Here we go again. . .Wisconsin and Texas Contribute to Abuse of Children

Florida's child welfare agency, DCF, is not unique in losing children or placing the legal orphans they created in abusive "forever families."

In this case, two states are involved, Wisconsin, who removed the children from their parents and placed them with these state-approved parents, and Texas, where the parents lived.

Yes, Virginia, once a child is a legal orphan, they can be sent anywhere, even overseas, at the discretion of the child welfare agency. The beauty of this arrangement--for the agency at any rate--is the fact that there is nobody left who has standing or even knowledge to question where these children have been redistributed or if they are being mistreated. . .or killed. If they die, their real families never even get notified, can never attend the funeral, or visit their grave, assuming they even get a grave.

Most of these parents eagerly await the day their children turn eighteen and seek them out. Some never move, some have made the kiddie's bedrooms into shrines. Virtually all maintain a presence on the Internet, seeking and searching, and often finding their children featured on some adoption web site. Often, once their parental rights have been terminated, it turns out their children are not adoptable, and are then marketed by the child welfare agency like puppies in the pet store window. When they read about their children, they learn how damaged the children have become since being taken from their home, and many agonize over their impotence to help their own children.

Yet another set of state-approved adoptive parents have been arrested for viciously mistreating these children who were placed with them for protection.



I have extensive experience in Wisconsin. They have a history of removing children too quickly, and refusing to return them without justifiable cause, often to satisfy vindictive motives. I have documented on video, their propensity to tamper with photographic evidence and suborn perjury in their efforts to protect children. 

Texas is no model of best practices, either. It was several years ago that the state auditor revealed a shocking report on the placement of Texas foster children in a camp setting, without adequate toilet facilities or shelter from the weather. Where older children preyed and perpetrated on younger children, and where the staff was indifferent at best and abusive at worst. Texas is a hotbed of horror stories.

Both states rank in the top ten worst states for child welfare practices.

Few of these accounts reach the public. Most are covered up by the agency and the courts, often citing confidentiality to protect their malpractice from public scrutiny. Contrary to the prevailing propaganda, this type of conduct is not the exception. Spend a day searching for foster parent and adoptive parent groups online and you will see graphic discussion of the situations these children are forced to endure at the hands of these state-approved care givers.

These children resist bonding with strangers, and refuse to stop loving or needing their real parents. This is actually a very healthy emotional state for a child. . .unless you have made him a legal orphan. Often, the process of making the child a legal orphan requires a therapist to diagnose the child as not having a bond with their parents, a finding that is often consistent with what the caseworker demanded, but inconsistent with the actual emotional attachment maintained by the child. When this child is placed for adoption, this healthy attachment to his real parents must be purged, regardless of the harm to the child.

Most state-approved forever families cannot tolerate such emotional defiance as the child's attachment to his parents. The children MUST bond with these strangers and the real parents must be eliminated from the child's heart and mind.

In response to this malpractice by the experts, other experts have a developed complete pseudo-science on how to break the child's bonds with his real parents and purportedly transfer that bond to the state-approved adoptive parents known as attachment therapy. These techniques are universally harmful, even fatal. . .remember the deadly rebirthing therapy that killed ten-year-old Candace Newmaker in Evergreen, Colorado in 2000? They are based on the false premise that the child's attachment issues stem from the abuse he suffered in his home.

The experts are in complete denial that children have a bond with their own parents, need theirown  parents, no matter if the parents have abused or neglected them (which abuse or neglect is so subjective that often something claimed to be abuse, isn't). Regardless, the child inately loves and needs his mommy and daddy. The fact that they are imperfect isn't going to change that need, and removing them from the child's world, then attempting to use control and force to compel the child to no longer love or need his mommy and daddy is a recipe to destroy that child forever.

Which is why it becomes so important to keep the children in the family home with appropriate services if necessary. I seriously doubt these kids were abused or neglected by their biological parents to the extent they were abused by their state-approved, adoptive "forever family." This tragedy could have been prevented, if Wisconsin had complied with their statutory mandates.

Kansas Attorney General Confirms Anatomy of Child Welfare Ill Will

I promised it in this post, when I asked, "Are these professionals [child welfare caseworkers] really that petty and vindictive?", and here it is. . . Kansas Attorney General's findings on a case involving the death of a child after multiple reports of child abuse. This kind of government admission is a rare circumstance, and very welcome since it supports my contentions about child welfare workers putting their own agenda over and above the best interests of the child.

I have interviewed many caseworkers in the past twenty years. They have been very forthcoming about certain issues that I find relevant to their practice. One is that they almost all profess to having been abused themselves as children. When I ask for details of their abuse, it seems that some were abused, and some have interpreted parental discipline or other parental prerogatives as being abuse. . .in other words, they didn't like having their parents holding them accountable for their wrongdoing or for forestalling their childhood rebellion. In either event, they cite this abuse as their reason for saving other children from the abuse they endured.

State child welfare workers are represented by a disproportionately large percentage of self-professed damaged people on a mission to protect children whether they need it or not. Human nature being what it is, their perspective is going to be skewed toward viewing parents as perpetrators.

I've also observed that many of them are arrogant, to the point of professing that they don't make mistakes. I believe the fact that they are statutorily immune for their conduct contributes to this delusion of infallibility.

Finally, these damaged, grandiose bureaucrats are given an inordinate degree of power over people. They have learned that no matter what lies they tell, what strings they pull, what abuses they perpetrate, what they say is gospel truth to judges.

This dynamic tends to go to their heads. This case investigated by Kansas AG illustrates exactly how caseworkers do act vindictively and unprofessionally when challenged by a mere layman. (Aside - do you ever wonder why respondent parent attorneys always advise their clients not to piss off the caseworker? This is why.)

The caseworker who was the subject of this investigation is Linda Gillen. She is described with glowing credential and years of experience. So she can't plead incompetence for her failure to protect a child from death given the fact she had been notified multiple times by mandated reporters who had concerns for this child's welfare.

Ms. Gillen didn't like the grandparents of the child, who were pushing for her to protect the child from the father's live-in, drug addicted girlfriend. She had known the drug-addicted girlfriend since she supervised her in foster care.

Multiple mandated reporters made reports that this little girl was being abused. Ms. Gillen refused to investigate, because she didn't like the grandparents. It's all in the report, but I was kept abreast of the events as they happened. The report is an accurate portrayal of Gillen's professional conduct.

This is not a unique case. It happens all the time, all over the country. A caseworker takes sides because she dislikes someone, or someone pissed her off, or she simply hates all men/women/grandparents, etc. She makes her recommendations, conducts her investigations and reports to the court based on her bias, with the intent to use her nearly unlimited power to show them who's boss. She is a control freak. She manipulates the case so that the parents look bad. Invariably, she will push the right button and the parent will pull a nutty, which was what she wanted, "See, your Honor, I told you so." Sometimes, though, she can't manipulate them, which causes her to escalate.

Then when something goes wrong, as in this case where the child died at the hands of an known abuser, she pleads immunity from civil liability.

We all know the saying, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." To this I add, "Absolute immunity is absolute power." The practices I have observed over two decades graphically illustrate the effects of absolute power upon petty and vindictive mortals whose moral compass was not necessarily pointed at true north to begin with. We really should be putting our best and most compassionate into these positions, yet we are stuck with the bottom of the rotten apple barrel. Is it any wonder they run amok?

Child welfare agencies are enamored of psychological evaluations for parents and children, they rely on them heavily to make the case they need made. See my previous post on this subject. Why shouldn't caseworkers be required to have an annual psychological evaluation to determine their fitness to wield such power over parents, often using the children as pawns to control the parents upon pain of losing their children forever?

If these agencies and the courts trust in these evaluations so much, they shouldn't object to being required to prove their own fitness, don't you think? And these evaluations should be made available to the parents whose cases they are administering. What's good for the parent is good for the caseworker. . .and would tend to weed out those whose petty vindictiveness is more important to them than the best interests of the child.
Kansas Attorney General Report in case no. 6:10-cv-01017-MLB-KGG

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."

Camreta Revisited by SCOTUS

In past posts here and here, I discussed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (Greene v. Camreta) which determined that removing a child from a classroom and subjecting that child to a two hour interrogation was a violation of the child's and the parent's fourth amendment rights. I mentioned that the states were in an uproar, doomsaying that this would cause more children to be abused. Gasp.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether police and child protective services investigators, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, may conduct a custodial interrogation of a child in a public school as to the details of her home life, without: (1) a warrant supported by probable cause, (2) consent of parent, (3) a court order, or (4) exigent circumstances. Press Supreme Court orders for the questions as framed in the petitions for certiorari.

The caseworker and the police officer sought certiorari because even thought the Ninth Circuit ruled that they had qualified immunity for this event (because the law was not clearly established at the time) they did violate fourth amendment rights of the family. This means that any subsequent incident would find the offending government official liable. 

I have been reading the merits and amicus briefs provided at The Family Defense Center web site. I observe that nine amicus briefs were filed in support of the caseworker/police officer and eighteen in support of the parents. I found the brief of the Attorneys General of forty-one states to be extremely revealing. I will note, for the record, the states listed do include the the worst states for child welfare outcomes and violations, i.e. Colorado, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin.

The states have expressed a compelling interest to continue running roughshod over the rights of parents and children as having, "gained wide acceptance as the best practice because such interviews are the most effective tool available for overcoming the many obstacles to obtaining reliable investigative outcomes. . ."

They view their abusive tactics as justified because, "By their nature, CPS investigations typically involve situations in which the perpetrator is a parent or other family member, and often a member of the child’s household. If, as the Ninth Circuit implies, CPS investigations are therefore to be seen as 'storming the castle,' see Greene, 588 F.3d at 1016, then one must also perceive the strength of the fortress walls behind which abused children await rescue."

Agencies view mothers who deny the father sexually abused the child (this involved a sexual abuse allegation based on third-hand hearsay from outside the home) as part of the problem, and therefore refuse to consider her as a non-offending parent, but as an enabler. I have analyzed many of these cases, and more often than not, the agency discounts the evidence showing daddy couldn't have possibly done it, such as daddy was out of state at the time the incident was alleged, and  insists mom is enabling the abuse. This is their justification for not seeking parental consent, nor obtaining a court order or warrant. 

Interesting that in this case, there was, as there usually is, a non-offending parent whose presumption that she acts in the best interests of her child means nothing because her child is "awaiting rescue" from mommy and daddy who hide behind the fourth amendment? How perverted is this delusion? The little girl that was the protected puked five times after the interrogation when she got home because her <ahem> well-intentioned, highly professional knights-in-shining-armor were just doing their job. They argue they need to do their job and the fourth amendment just gets in the way.

This might be arguable, IF they were as infallible as they believe they are. But S.G. (the victim) recanted saying that Greene kept telling her she was giving the wrong answer so she just said what he wanted to hear so he would leave her alone. I've seen this happen so often that it brings most disclosures under suspicion, and the biggest crime is that they don't video record these interrogations (they REFUSE to video record because it would expose them) so that you can prove they did it wrong. They get it wrong far more often than they get it right, so infallibility is not a valid consideration.

The doomsaying continues to run amok. Only WE (CPS) can protect the kiddies, parents don't ever protect their own children. Parents are perpetrators. Is it any wonder parents give these government agents the hairy eyeball when the agencies want to invade their castle?

The Attorneys General would have a lot more credibility if the state agencies could get it right, if they could administer a case without traumatizing the kiddies, bankrupting the parents and destroying the child's family, and if the children in foster care were safer than in their own homes.

I hope the Supremes recognize that the emperor has no clothes.

Insight into Immunity

Did I say there was no recourse when child welfare agencies and caseworkers do wrong? Here is a graphic example of caseworker immunity, where nobody wins but the caseworker. 

Unusual case evolves around welfare, abuse of siblings

By Kevin Vaughan

The Denver Post

Did I say in a prior post that this wrongdoing and abuse was institutionalized?

So many times there was the opportunity to do the right thing, and they never took that opportunity. No wonder they don't like their secrets being exposed.

At least their jobs are safe. Even if the kiddies aren't. 

Kansas AG reports caseworker acted with ill will.

I happens rarely, but sometimes we will find a government agency or official who actually looks into wrongdoing by child welfare agencies, and even tries to hold wrongdoers accountable. 

I am reminded of a case in Ohio several years ago, where the mother was the victim of a false report of child abuse during a domestic relations custody dispute. Dad turned her in in order to resolve the custody dispute in his favor. Dad evidently turned the caseworker's head, and they developed an intimate relationship. Very intimate. All the better for the caseworker to overlook dad's abuse of the children he took from mom.

Naturally, all the bad that dad did was not reported to the court by this very affectionate caseworker. She saw the dirty deeds, she participated in them. She just didn't report them. She was also in a position to make false reports to the court about mom, and since, as we saw in the last article, the court tend to believe the experts, the court ruled against mom.

Mom's attorney did not regularly practice child welfare law, and consulted with AFAC to assist him with managing this case. He ultimately won, but was so outraged by the blatant violations perpetrated against the children and the mom, decided to run for district attorney. He won that race.

He then proceeded to prosecute the caseworker and the dad and dad's family, for criminal violations. But, since he was also a witness to the crimes, he had a conflict of interest. He resolved that by appointed a special prosecutor, who issued warrants, conducted his investigation and convened a grand jury.

The grand jury indicted the caseworker and the dad on multiple counts of felony violations associated with the administration of the child welfare case. The grand jury were reported as saying that they regretted not being able to indict them on more, because the prosecutor didn't ask for more charges.

Then, suddenly, without any explanation, as so often happens, the special prosecutor exercised his discretion and declined to prosecute. Mom was left in without remedy for the government abuse and conspiracy committed against her and her children.

Mom couldn't sue. Dad had nothing, The caseworker and the agency have immunity from civil liability. These agencies and actors have immunity to insure they can exercise their discretion without worrying about being sued. The courts and the legislatures reason that if a caseworker really does anything criminal, she can still be tried and convicted. Yeah. Right.

Prosecutors virtually never bring criminal charges against caseworkers who commit wrongful acts in the course of their official duties. Not even when presented with a list of victims and violations at a press conference. Not even when the caseworkers abuse the children they adopt, and yes, Virginia, they get the pick of the litter for adoptions.

Courts will virtually never do anything about the perjury caseworkers commit on the stand in the name of the "best interests of the child." In fact, in Laramie County, Colorado, if a judge even considers finding a caseworker in contempt for proven perjury or ordering the DA to prosecute, the caseworker's supervisor is known to jump up in the gallery and call out, "Immunity, Your Honor," which has proven sufficient to get His Honor to back down from holding the caseworker accountable for violating the dignity of the Court with her lies. His Honor won't even rule against the agency, in spite of those lies being proven false in court. Perhaps he is concerned about that caseworker removing his kiddies or grandkiddies? A little quid pro quo goes a long way in these cases.

Are these professionals really that petty and vidictive? A lawsuit in Kansas is proving they are. Stay tuned for the details.

"Worst thing that ever happened"

Baby taken by child welfare agency at birth alleging mom had drugs in system at birth, and the agency refuses to return the child even after learning Mom's positive drug test result was in error. Oh, let's not forget, the baby had no drugs in her system at birth, either. How do you spell O-V-E-R-Z-E-A-L-O-U-S?

Taking a newborn baby (or any child) without conducting an investigation, without providing--or even considering--services designed to keep the child safely in the home pursuant to statutory reasonable efforts mandates, based solely on an unsupported hot-line call by a rabid child-saver collaborator is simply business as usual in our society. I call it "where there's smoke, there's fire knee-jerk syndrome." Except that often what the reporter sees isn't even smoke, it's only steam from a boiling pot of water, or dust stirred up from shaking a throw rug.

Mandated reporters have become expert at interpreting the most benign and innocuous events into life-and-death situations in order to have children seized and warehoused in stranger foster care.

Do you doubt these facts? Read the Complaint for yourself. It is a recitation of error after error committed by the agency in its rush to snatch a marketable baby to feed the voracious baby mill under the righteous guise of protecting children. Oh. . .and let's assume Mom refused to consent to drug testing. It's mandatory to consent, she refuses, they refuse to admit her for her childbirth. They then report her for medical neglect for leaving the hospital to have her baby. What a set-up.

One problem I see is that the child is not named as a plaintiff. She has the greatest claim to violations of her fundamental rights to family association. She has the right to the same protections as her parents, including a competent and ethical investigation, and the presumption that her parents are fit. She had the right to bond with her parents from birth--the most critical bonding time, which was stolen from her. She has the right to competent representation from her attorney, who won't rubber stamp agency actions at her expense. Her right were violated to a far greater degree than her parents's rights were.

The parents and attorneys are seeking some reform,

"I'm hoping that they'll either change their policies so it doesn't happen to another family, or they'll investigate it better before they take babies from their homes," said Ms. Mort, 21, joined by lawyers, her fiance Alex Rodriguez, 23, and 6-month-old Isabella Rodriguez at the American Civil Liberties Union's Oakland office. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10302/1098960-455.stm#ixzz150R1NEX6

Changing policies won't prevent this from happening again to anyone else, or to this family in the future. Even if they win, these parents will lose. Nothing will change. Past lawsuits haven't prevented this from happening to this family.

YAWN. . .This story is nothing all that outrageous, or unusual. I've seen this same scenario over and over, thousands upon thousands of times since 1991. You'd think, after nearly twenty years, the so-called experts would get it right.

Since they haven't gotten it right yet, one can only conclude they aren't intended to "get it right." Certainly, the courts aren't enforcing the law, or the rights of the children and parents. Attorneys representing parents and attorneys aren't even demanding the agency get it right. So, is it any wonder the child welfare agencies are more rabid, more overzealous, more wrong than they were twenty years ago?

Getting it wrong has been institutionalized. Lots of luck with the lawsuit. . .the statutory immunity enjoyed by the agency, the workers and the hospital will make this an uphill battle. As for this suit being a catalyst for changes in policy or practice. . .dream on.

Panic in the Child Welfare Agencies

Business as usual by Oregon child welfare has been nipped by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case  where a family sued a child welfare agency for unconstitutional search and seizure arising out of their interview with a child at school and subsequent removal from home.

Exhibiting their typical knee-jerk overreaction to anything that appears to protect anyone accused of child abuse or neglect, the child protection industry is burning with child-saver horror speculation and doomsday scenarios that more children will be abused because the constitution shockingly protects a child's right to family association. Child abusers win one. . . I have always maintained that the child savers gave too little consideration to the negative effects of their  assistance to families they, in their infinite wisdom, determine need their help. 

The mother, Sarah Greene, and her children sued the state agency for various constitutional claims associated with the agencies handling of a child welfare investigation and case. The U.S. District court dismissed the case. Mother and children appealed. The appeals court overturned the District Court. The findings were as follows:

1) "In short, applying the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements, the decision to seize and interrogate S.G. in the absence of a warrant, a court order, exigent circumstances, or parental consent was unconstitutional."  In this case, the court distinguished searches and seizures of students by school officials from situations where a police officer or social worker, not connected with the school, conducts an interview. School officials who acquiesce to an interview demand by child welfare agencies may now be open to liability. Especially if there is a 4th amendment letter  (on my web site, the password to open the letter is "I agree") in the child's school file as I have recommended for years. The court ruled that, because this precedent was not established prior, the defendants had immunity. However, if anyone does it again, they will not be immune from civil liability as this case clearly establishes the law in that regard.


2)"Because Camreta's alleged misrepresentation in support of his request for a protective custody order . . . violated the Greenes' clearly established rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity." Exaggerating, misrepresenting, outright lying on affidavits and requests for court orders has been a long-standing tradition in child welfare cases. The problem has been in proving the lies, which is why I recommended as early as 1996 that parents record all interactions with state agencies and their providers. Deceitful case workers have responded by refusing to be recorded and retaliating when parents insist. I am on the record stating they, as public servants, cannot refuse to be recorded. It just keeps things honest. . .and provides evidence for future lawsuits like this. 


3) "Camreta's decision to exclude Sarah not just from the examination but from the entire facility where her daughter was being examined violated the Greenes' clearly established rights." The practice of preventing the parents from attending the child during medical examinations has already been condemned in another 9th Circuit case so the caseworker has no immunity for violating the child's constitutional rights.  Caseworkers routinely isolate the child from the parents, limit contact to infrequent supervised situations and refuse access to the child's medical, school and other records. It's long past time these capricious, heavy-handed control-reak practices by case workers bite the dust.


These are among the issues I have included in my accredited Continuing Legal Education training designed for attorneys representing parents and children in child welfare cases, and I am gratified to see that I, a mere mortal, have been vindicated by being right in my analysis and education of these particular issues. Too bad not enough lawyers "get it."


The court actually discussed family association and family rights in this case. 

• [P]arents have a right arising from the liberty interest in family association to be with their children while they are receiving medical attention 
• Finally, we hold that Camreta's decision to exclude Sarah from her daughters' medical examinations at the KIDS Center violated the Greenes' clearly established familial rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The interest in family association is particularly compelling at such times, in part because of the possibility that a need to make medical decisions will arise, and in part because of the family's right to be together during such difficult and often traumatic events.
• . . .Wallis establishes two points central here: first, parents and children maintain clearly established familial rights to be with each other during potentially traumatic medical examinations. . .

If the U.S. Constitution can prove to be so powerful to protect the fundamental human right to family association, think of the double whammy a family rights amendment to the state constitution could provide in your state. 

Controlling Adult Political Conduct by Holding Children Hostage

During the Civil Rights movement in our country, the state engaged in a hush-hush practice designed to quell any first amendment activities (petition the government for redress of grievances, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion) of civil rights activists.

We all know about the well-publicized efforts of local, state and Federal government agencies to classify the legal conduct of civil rights activists as crimes in order to silence the more outspoken by arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning them. We also know that these attempts ultimately failed because the government's strategies violated the constitutional rights of the targeted activists, and were effectively challenged repeatedly.

But one practice was not challenged. The practice of removing children from their activist parents in an attempt to control their political conduct. We don't know about it because it worked.

And it works, today, as well.

In 1996, I began publishing my web site, which was one of the first web sites that addressed child welfare abuses. At that same time, I forwarded the argument that as long as activists seeking child welfare reform engaged the issue on the existing terms i.e. Parental Rights vs. Children's Rights, our reform effort would fail. In a contest of these competing interests, Children's Rights would always prevail. So, I redefined our side of the issue to Family Rights. Who could be against the family? This principle stuck, and it has grown to the Family Rights grassroots movement.

This is a chaotic movement, without effective leadership, populated by many damaged people who indiscriminately lash out against friend and foe alike for the smallest real or imagined slight. Whether those people were unstable before the state intervened, or whether the state intervention made them unstable is a question I and my colleagues have debated often, without arriving at a consensus. It is evident that this particular kind of state intervention, more so than any other alphabet state agency intrusion, is emotionally, financially and psychologically devastating to all persons whom the state agency is helping.

I see one of the biggest problems is that these injured souls want reform. They inherently know they and their children have been wronged, but they don't know how or why. They claim that the state's actions are illegal and don't understand when the court says they are legal. They rabidly scream corruption and insist the world believe them because of the horrors they and their children experienced. Their self-professed leaders are angry, and exhort their mob to fight, fight, fight with useless tactics that have the single virtue of making the person feel better, at the expense of alienating the public and incurring retaliation from the courts and agencies.

This retaliation is exhibited by the gag orders I discussed yesterday, and by issuing other illegal orders like ordering parents to take down their web sites which are critical of child welfare agencies and service providers, to stop associating with similarly-minded reform activists, to censor their speech which is critical of the courts or agencies. Case workers, CASAs, GALs, and hostile foster caregivers troll the internet and online groups to find parents and use their political free speech and publications against them in their court proceedings. If the parents attend a public rally or a legislative hearing, these same hostile actors take down license plates and names of attendees from sign-up sheets. The courts allow the parent's political conduct to be used as proof of parental unfitness and lack of compliance with treatment plans. Parents who attend the wrong church have their children seized in order to compel the parents to remove themselves from the membership of the unapproved church.

Retaliation against activists is inevitable in any social reform effort. The powers-that-be want to maintain the status quo, their power base. . .their jobs.  Since the retaliation is inevitable, it should anticipated and exploited to effect the desired reform. History has given us the models, we only need to know and understand them in order to exploit them.

Alas, the current family rights leadership is only able to bitch and piss and moan about the violations of rights. These self-professed gurus don't "get it" and can't see past their own pain and anger. They can't anticipate the retaliation, they can't exploit it, can't enforce their rights and in so doing, they surrender their rights, and their children, and the rights of other activists and their children to the alter of child protection. Not an effective strategy in my mind.