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.

Missing Adopted Boys in Colorado

Edward Bryant, 58, and Linda Bryant, 54, adopted nine children out of foster care. The concern of officials is that these parents fraudulently obtained adoption subsidies for two of these children who went missing in 2003 at ages seven and under. They are looking for these boys, but it seems to be too little, too late. 

El Paso County, Colorado, is the agency who licensed and approved these parents. This is the same agency that spearheaded the efforts to shut down the American Family Advocacy Center in Colorado because I was publicly critical of this agency's administration of child welfare cases, and of the judges who heard these cases.

The agency is not returning calls to the media about this case.They cite confidentiality, but it strikes me as quite convenient that this confidentiality protects them from public scrutiny and accountability for a very public exposure of their chronic failures to act in the best interests of the children they puportedly protect.



This incident will undoubtedly surface among the family rights whackadoodles as it being all about the money, and as usual, they miss the point. If you follow the money, you will find how the federal funding drives the redistribution of children, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the issue. For many of the whackadoodles, the money is just a convenient excuse that distracts from the fact that they needed intervention for abusing or neglecting their own children.


The adoption subsidy/follow the money problem could be easily solved with two simple solutions:

1. Provide this subsidy to the child's family as part of their case plan before terminating parental rights, especially if neglect (often due to poverty) is an issue that brought the child under the jurisdiction of the court. This will dramatically improve reunification rates. This would be short term subsidies, not intende to last until the child turns eighteen.
2. Eliminate all adoption subsidies for children adopted out of foster care. This would effectively eliminate all adoptive parents whose motives are not centered on loving the legal orphans.
After all, why should adoptive parents get paid to raise the children their own parents couldn't afford to raise in the manner the state demanded? Dosen't it make more sense to help the parents get adequate housing, medical, and food for their kiddies in the family home rather than susidizing it in a stranger's home?

More on this story is at the Denver Post.

Quotes From Amici - Camreta v. Greene

In support of neither party:

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."

In support of the respondents:

Liberty Counsel
"Moving the seizure and interrogation of S.G. from the family's residence to a school office did not shield Petitioners from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. A mere change in locale did not transform the
criminal investigation of alleged child abuse by a county child protection officer and deputy sheriff into a school discipline investigation by a principal or superintendent. The lessened expectation of privacy accorded to students in the latter circumstances cannot be applied to relieve Petitioners of their obligations under
the Fourth Amendment."

National Association of Criminal Defense Counsel
"History teaches that the Framers in the last quarter of the Eighteenth Century would not have countenanced government’s meddling with America’s families. They would not have allowed government officials to take children because of alleged abuse. Simply put, the Founders did not consider raising and rearing children government’s business. Warrantless rescues based on claimed abuse would therefore not have been tolerated. Nor did such a practice exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted."

"One’s right to family cannot depend on location. It follows the family."

". . .the class of potentially “dependent” children is huge. It encompasses all children in America. Infants, toddlers and young school-age children, like S.G., are all potential targets. This vast universe of potential “status” victims, coupled with mandatory reporting requirements, vague understandings of “neglect,” and undertrained investigators produces a significant error rate within the child protection system."

"Petitioners’ demand for a lower standard is premised less on a desire to protect children than to win unbridled discretion. History teaches, however, that license breeds abuse. See, e.g., Kolender v. Lawson,
461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983) (warning that 'virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police' cannot
be tolerated); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1983). History teaches that 'unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is
frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.' Gault, 387 U.S. at 18."

Liberty Counsel
"Rather than according Respondents' Fourth Amendment rights the respect required by Congress, Petitioners side-stepped the issue by conducting the investigation at S.G.'s school instead of the family home. Petitioners should not be permitted to evade their obligations under the Fourth Amendment by simply changing the venue for their investigations. Respondents' Fourth Amendment rights are not limited to the confines of their residence, and Petitioners should not be permitted to flout the will of this Court and Congress by doing at
a child's school what they cannot do in the home. Fourth Amendment rights should not be subjected to such gamesmanship."

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.