie Herrman. Parents-for-Pay.

These parents collected that money for over ten years for a child that had gone ??? . . . missing. In fact, he's still missing. They never reported that he was missing. Yet, these are state-approved parents! They passed a background check, they passed the interview and home study. They are licensed to be parents based on the discretion, judgement and recommendation of a child welfare worker, indeed an entire child welfare team. Yet, nobody got an ooky feeling about them.  

So much for the state's seal of approval.

They got caught, and were convicted of fraud. For taking the money for an adopted child they no longer had, but the state believed they had. The boy, Adam, has been missing since 1999.

This raises an issue that most people are not aware of. Who cares about what happens to child after parental rights are terminated?

The biological parents care, but they are barred by law from seeing, contacting or even knowing about their child. The rest of the people who purport to care a just government bureaucrats doing a job. The child is a case file, not a person. Evidently, not one of these sterling professionals cared enough to see if the child was even there. Alive. Well. Safe.

Why should they care? If it turns out he's not alive, well or safe, it reflects badly on the agency and the caseworker. here is too much risk to their credibility, their job, their funding if they check on these kids in adoptive parent-for-paty homes.

The child can be "disappeared" and nobody will even question where the child is. They'll just keep paying out the subsidies to the adoptive parents-for-pay.

Meanwhile, a living, breathing person, a vulnerable child who was protected by the agency is missing. Where do these kids go? What happens to them?

It is actually simpler to make a child without parents disappear than an adopted child. But we are seeing a rash of stories being published where children have gone missing from adoptive parents-for-pay and never been missed. I want the reader to consider what happens to the legal orphans who have nobody to report them missing.

All a caseworker has to do is appear at the door of the foster care giver and say the child is being moved.  The child then is not placed with another foster family, but transferred to someone else. Someone who isn't interested in raising this child, but who has another use in mind for this child.

I have received calls from people who have seen airplane loads of legal orphans being flown overseas. The adults accompanying these children have reportedly identified them as children in the custody of child welfare.  These informers risked a lot to tell me, and were threatened with their lives for their disclosures, some even disappeared. Why are American children being shipped overseas by the planeload on flights that are listed in the flight records as being empty ferry flights intended to transfer an airplane from one location to another?

Isn't it convenient that there isn't even a record of the legal orphans leaving the country or traveling on commercial aircraft? The flight is "officially" empty. And isn't it more convenient that nobody who cares can even report the child as missing? The people who care, parents and family, are cut off and never know what happens to their child once parental rights are terminated. The only people who know are those transferring the children, and the airline employees who see what is going on but are warned to be silent.

Are American child being adopted in other countries? Perhaps. That would be the best scenario.

But my investigation into these events indicates something far more sinister. One of the known destinations is the Middle East. Among the known reasons is that these children are being used for domestic labor, sex, and body parts.

My investigation also reveals that the appropriate government agencies know about this practice.

It seems that legal orphans, damaged children, are not important enough to warrant protection from the child welfare agencies by the Federal government or the state government.

That seems to be a contradiction. And an abomination.

Surprising Twist in CPS Case Involving Psychotropic Drugs

The online Family Rights groups are all abuzz with this story from Texas.

Surprising Twist in CPS Case Involving Psychotropic Drugs: MyFoxHOUSTON.com

The not-so-astute leaders are rallying the masses, calling this case a victory. They just don't get that it's not a victory.

The article reports that CPS was adamant about terminating the parental rights. This is obviously in error.

When this hapless child was seized, it is obvious her permanency plan was reunification, because the agency imposed a treatment plan upon the parents. It is also mandated by law that the permanency plan be reunification unless there are aggravating circumstances, such as sexual abuse or the serious injury or death of a child/sibling.  Regardless of how they administered this case or threatened the family, the permanency plan was--officially-reunification, and the agency had to go through the motions consistent with that goal.

So the child is returned to her parents at eleven months into the case, based on "the parents doing all CPS had asked them to dan and months of negative drug tests" indicating this case was treated exactly like all other cases.  Permanency is, by law, mandated to happen at twelve months. So if they could not make the case for termination of parental rights, they had no choice but to reunify. Trust me, the County Attorney saw the handwriting on the wall, and decided to posture graciously in his utter failure to permanently snatch this child from non-abusive parents for redistribution into a state-approved home.

In this case, taking eleven months to return a child that was never demonstrably harmed by her parents is unconscionable, and cannot credibly be claimed as a victory. The child that was finally returned to her parents is not the child that was taken. She has been harmed, grievously harmed.

This child was placed on a cocktail of chemical restraints to control her behavior while in foster care. Can you imagine what kind of foster care givers would get fed up at her crying and night terrors or whatever acting out she did because she was taken from her mommy and daddy who loved her and have the child drugged into a stupor? What kind of doctor would even prescribe this treatment without first exploring why the child was so traumatized and advocating to treat the cause rather than the symptom? This goes against all standards of medical and psychological professional practice, yet is normal procedure when foster children are involved.

She didn't see her parents for months, despite the fact that her isolation from them obviously caused her problems. Is it any wonder that aggrieved families judge CPS as being callous, heartless, abusive and in it for the money?

This was no victory, and any organization that sees it as a victory is incompetent and profoundly ignorant. This child is damaged for life.

Putting a child on cocktails of mind-altering drugs while the brain is forming it's critical connections and pathways is barbaric. Drugging her into a stupor so her foster care givers could manage her trauma according to their own convenience is not in the best interests of the child, it is in the best interests of the government. There could be no more graphic illustration of this perversion of the letter and intent of the child welfare law.

The real tragedy is that this injustice could have been truncated or aborted if the attorneys for the parents or the child did their jobs right.  But they often don't do their jobs right, the risk to their professional practice caused by vigorous advocacy is too much of a threat for most to overcome. The lawyers in these cases should be sanctioned, but, if past patterns hold true, they will undoubtedly earn a judgeship for their incompetence and fear.

This child has a viable cause of action against the state of Texas. Much more viable than the parents have. I hope they pursue it, because she's going to need all the help she can get for the rest of her life.

Child Welfare Case Analysis #1-Newborn born at home.

This is the first of our regular columns analyzing an actual child welfare case. We will present the background and development of the case in this blog. The analyses of the case will be conducted on two web sites. The first analysis will be from the perspective of the legal professionals representing the parents and children and the judge on our Legal Resources Web site. The other analysis will be from the perspective of the parent on the American Family Advocacy Center web site.

Case Background:
County child welfare agency (CPS) receives a hotline call from a mandated reporter that Mr. & Mrs. Smith have a newborn who is severely dehydrated and has not gained any weight since being born a week ago. The reporter states the child was born at home and this is the mother's first birth.

CPS sends an intake caseworker 36 hours after the report is received. The parents permit the caseworker entry into the family home after the caseworker threatens to get a court order. The caseworker's report observes that the home is in disarray. The caseworker reports the mother (aged 19) appears tired and overwhelmed and that the child is listless and unhealthy looking. Mother says she is breastfeeding, but she has a difficult time getting the baby to nurse very long. Mother reports the baby was born at home, but the child was taken to the pediatrician within hours of the home birth, and was seen again by the pediatrician yesterday. She admits the baby has lost some weight but she is working on getting the baby to nurse better. Caseworker determines that the child is in immediate danger and takes physical custody of the child. She leaves the parents a notice of hearing in five days. The child is placed in foster care. The caseworker makes no arrangements for the mother to provide breast milk for the infant.

In court, five days later, the parents are each appointed an attorney at the preliminary placement hearing. The parents have not seen their baby since it was seized. Their attorneys meet with them for the first time a few minutes in the hall before returning to the hearing. The parents each receive a copy of the petition which states the child is suffering from failure to thrive and was near death when the caseworker took custody. CPS cites the home birth as being medical neglect, and fails to report that the parents took the infant to see the pediatrician immediately after the birth and a week later. Each attorney advises each parent just to agree with keeping the child in foster care pending the adjudication.

The parents advise their attorneys that they have called the father's mother, who has come from out-of-state to their home. They want the attorney to ask the agency to return the child and offer the grandmother in the home as a supervisor until this can be resolved. The mother expresses concerns about breastfeeding the baby and her absence from the infant during this critical bonding period.

Mother's attorney agrees to present this option to the court. Father's attorney doesn't show much enthusiasm for this as it deviates from the normal procedure, saying "That's not the way it is done."

When the case is called, the caseworker paints a dire picture, mom is depressed and unable to care for the child, and states that the child is thriving in foster care. That the parents have medically neglected the child by having a home birth. She offers one hour a week supervised visitations upon the condition that the parents sign releases and have psychological evaluations.

The Guardian ad litem concurs. (He's never spoken to the parents and never seen the infant, or the infant's medical records. He has only seen the caseworker's report).

Mom's attorney objects and offers the alternative that grandmother stays in the home and the child can be returned home. Father's attorney concurs, but only under pressure from his client.

Magistrate Judge interrogates grandma about her role and insists she agree on certain conditions before the child can be returned to the parents. She can never have the infant out of her site, not even when she has to use the bathroom or shower. She must never leave the infant alone with mom or dad. She must immediately call the caseworker if the mother or father do anything that presents a risk to the child. Caseworker must be allowed entry into the family home upon demand, and a home health nurse will weigh the child weekly. If there is any weight loss, so much as an ounce, the baby will be placed back in foster care. The court reluctantly orders the child home with these conditions in place over the objection of the caseworker and the GAL.

The court also finds that it was contrary to the welfare of the child to remain in the family home at the time of the removal and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal. The county attorney representing the agency presented no evidence supporting the caseworker's statement that she had made reasonable efforts or in support of the contrary to the welfare finding. The GAL, and respondent parents attorneys did not object to those findings nor the lack of evidence supporting them.

After the hearing, the respondent parent attorneys advise the parents to admit to the petition, under the no-fault provision in the state statutes. The treatment plan is ordered and includes parenting classes, infant massage classes, psychological evaluations for both parents, and grandma must live in the small apartment with the parents (never letting the child out of sight) until the case is closed. It takes nine months for this case to close.

The baby was returned to the home the day of the first hearing, still weighing less than when he was born. Mother was never able to successfully resume nursing the baby. Parents report that the infant was fussy and resistant for months after being returned from foster care and he suffered ongoing digestive problems from the formula, resulting in continued problems gaining weight. They expressed frustration at the level of scrutiny to which they were subjected as being invasive and demeaning. Dad's job was jeopardized due to the services he was force to comply with which were always scheduled during his work hours.

The agency's reports indicated that they had successfully rehabilitated the parents and they counted the outcome from this case as positive.

Another Abusive Adoptive Parent

Jeremiah Lovato gets 119.5 years

I have written quite a bit about El Paso County, Colorado Department of Human Services over the years, in part because their practices are so abysmally horrible, and in part because I live there.

So it comes as no surprise that they approved an adoption by the man pictured here. He adopted a teen boy. Nobody saw anything wrong with that. Then he proceeded to abuse and torture the boy.

For over two years.

Unnoticed.

Protected from scrutiny by DHS. Until the boy took matters into his own hands and ran away to avoid another beating. Way to go, El Paso County. Way to go Colorado. How many children sacrificed on the alter of saving children will it take before you get it through your thick heads that there is a better way to protect children than redistributing them to strangers?  Your tests, your inspections, your background checks are failing the children.

How about this. . .The real test would be if those strangers would adopt the kiddies without the adoption subsidy they get. If they don't want the kiddies sans the buck$$$, it should be a big clue. Oh, silly me, I'm not an "expert" on child welfare like you all are.

This man, Jeremiah Lovato, was just sentenced to 119 1/2 years for beating his adoptive son with implements like a meat tenderizer, and for stomping on his testicles, and more. This DHS-approved, artificially created father is pissed that his sentence is so harsh. What a shame he didn't feel any sympathy for the child that was redistributed by DHS and the court into his care as if the child were a puppy. The boy, his adopted son, gets life. . .a life sentence to live with the abuse this man inflicted upon him, and that DHS inflicted upon him, and the the Dependency Court judge inflicted upon him.

The real criminal is the caseworker who approved this monster as being a fit father, and the judge who granted the adoption. And most of all the attorney who was appointed to represent the best interests of this child, the bobble-headed Guardian ad litem who rubber stamped every recommendation the caseworker made instead of conducting his own investigation. Who are they? Why aren't they being held responsible? Oh, right, they have immunity from liability for their bad decisions, their bad practices and their bad judgement. Welcome to the twilight zone.

You can read the stories here, and here, and here.

Perspective From a Foster Child

I want to provide a perspective on foster care that many readers aren't aware of. That of a foster child.

So many people claim to speak for these children, and to act in the best interests of these children, but they don't have a clue what the child would say, or what would be best for that individual child.

Most of the child welfare professionals don't make their recommendations or take their actions based on what is best for each individual child. They are acting based on what is generically best for children. I know this because I ask every single one I encounter, "Do you make your recommendations and conduct your practice based on  each individual child's needs or based on what's best for children in general?" They respond, "It is too complicated to know what each child needs, I base my recommendations and practice on what's best for children in general." Reading their reports and recommendations, that was obvious to me, but I wanted them to admit it. And they do, unaware of the indictment that this admission implies.

This is significant because children are not automatons, or cut from the same cloth. They are individuals, each with their own needs and dreams and desires. To treat them with a cookie cutter approach does violence to the child, the rights of the child and the family, and destroys the statutory mandates governing child welfare.

I was a foster child. Based on my experience, and my discussions with other foster children, I have concluded that the child in foster care is not the real child. All anyone sees is a role the child is playing. It is too dangerous for a foster child to be himself in a stranger's home. A foster child must adapt to the stranger's home, and suppress important parts of himself in order to protect himself. He will say and do whatever pleases the authority figures who have control over his life to stay safe. He'll even deny abuse in the foster home if he thinks disclosing it is too dangerous. Interestingly, he will tell his parents during visits, expecting them to protect him. Instead, the visits will be cut off, because the caseworker will claim the parents are discussing in appropriate topics with the child.

Child welfare professionals are in denial about this chameleon foster child. They take the chameleon as the real child, which results in disaster for the child.

He cannot discern when they are lying to him, he just wants to make them happy so he can go home. That's what they promised him. He doesn't realize saying and doing what they want is most likely to prevent his reunification. Even if he acts out, he will acquiesce to the reasons his court-appointed therapist or caseworker suggests, grasping at any straw to win his way home.

But a child cannot maintain this masquerade forever. Once in a forever home, his misery at losing his parents must emerge. He feels abandoned by his parents, yet he still needs them and wants them. His new forever parents contribute to his agony, by badmouthing his parents and punishing him for loving them, needing them, wanting them. They try to control his feelings and this thoughts, based on the delusion that this is supposed to be a fairy tale. This child should be grateful to them for rescuing him and making him part of their family. But he's not, and that is intolerable. He gets hateful, and they don't know why. I know why.

I hated every attempt by my foster care givers to make me be someone I wasn't. I hated their constant badmouthing my father, and making me feel inferior because I continued to love him and need him. I hated their demands that were strange and uncomfortable. I hated the complete, forced isolation from my family. I had to endure their attempts to control me in silence. It's no wonder some children respond with passive aggressive tendencies and refusals to bond. Who wants to be forced to bond with someone who doesn't even understand your needs and cares more about their hurt adult feelings than your broken child's heart?

The experts' professional belief that you can control anyone's emotions and feelings, or use force to change some else's emotions and feelings, especially a child's, is insane. Yet, the entire child welfare industry is based on this premise, and applies it punitively to anyone who resists being controlled in this manner or forced to feel what the experts think is best. This practice results in an insulting and degrading violation of personal boundaries, involving coercion, emotional manipulation, denial of individuality and self-determination, and the wholesale use of controlling techniques far more abusive than most parents are alleged to have perpetrated upon their children which the state cited as warranting their removal from the family home. It is a graphic illustration as to how pervasively erroneous the practices perpetrated by experts in the name of protecting children really are.

Termination of parental rights (TPR) is not proving to be compassionate nor a worthy solution for the best interests of children, neither is expedited permanency. Since children's attachment are demonstrably not as malleable as the experts want us to believe, TPR should be reserved for the most egregious cases of abuse, never for neglect. When TPR and adoption must be employed, there should still be a mechanism for the child to validly own his feelings and needs for his real parents, and see them under safe conditions throughout his life. This is the only way to protect the child's emotional health into adulthood. That would be in the best interests of children in general, and individual children.

Florida DCF - Task Force Report into Death of Adopted Twin

The final report on Nubia Barahona's death at the hands of her adopted parents in Florida has been released.

This report was authored by experts, professionals in the field of child welfare. I have consistently bemoaned the fact that "professionals" dominate the issue when it comes to investigations, or recommendations, and that parents, who are the only true experts regarding their own children, are excluded from participation in every aspect of child welfare case administration and legislation.

It seems my concerns are justified. While this report was authored by professionals--experts--it reveals to the astute reader that professionals contributed to the practices that caused the death of this child, and the attempted murder of her brother.

I have linked the report for the reader's reference, but I can only address one issue at a time. Today, it will be item (1) of the Findings on page 6, which states:

The court-ordered psychological evaluation of Nubia and Victor performed on Feb. 12, 2008 by Dr. Vanessa Archer recommending adoption of Nubia and Victor by the Barahonas to be “clearly in their best interest” and “to proceed with no further delay” --- failed to consider critical information presented by the children’s principal and school professionals about potential signs of abuse and neglect by the Barahonas. That omission made Dr. Archer’s report, at best, incomplete, and should have brought into serious question the reliability of her recommendation of adoption. Several professionals, including the Our Kids’ case manager, the GAL, and the Children’s Legal Services attorney, as well as the judge, were, or should have been, aware of that significant omission, and yet apparently failed to take any steps to rectify that critical flaw in her report.

The psychologist's recommendation was found to be unreliable. Yet the court gave it great weight in arriving at it's determination that these children be adopted by the Barahonas.

How does this happen? I'm so glad you asked.

In practice, nationwide, these court-appointed professionals are under contract to the child welfare agency. They perform their evaluations and therapies at a discounted rate, deeply discounted. They obtain the large majority of--if not all--their referrals from the child welfare agency.

They have a vested, monetary interest in maintaining their flow of referrals. These referrals will dry up if the provider does not produce the recommendations and diagnoses the agency desires.

I have interviewed dozens of mental health professionals who have worked in some capacity on child welfare cases. Every one of them has disclosed that when the caseworker calls with the referral, she will invariably advise the service provider of the history of the client family, and state what diagnosis and recommendations she wants. She rigs the case, and the mental health professional goes along with it. Not surprisingly, those who maintained their professional ethics and conducted a competent evaluation consistent with the standards of their practice often returned diagnoses and recommendations that were refused by the caseworker, who then shopped for a more compliant professional to treat the family.

My investigations have revealed that the family history is often wrong, at the very least exaggerated and at the worst, completely false. Yet, the providers who rely on CPS referrals will accept this history as valid, and provide recommendations and treatments based on the false history, that conform to what the caseworker wants. Attempts by the parent to correct this erroneous history often results in the provider stating the parent is in denial, or out of touch with reality, and cite it as a contributing factor in their recommendation to keep the children out of the family home. The family members receive treatment for issues that do not exist, and these treatments invariably fail to remedy the issues. duh.

It appears this was a compliant mental health professional, who did exactly what the caseworker wanted. There is no way the caseworker, even knowing of the reports of abuse that raised concerns, was going to dispute the finding she had elicited. The GAL, being a typical GAL, rubber-stamped what the caseworker wanted. The judge did what judges do, accept agency recommendations without demanding evidence to support their recommendations.

This is one reason, a big reason, why the system failed Nubia. Why it fails all the children. I've stated this for years, and now, finally, some experts agree. It's about time.

Numerous Checks Fail

One of the amici in Greene v. Camreta included this observation in their amicus brief:

Children's Advocacy Institute
". . .the system in place includes numerous checks to protect the rights of suspected parental abusers, including required “reasonable efforts” not to remove a child; a detention hearing before a neutral court with the burden on the State to show child danger; appointment of counsel for all involved parents;mandated “reasonable efforts” to reunify; jurisdiction hearing; disposition hearing (pendente lite); review hearings; and permanent placement hearings – all before the judiciary, and including liberal rights of appellate review."

CAI is absolutely correct. Congress has provided these checks in order to prevent the unnecessary removal of children from their family homes and to protect family integrity and privacy.

Do they work? In theory, yes, they do. In practice, rarely. Why? I'm so glad you asked. . .what you will read here is the result of twenty years of observation and analysis of this cases in courtrooms around the country. Yes, even in states with closed courts, I get in.

First, permit me comment on the grammar, ". . . protect the rights of suspected parental abusers. . ." They are accused of child abuse, not parental abuse. Suspicion of child abuse when one is only accused indicates a predisposition to presume guilt, a principle at odds with our judicial traditions. But the entire child welfare system is administered in a manner that initiates find shocking to our time-honored notions of justice.

So, let's move on to the checks, point by point.

1. " including required “reasonable efforts” not to remove a child" (tsk tsk tsk. . .the grammar again-a lawyer wrote this? Don't they have to have a certain degree of competence in language skills?) Congress has mandated the state make reasonable efforts to prevent removal. This means providing services intended to eliminate the risk of abuse and keep the child safely in the home. This can be as simple as removing the offinding parent from the family home. Yet this fails as a matter of usual practice, or even under the auspices of "best practice."  
1.  It fails because the caseworker did not/refused/neglected to offer any services to the parent that would keep the child safely in the home. Futhermore, the caseworker will refuse to accept any alternatives offered by the parents. But the caseworker will recite the proper incantation in her court documents, "reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal" without detailing what those efforts were and why they failed, as Congress has mandated.
2. It fails because the judge--who has the duty to require the agency to provide proof of reasonable efforts, doesn't require it, as Congress has mandated.The judge has the authority to require this sua sponte, but let's suppose this judge is particularily lazy/busy/biased. If the judge fails, there are two or three other participants whose job it is to give the judge a reason to find that reasonable efforts were not made.
3. It fails because the Guardian ad litem (GAL) refuses to demand the caseworker--the maker of the report--be placed under oath and testify to the services she offered and why they failed to prevent removal, as Congress has mandated. Futhermore, the GAL refuses to object to the court's finding that reasonable efforts were made without a shred of evidence in the record to support that finding. 
4. It fails because the respondent parent attorneys refuse to demand the caseworker --the maker of the report--be placed under oath and testify to the services she offered and why they failed, as Congress has mandated. Futhermore, the respondent parent attorneys refuse to object to the court's finding that reasonable efforts were made without a shred of evidence in the record to support that finding. 
5. Conclusion, is has been rendered impotent as a check on agency conduct with the express consent of all participants. 
2. "a detention hearing before a neutral court with the burden on the State to show child danger" This is correct. Yet this fails as a matter of usual practice, or even under the auspices of "best practice."  
1. The agency makes the allegations of the danger unopposed and without being under oath.
2. The judge wants these hearings over with quickly. He gets testy when a parent demands an evidentiary hearing. Even if he grants the evidentiary hearing, the parents are only permitted a brief amount of time to contest the danger. They are often denied the right to call witnesses and present evidence. In practice, it is a sham proceeding.
3. The GAL does not demand the caseworker be placed under oath to cross-examine her report. The GAL has the right and the duty in his capacity as acting in the best interets of the child to challenge everything the agency does and recommends. In practice, GALs appear as bobble heads to rubber stamp all agency findings and recommendations. GALs endorse the sham proceeding.
4. Respondent parent attorneys (especially court appointed) prepare for a hearing!? Hello! They advise their clients not to contest the removal of the child nor demand a contested detention hearing. "Just cooperate and you'll get your kids back." Besides, they have a number of other hearings today and are too busy running from one courtroom to the next for their five minute hearing. They claim they don't get paid enough to represent their clients at contested hearings. And if they are court appointed, they don't get paid enough, but they did sign up for the ~$700 flat fee so they lose all right to complain about their pay. If the parents dare to show up with evidence and witnesses, their attorney threatens to withdraw. They facilitate the sham proceeding.
5. Conclusion: A sham proceeding is devoid of any power as a check and balance to the state agency's acts.
3. "appointment of counsel for all involved parents"  True, again. But what good is appointed counsel if counsel refuses to provide competent representation?
1. For example, appointed counsel always tell parents, "cooperate with the agency." If a criminal attorney told a defendant,"cooperate with the DA," he could be sued for malpractice. 
2. For example, if the parents refuse to comply with his recommendations to waive all the shelter hearing, admit to the petition and do whatever the agency demands, the attorney moves the court to withdraw. The court grants him motion to withdraw, and refuses to appoint counsel to replace him. In fact, if the parents demand the degree of self-determination mandated in the statutes, complain about abuse in foster care, demand more frequent and meaningful visits and speedy reunification, the lawyer withdraws. 
3. The GAL is appointed for the child, and only serves to rubber stamp the agency findings and recommendations. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of the agency. . .
4. Conclusions: Counsel that acts a court-appointed facilitator to agency demands is devoid as a check and balance to state agency conduct.
4. "mandated “reasonable efforts” to reunify; See #1 above.  
1. What good is a check that has been reduced to a check box and incantation? It is devoid of any power to check agency conduct with the express participation of all participants.
5. "jurisdiction hearing" which is another name for the adjudicatory hearing, where the court finds the children are dependent and neglected and brings them under the jurisdiction of the court so the agency can provide services.
1. Does anyone remember me telling you the attorneys recommend the parents to admit to the petition or they will withdraw?
2. There are almost never adjudicatory hearings. In Colorado, out of over three thousand petitions filed a year, there are less than ten jury trials for this hearing and there are a few more to the court. If parents are coerced to waive these hearings by their attorneys, or threats of retaliation by the agency, what good is having the option? 
3. Before you get snotty and say the parent should just resist, just stop and think how strong your resolve would be if your kids were in a hostile stranger's home and visitation was being withheld for your admission to the petition?
4. If the parents are strong in their resolve, the attorney withdraws, and the court may or may not appoint a replacement and the hearing is delayed by as long a year, all this while the child remains in foster care; or, the attorney does not effectively represent the parent and the parent loses which results in another sham proceeding.
5. The GAL also has the right to demand a contested hearing on behalf of the child, but I've never heard of this happening.
6. If through coercion and threat, the parents waive this right, or if the hearing is reduced to a sham proceeding, it fails as a check and balance to state agency acts. 
6. "disposition hearing (pendente lite)" This is where the case plan is ordered by the court. Services are:
1. Uniformly inappropriate services based on a one-size-fits-all boilerplate plan,
2. proffered by incompetent, cut-rate providers, which do not conform to the standards of the profession or which encompass untested or questionable theories, and
3. not intended to address the legitimate issues that brought the children under the jurisdiction of the court. 
4. Parent and child attorneys refuse to contest the agency recommendations, or to demand a contested hearing, or to even challenge the fact that the parents were not permitted to participate in the formation of the case plan as the law mandates. 
5. Conclusion, if the hearing is reduced to yet another sham proceeding, it fails as a check and balance to the agency conduct. Once again, this could be resolved IF counsel or GAL were to demand a contested hearing instead of coercing the parents not to piss off the caseworker by challenging any service she recommends. 
7. "review hearings" Yes. . .every six months, AFTER the adjudication which the soonest that can occur is sixty days after removal. 
1. These cases go to permanency at twelve months. Pretty meaningless in the scheme of these cases. It usually means one review hearing before the permanency hearing. . .which brings us to. . .
2. Once again, these hearings are merely a pro forma exercise at paper shuffling, sham proceedings which do nothing as a check and balance to agency conduct. 
8. "and permanent placement hearings" – at twelve months after removal. Most kids don't get home before this hearing. Half of them never make it home. 
1. The agency presents their report and recommendations whether to return the child or terminate parental rights. Often, this information in this report is based on subjective information, and offers nothing measurable or objective to support the recommendations. 
2. GAL and parent attorneys do not want contested hearings, do not want to submit evidence or cross examine service providers or case workers. They act as rubber stamps for what the agency wants.
3. Conclusion: even if this weren't a sham proceeding, the damage has already been done with the faciliation of the court and attorneys for parents and children. It often cannot be undone, and the parents face termination of parental rights over fifty percent of the time.
9. "all before the judiciary," yes. . .but,
1. Judges get really testy if you contest anything the agency says, wants, recommends or demands. 
2. Who abhor contested hearings and parents being in denial, after all, any parent who wouldn't do anything the agency demands--regardless of the mertis of the demands--to get their child back must be a bad parent. 
3. who believe everything the agency says and believes all parents are liars and abusers. 
4. Who retaliate against attorneys who present a too-vigorous defense of the parents, by ruling against their other clients. 
5. Conclusion, if the judiciary are not fair and impartial, it renders this check and balance impotent.
10. "and including liberal rights of appellate review"  Form over substance. . .
1. You can only appeal issues that were raised on the record.
2. GALs and attorneys don't object, or preserve appealable issues. Remember, they advise the parents to waive all hearings, to admit, to comply. There is nothing on the record to preserve for an appeal. 
3. Conclusion: This is a meaningless option if the attorneys don't preserve the issues during the pendency of the case. 

 The checks and balances built into the child welfare process have been reduced to mere formalities that lack any substance. By the time of the hearing to terminate parental rights, the record reflects exactly what the agency wants it to reflect. . .without a hint that the entire process was a sham.

Oral Arguments Camreta v. Greene

Oral arguments were this morning. The transcript has been published.

What can I say? I am underwhelmed at the arguments presented on behalf of the respondent Greene, by Carolyn A. Kubitschek, Esq. She faced a court that appeared to be in support of the respondents, and hemmed and hawed apologetically for even daring to suggest that case workers do not have the right or authority to seize children without a court order, exigent circumstances or parental consent. It was almost as if she hadn't even read the amicus briefs in support of her client.

She was all over the issue, "yes we want the ruling vacated," "oops that's not what I meant, we don't want the ruling vacated."

"It's a seizure," "oops, the length of time determines if it's a seizure," "oops, it depends on if there are exigent circumstances."

The strongest statement she could muster was a wishy-washy ". . .that would be to -- to tell the officials who investigate child abuse that in the name of protecting children, they do not have free rein to do anything and everything that they think is appropriate, because what they do harms children, including the very children they claim to be trying to protect." Child welfare practices do much more than harm the children, and besides, child advocates claim that the harm the child suffers is minimal and justifiable.

The Justices gave her all the clues she needed to make effective and compelling arguments, and she missed them. Counsel was obviously a person who did not understand the practices in these kinds of cases, and she was clueless about the legal history surrounding this issue. She did not even appear to be convinced that caseworkers--government agents-- needed to obey the constitution in administering these cases.

Interviewing a child in school, without exigent circumstances, without a court order supported by evidence and affidavit, or without parental consent, starts a chain of events that becomes an juggernaut,virtually  impossible to turn aside or stop. It is the cornerstone violation of every subsequent violation of rights, privacy dignity and self-determination more often resulting in the destruction of the child's family, security, and assets  than resulting in any beneficial outcome for the child.

But counsel didn't appear to understand that simple and well-established principle, which pretty much makes her as dumb as the rest of the population who think the ends justify the means when protecting children.

She actually sounds like a respondent parent attorney before a hostile dependency judge, like Oliver Twist begging for more food, "Please, Your Honor, I'm sorry, my client insists on a contested hearing against my advice. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here."

No wonder the cause of family rights is so stifled. The people who set themselves up to speak for family rights are inarticulate and clueless.

Update March 2, 2011: Here's what other news organization said about her performance

See this editorial discussing Ms. Kubitschek's performance before SCOTUS.

CNN said in this article, "Arguing for the family, lawyer Carolyn Kubitschek offered seemingly conflicting answers on when it is proper for officials to question children without parents present. She suggested the one-hour-plus interrogation of S.G. was inappropriate but a shorter interview might have been all right."