Our Grand Children are victims of;

"Protect the "system" at all costs. The "system" is the only ultimate sacred cow - not any particular law or constitution, but only "the system." Because, ultimately, it is the system which makes certain that the individuals functioning within it - from judges to lawyers, to prosecutors, to politicians, to businessmen - have their places and positions, and opportunities and pecking order, and future."

In 1696, England first used the legal principle of parens patriae, which gave the royal crown care of "charities, infants, idiots, and lunatics returned to the chancery." This principal of parens patriae has been identified as the statutory basis for U.S. governmental intervention in families' child rearing practices.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Courts are violating ICWA in South Dakota

Courts are violating ICWA in South Dakota
By Dana Hanna
In a recent column in the Native Sun News, Regina Brave wrote about the history and importance of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and asked about the current status of the lawsuit that was filed in federal court in which the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other plaintiffs claimed that state authorities were violating the ICWA rights of Indian families in state courts. Along with lead counsel Stephen Pevar of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Rachel Goodman of the ACLU office in New York, I am one of the attorneys representing the Indian plaintiffs in that lawsuit. I am writing to thank Regina Brave for drawing further public attention to this very important issue and to answer her question about the current status of that federal lawsuit. Earlier this year, the Oglala and Rosebud Sioux Tribes and three Indian mothers filed a lawsuit in federal court in Rapid City on behalf of all parents of minor Indian children in Pennington County. That lawsuit, Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, charges that the South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS), the Pennington County State’s Attorney’s Office, and the presiding judge and other judges in the Seventh Judicial Circuit routinely violate the constitutional and ICWA rights of Indian parents in child abuse and neglect cases. In a nutshell, the Indian plaintiffs charge that state court judges, assisted by DSS and state prosecutors, routinely order Indian children into long term foster care placements, based on allegations of neglect or abuse, without giving their parents any kind of fair and meaningful hearing. The Indian plaintiffs are seeking an order from the United States District Court that would prohibit state court judges, DSS and the State’s Attorney’s office from placing Indian children in foster homes unless they first give Indian children, parents and Tribes the fair hearing that is their right under ICWA. In this lawsuit, the Indian plaintiffs’ legal argument is really quite simple and straightforward: Any state system that removes Indian children from their parents and places them in long term foster care through a judicial proceeding in which only the State is allowed to present evidence, but Indian parents are not allowed to present evidence, is a system that is fundamentally unfair, fundamentally unconstitutional and fundamentally racist. The lawsuit focuses on the first judicial hearing that takes place in all child abuse and neglect cases–the 48 hour temporary custody hearing. State law requires that parents be given a hearing before a judge within 48 hours after an emergency removal of their children from their home. Under ICWA and state statutes, the purpose of that hearing is to have the judge consider evidence so that he or she can make an objective determination as to whether giving physical custody of the children to DSS is necessary to protect the children from abuse or neglect. Under ICWA, at any hearing in which the State seeks to place an Indian child in a temporary foster care placement, the parents of an Indian child have a right to challenge the State in an evidentiary hearing and they have the right to have an attorney in that hearing. Our lawsuit claims–and we can prove–that over the past four years, state court judges, prosecutors and social workers have routinely denied those fundamental federal rights to Indian parents in Pennington County. In the 48 hour temporary custody hearings, judges will hear no sworn testimony from any witness; only the State is allowed to present evidence, which consists of police reports and affidavits by DSS caseworkers; and the Indian parents are never given, or even informed of, their right under ICWA to be represented by a court-appointed lawyer in the 48 hour hearing. Although the State is allowed to present evidence of neglect in the form of written reports and affidavits, the Seventh Circuit courts do not allow the parents to give sworn testimony or to present any evidence in those hearings. Our lawsuit charges that for the past 4 years, the judges of the Seventh Judicial Circuit have routinely ordered Indian children into long term foster care in 48 hour hearings in which Indian parents have virtually no rights to contest the State’s petition to take their children. So where are we now? Soon after the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the other plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the state defendants, represented by private counsel and the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota, filed motions asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Indian parents have no rights under ICWA at the 48 hour temporary custody hearing. In our view, such an interpretation of ICWA is absurd: it defeats the very purpose of ICWA and leaves tribal children to the tender mercies of the State child welfare system. Five months ago, the Indian plaintiffs submitted briefs opposing the State defendants’ motions to dismiss. We have recently been informed that we can reasonably expect a decision by the court on the motions to dismiss in the very near future. If the federal court rules in our favor, that decision will not end the case, but we expect that it will decide many of the important questions of law that are at the heart of our case. We hope to get a decision within the next few weeks that will be a major step forward in changing the way Indian parents, children and Tribes are treated in child abuse and neglect cases in the state courts of South Dakota. Dana Hanna is an attorney with the Hanna Law Office, P.C. in Rapid City. A former Attorney General for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, his practice focuses on Indian law, federal civil rights, and criminal law.
 From:  http://www.indianz.com/News/2013/012072.asp

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Police: DFCS worker arrested for drugs during stop.

Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5 

JONESBORO, Ga. - Police say an employee for the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services driving a mentally disabled adult was arrest Saturday for drug possession after being pulled over in Jonesboro.

Jonesboro Police Chief Franklin Allen says officers pulled over Ericka Thompson near the intersection of Georgia Highway 138 and Tara Blvd after noticing her vehicle had suspended registration. During the stop, they got wind of the heavy smell of marijuana. After a brief search, they found the source along with cocaine and Oxytocin.

Police say there was confusion on Thompson's identity given her credentials did not match her license. They eventually were able to determine that she worked for Henry County DFCS. They say she was driving for a group home.

"This is a person that people with disabilities have been entrusted to care for and provide for. If this person is out using drugs, selling drugs, possessing drugs or has them in her system, that creates a very alarming instance for us," said Chief Allen.

Police say the person in her care was not hurt. They say they had a hard time trying to reach any one with DFCS to ensure the person's safety. The group home where he stays eventually was able to get someone out to the scene to pick him and return him safely home.

Thompson faces possession charges as well as driving without registration. Police will determine if she was under the influence while she was driving.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Child Abuse and Neglect User Manuals

 New and Revised Child Abuse and Neglect User Manuals

"...  Since the last update of the Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series in the early 1990s, a number of changes have occurred that dramatically affect the response to child maltreatment, including advances in research, practice, and policy. This third edition of the User Manual Series reflects the increased knowledge and the evolving state of practice and address trends and concerns relevant to today's professionals. ..."

Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment and Intervention.
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 2,163KB)
Year Published: 2006 - 108 pages

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Caliber Associates.
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 3,360KB)
Year Published: 2003 - 108 pages

Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers. 2003
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
DePanfilis, Salus
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 4,470KB)
Order (Free) - Add to Cart
Year Published: 2003 - 141 pages

Community Partnerships: Improving the Response to Child Maltreatment.
Author(s): Children's Bureau. Office on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 3,388KB)
Year Published: 2010 - 150 pages

A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Goldman, Salus, Wolcott, Kennedy
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 4,110KB)
Order (Free) - Add to Cart
Year Published: 2003 - 114 pages

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Rosenberg, Wilcox
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 1,163KB)
Year Published: 2006 - 125 pages

Protecting Children in Families Affected by Substance Use Disorders
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, ICF International.
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 2,416KB)
Year Published: 2009 - 114 pages

The Role of Educators in Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Caliber Associates.
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 3,890KB)
Year Published: 2003 - 85 pages

The Role of First Responders in Child Maltreatment Cases: Disaster and Nondisaster Situations
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Cage, Salus
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 2,205KB)
Year Published: 2010 - 158 pages

The Role of Professional Child Care Providers in Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Karageorge, Kendall
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 1,729KB)
Year Published: 2008 - 111 pages

Supervising Child Protective Services Caseworkers
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Caliber Associates.
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 4,010KB)
Order (Free) - Add to Cart
Order CD (Free) - Add to Cart
Year Published: 2004 - 110 pages

Working with the Courts in Child Protection
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Availability: View
Download (PDF - 10,480KB)
Year Published: 2006 - 130 pages

Brought to you from:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Monday, December 9, 2013

[Alaska] Child Protective Services Manual [2012]

As of this date, this is the current copy of [as far as we know] [Alaska] Child Protective Services Manual for those asking.
Dated 2012.  All 912 pages of it in .PDF format. Easily downloadable.

Child Protective Services Manualexternal link (PDF - 3983KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services

Other Alaska manuals are also downloadable;

Adoption and Guardianship: Making Permanent Plans for Childrenexternal link (PDF - 2406KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services [2001]

Parent's Rights: What You Need to Know About a Child Protection Initial Assessmentexternal link (PDF - 296KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services [2010]

A Toolkit for Hosting a Community Cafe Series: On Choosing Respect and Ending Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Sexual Abuseexternal link (PDF - 2540KB)
Alaska Department Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services & Alaska Strengthening Families Program [2012]

Guidelines for the Multidisciplinary Response to Child Abuse in Alaska (PDF - 1669KB)
Alaska Children's Justice Act Task Force [2-10]

A Guide to Child Protective Services for Relativesexternal link (PDF - 337KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services [2007]

A Handbook for Parents and Guardians in Child Abuse and Neglect Casesexternal link (PDF - 375KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Family and Youth Services [2003]

Engaging With Parents: Self-Study Guideexternal link (PDF - 878KB)
Alaska Office of Children's Services [2009]

Reporting Child Abuse in Alaska
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services & Alaska Children's Justice Act Task Force [2003]

What Am I Doing Here?: A Roadmap for Youth in the Alaska Child in Need of Aid System (PDF - 5990KB)
Alaska Court System [2010]

Title IV-E Manualexternal link (PDF - 1915KB)
Alaska Office of Children's Services [2012]

Alaska's Resource Family Handbookexternal link (PDF - 2458KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services [2012]

Practice Modelexternal link (PDF - 846KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services [2009]

Community Careexternal link (PDF - 1167KB)
Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services [2012]

Youth Checklistsexternal link (PDF - 81KB)
Alaska Court System, Alaska Office of Public Advocacy & Alaska Office of Children's Services [2010]

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA)

BACA Mission Statement
Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA) exists with the intent to create a safer environment for abused children. We exist as a body of Bikers to empower children to not feel afraid of the world in which they live. We stand ready to lend support to our wounded friends by involving them with an established, united organization. We work in conjunction with local and state officials who are already in place to protect children. We desire to send a clear message to all involved with the abused child that this child is part of our organization, and that we are prepared to lend our physical and emotional support to them by affiliation, and our physical presence. We stand at the ready to shield these children from further abuse. We do not condone the use of violence or physical force in any manner, however, if circumstances arise such that we are the only obstacle preventing a child from further abuse, we stand ready to be that obstacle.

[The states with no link do not yet have a chapter]

 VISIT them on the Web: http://bacaworld.org/mission/

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Oklahoma Adoption Attorney Approves Baby Deseray Removal for Friend


Oklahoma Adoption Attorney Approves Baby Deseray Removal for Friend

Next week, South Carolina Judge Marsh Robertson has a hearing scheduled for the finalization of the adoption of Oklahoma-born infant, Merry Rejoice Bixler, better known as “Baby Deseray,” in Greenville County family court. The hearing, on Monday, October 28, comes a little over a month after Oklahoma County Judge Allen Welch granted custody of the girl to the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and ordered her return to that state.
RELATED: Second Indian Infant Whisked to South Carolina for Quickie Adoption
Oklahoma Judge Gives Custody of Deseray to Absentee Shawnee Tribe
Four months after her removal, Mike Nomura, the Oklahoma administrator for the Interstate Custody for the Placement of Children (ICPC) applications, approved the paperwork for the child's adoptive parents, Bobby and Diane Bixler, of Irmo, South Carolina. The Bixlers are represented by Raymond Godwin, attorney for Nightlight Christian Adoptions of Greenville, South Carolina, and by Nomura's friend and colleague, Tulsa-based attorney Paul Swain in Oklahoma. (All of them declined to comment on this story.) 
Oklahoma is one of only three states that outsource their ICPC applications to private contractors; in the other 47, all interstate adoptions are handled by the states' departments of human services. Sources in the adoption industry say that state-controlled ICPC approvals reduce cronyism and corruption within the adoption industry and “de-incentive-ize” the financial benefit for private practitioners.
Though Nomura has been in the adoption industry for over 30 years, he graduated from law school in 2012 and has been a licensed attorney for only a year. Additionally, because he is also now a practicing adoption attorney, he can approve his own ICPC applications.
“There are several very serious conflicts of interests in this situation,” said an Oklahoma attorney who declined to be identified because of ongoing professional dealings with Nomura. “But there is no question that he has now become a one-stop shop for all of his own adoption cases, as well as his business dealings with his friends. Also, he is now 'incentive-ized,' if you will, to proceed with these interstate adoptions because he can handle the whole thing on his own—and no one is watching the henhouse.”
In the Baby Deseray case, Indian Country Today Media Network has learned that Nomura is close friends with Swain, who is on the board of directors for Nomura's Tulsa-based private adoption agency, Heritage Family Services. Nomura has been the state’s Department of Human Services compact administrator for ICPC applications since 2008.
When contacted by ICTMN regarding the apparent conflict of interest in approving that ex post facto ICPC application for his friend and colleague, Nomura declined to respond. When asked about his decision to grant the application in spite of the fact that he knew both the birth father and the Absentee Shawnees were objecting to the baby's removal, and that there was a court order calling for her return to Oklahoma, Nomura pointed to case law, Cherokee Nation v. Nomura, which he claimed gives him the authority to grant retroactive applications if it is in the child's “best interest.”
Citing Nomura’s relative lack of courtroom and legal experience, however, adoption experts across the country have scoffed at what they characterize as his “rather fluid” analysis of a court case in which he was the defendant. “[Cherokee v. Nomura] does not apply in this case,” said an Oklahoma City-based ICWA expert who declined to be identified because the case involves a juvenile.
“There's no way he was able to make an informed best interest determination when the kid has been gone for five months and the judge, the birth father and the tribe were very clearly demanding her return before he granted approval. And he's scrambling behind them with a broom trying to make it appear tidy and legal. It's not.”
When asked who he reports to, Nomura forwarded to ICTMN the contact information for Linda Foster, a Tulsa-based Adoption Field Manager for Region 4 of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, saying she was his supervisor. Foster declined to comment for this story, as did her immediate supervisor, Ed Lake, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Bonnie Clift, assistant general counsel for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and section chief for child welfare, said she had "no idea" who was supervising Nomura. Additionally, she said she was unaware of the case of Baby Deseray and its potential impact on the Absentee Shawnee.
When ICTMN first reported Deseray's removal by the Bixlers in August, Nomura signaled his displeasure with both Raymond Godwin, the Bixler's South Carolina adoption attorney, and Tulsa attorney Yeksavich because he said that no paperwork had been filed with his office. At the time, Nomura told ICTMN he was “hypothetically, off the record” aware of the situation with Baby Deseray and her removal from the state, but declined to comment further.
According to ICWA experts, the secretive nature of the adoption industry allows many standards and practices to go unregulated and unmonitored, often in violation of state and federal child trafficking and adoption laws. Adoption reformers say that it is the lack of transparency promulgated by “juvenile confidentiality” and laws specifically designed to inhibit and terminate parental rights that have led to numerous custodial train wrecks.
RELATED: Trafficking Native Children: The Seamy Underbelly of U.S. Adoption Industry
For example, in the recent Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, commonly referred to as the Baby Veronica case, it was South Carolina's statute requiring prenatal financial support that was used as a cudgel to terminate Dusten Brown's parental rights. Arguing for the plaintiffs, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, adoption attorney Raymond Godwin cited a South Carolina statute that Brown's rights should be terminated because he had not met the strict payment requirements set forth in South Carolina Code (§ 63-9-310).
From the outset, attorneys and spokespeople for the Capobiancos maintained that Dusten Brown did nothing to support Veronica's biological mother, Christy Maldonado, a charge he and his family have always fiercely denied.
RELATED: Some Disturbing Facts About Baby Veronica's Birth Mother
There are documented cases in South Carolina in which the birth mother was, in fact, instructed to reject help from the birth father in order to ensure compliance with that statute. In Reeves vs. Jane Roe and John Roe (2009), the plaintiff, Craig Reeves, and the unnamed birth mother both testified in court that she had been instructed by Godwin neither to have any contact, nor to accept any money from Reeves.
Quoting Reeve’s testimony from the trial transcript: “She really wouldn’t take anything from me. She advised me that Mr. Godwin at the adoption agency told her that she should not take anything from me or should even be speaking to me.”
During testimony in family court, the birth mother corroborated Reeves' testimony.
Q. Isn’t it true that – or is it true that there were time that you were offered money by [the Petitioner] after Ray Godwin [adoption agency attorney] talked to you about not taking money that you turned down money from [Craig Reeves]?
A. Yes, I did turn down money from [Reeves]. I’m not sure when it was. It was one time that he offered me copy00.
Q. Okay.
A. And I didn’t accept if from him because [Nightlight and Godwin] told me not to.
Initially, the lower courts in South Carolina vacated that adoption and granted Reeves custody of his child, which he maintained for 14 months. The State Supreme Court reversed and ordered the child back to its adoptive parents based solely on the financial requirements for unmarried birth fathers under South Carolina state statutes. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear that case and the lower court ruling was allowed to stand.
But during that same time period, the issue again arose in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Citing state law requiring prenatal financial support, Godwin argued that Dusten Brown failed to provide any support to Veronica's birth mother, Christy Maldonado. Brown and his mother, however, testified in family court that they attempted numerous times to help Maldonado, but that she "willfully" cut off contact and especially refused to the financial support that both he and his family offered to her during her pregnancy.
Like Reeves, it was Brown’s "failure to provide any material or financial support" to Maldonado that formed the basis for the termination of his parental rights under South Carolina law. After he fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court to enforce his parental rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices reinforced the state's draconian statute, which legal observers say gives no weight whatsoever to visitation and "non-financial support." Siding with the Capobiancos, the justices remanded the case back to South Carolina for "further review." But the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed its earlier position and ruled in favor of the adoptive parents—again using the prenatal financial requirement to sever Brown's parental rights. Veronica was returned to the Capobiancos in September after living two years with her biological father.
RELATED: Cherokee Nation Mourns as Veronica Is Returned to Adoptive Family
Now, Simmons, like Reeves and Brown, is also in danger of having his parental rights terminated because of his apparent lack of prenatal support. Simmons has said that the birth mother, Crystal Tarbox, refused any contact or financial support from him during his pregnancy, which he also flatly denies. Tarbox's family said she told them that she was also instructed by Godwin to sever all contact and refuse money from Simmons.
“The only thing the Baby Veronica case did was give these adoption attorneys and their minions the greenlight to push as many adoptions of Indian kids as they can get their hands on,” said Don Mason, attorney for Jeremy Simmons, Deseray's birth father. “They are just consumed with greed and making money off these adoptions, and they don't care how they do it.”
Charles Tripp, a Cherokee Nation tribal member and managing partner of Oklahoma-based Legal Advocate for Indian Country law firm, is representing the Absentee Shawnee in Oklahoma in their quest to have Deseray returned to Oklahoma.
“[Adoption agencies] have turned toward Indian country because many of their former feeder markets have cut off American adoptions,” said Tripp recently. “When Russia and these other eastern European countries cut you off from their kids, something's wrong. Because they don't exactly have a great history with their own orphanages and so forth. But that just tells you how jaded these other countries have become toward the American adoption industry.”
In the meantime, another child sits in limbo in South Carolina awaiting her fate on Monday. Her adoptive parents, Bobby Bixler, 64, and Diane Bixler, 60, have been accused of being unfit and emotionally and physically abusive by two of their adult children, who adamantly oppose this adoption.
RELATED: Adult Son of Couple Adopting Deseray Says They Were Abusive Parents

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/25/oklahoma-adoption-attorney-approves-baby-deseray-removal-friend-151918

Serving The Nations | Celebrating The People

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Child found handcuffed to porch with dead chicken around his neck

Printed from the Charlotte Observer - www.CharlotteObserver.com
By Hilary Trenda
Published in: Crime & Justice

A Union County [North Carolina] social worker was one of two adults charged with intentional child abuse Friday after deputies found a child handcuffed to a porch with a dead chicken around his neck.
Dorian Lee Harper and Wanda Sue Larson, both 57, have been charged with numerous offenses after a deputy discovered the child at 4116 Austin Road, south of Monroe, authorities said.
Larson is employed as a supervisor with Union County Department of Social Services. She and Harper had adopted four children and were serving as foster parents for a fifth child, officials said.
Union County Sheriff Eddie Cathey called the incident “shocking.”
“I can assure you that we have only just begun our investigation into what has happened, and we will pursue it to its fullest extent,” Cathey said.
A deputy was responding to an animal services complaint at a neighboring home Friday when he walked up to Harper’s and Larson’s residence and saw a “10-12-year-old child secured to the front porch at the ankle, by what appeared to be a pair of handcuffs,” officials said.
“The child also had a dead chicken hanging around his neck and appeared to be shivering,” the Sheriff’s Office said.
Moments later a man appeared on the porch, and asked the deputy why he was there. The deputy asked for the man’s identification and why the child was handcuffed to the porch, officials said.
“The man produced a driver’s license, but then a child at the residence opened a door to the house releasing several large dogs that then accosted the officer,” the Sheriff’s Office said.
The deputy got in his vehicle and by the time the dogs were secured, “the man had removed the child from the porch and left the dead chicken on a barrel on the porch,” authorities said.
When backup arrived, deputies entered and searched the home and found five children, ages 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14, the Sheriff’s Office said. The children were removed from the home. Officers then began a criminal investigation, and the man was taken into custody at the scene.
Harper and Larson have both been charged with intentional child abuse inflicting serious injury, false imprisonment and cruelty to animals, authorities said.
Larson was not present when the children were discovered but is accused of being complicit in the ongoing mistreatment of the children, the Sheriff’s Office said. She was also charged with willful failure to discharge her duty as a public official.
The child handcuffed to the porch is the 11-year-old Harper and Larson had been fostering, authorities said. The children are now in custody of an undisclosed social services agency outside Union County.
Harper is being held under a $500,000 bond. Larson’s bond was set at $525,000. Both are being held at the Union County jail and are scheduled to appear in court on Monday.
Trenda: 704-358-5089; Twitter: @htrenda

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Saturday, November 16, 2013


This is a re-post from the blog of our friend Michael Connely. It is posted here as it affects us, our children, our grand children and every generation after them.  OBAMAcare will drag us all into the socialist nest of destruction that was once America. Always remember that when the government robs from Peter to pay Paul... it can always count on Paul.

Michael Connelly,
"Constitutional Lawyer

Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation. (www.usjf.net)
Personal website and blog: Michael Connelly blog
CLA site: Constitutional Law Alliance
Author of "The Mortarmen" a book about my father's unit in WWII; "Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends Of Philmont Scout Ranch",my novel "Amayehli: A Story of America", and the newly released "America's Liveliest Ghosts "
I also have written a booklet on the U.S. Constitution that highlights each section and amendment the way it was originally written. Then I add my comments about what they all truly mean. This a pocket size booklet that every patriotic American should own and distribute to friends and relatives. Find out more and how to order it at:  Constitutional Law Alliance
Check out my radio talk show every week called "Our Constitution" at: http://www.americaswebradio.com/showpages/OurConstitution.php "


Posted November 14, 2013
In August 2009 I read and analyzed the 1100 pages of HR 3200 that was the original version of the Affordable Care Act. I wrote an article about the proposed legislation that became the first one posted on this blog. That article has recently resurfaced several times and gone viral as an email.

Of course, it was no aboutt the version of the law that finally passed, that version originated in the U.S. Senate and was H.R. 3590, originally a House bill on a totally unrelated matter. This was one of the first ruses by the Democrats designed to bypass the Constitutional requirement that all revenue bills begin in the House.

In my original article titled “The Truth About the Health Care Bills” I stated that “The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.” I was attacked by the left immediately for making inaccurate claims about what the bill said, yet everything I predicted has either happened or is in the process of being implemented.

I also concluded in that original article that “this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.”        

In addition, I stated that “This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.”

H.R. 3590 is over 2700 pages and in many respects is worse than the original version. It establishes 138 new federal commissions and agencies; all under the control of Obama. The law is being used to violate the 1st Amendment rights of religious institutions and religious owners of businesses. It violates the 4th Amendment by giving the IRS access to our personal information, and we all know how careful it is with such information.

As for Obama’s promises, people are losing their insurance that they were told they could keep and they will also lose their doctors. But, of course, our President has fixed that. His majesty has ordered insurance companies to renew the policies, but just until after the 2014 elections. That is the way this President fixes things for the American people.

Now, how is he going to fix the lie that insurance premiums would go down when they are going up, and the lie that health care costs would go down when they are rising? Then there is the lie that thousands of new jobs would be created in the health care industry when in fact almost 50,000 health care workers have been laid off so far this year. Of course, new jobs as navigators are being created for Obama loyalists in Acorn, Planned Parenthood, and the Urban League. Navigators for a system that doesn’t work.

Thus, I reiterate what I said in 2009. This law was never about providing affordable health care to Americans; it was and still is about giving the Federal government power to control the lives of Americans. The ACA was designed to fail so the ultimate goal can be achieved, total government control over healthcare, i.e. socialized medicine.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Monday, November 11, 2013

Couple owes $53,000 after welfare fraud, judge decrees/Ex-caseworker, husband get jail terms for welfare scam

Couple owes $53,000 after welfare fraud, judge decrees

District Judge Brian Flynn has ruled a former Mesa County Department of Human Services caseworker and her husband must repay $53,512 in restitution stemming from one of the largest welfare fraud prosecutions in Mesa County’s history.
Aurora residents Venica Padilla, 42, and her husband, Tony Padilla Jr., 46, will owe the combined restitution to the Mesa County Department of Human Services, Flynn said in an order issued Friday.
The Padillas had disputed the District Attorney Office’s request for full restitution in the case.
The Padillas were charged in September 2011 of defrauding an adoption subsidy program of more than $53,000 by claiming they were financially supporting two adopted daughters between September 2003 and November 2009, according to arrest warrant affidavits.
An investigation showed the Padillas took assistance despite the fact the two girls in question weren’t living in their home, the affidavits said. They didn’t financially support the girls’ caretakers, either, prosecutors alleged.
In his written order, Flynn said examination of the case by Department of Human Services fraud investigator Susan Skyberg was “well thought-out and thorough.”
“Her conclusions with regard to the amount of restitution being sought on behalf of the Mesa County Department of Human Services are supported by the results of her investigation,” the judge said.
The couple, both free on bond, are scheduled to be sentenced Wednesday in Flynn’s courtroom.
Both pleaded guilty in January to single counts of felony theft under plea agreements with the District Attorney’s Office. Venica Padilla’s plea agreement each call for probation and a four-year deferred judgment. The deferred judgment means she could potentially erase the conviction if she stays out of trouble over the next four years..
Tony Padilla’s plea agreement calls for probation.
The Mesa County Department of Human Services said the Padilla case, when filed in September 2011, was believed to be the largest public-assistance fraud investigated by the agency and referred for prosecution.
Venica Padilla, a senior case manager with the Department of Human Services’ child welfare division, was employed by Mesa County for 13 years before leaving in October 2010, approximately two months after she was first questioned in the fraud investigation. She was a case manager between March 1994 and April 2005, before rejoining the organization in May 2007.
Padilla also worked one year for the child welfare division of the Colorado Department of Human Services.
Gordon Gallagher, Tony Padilla’s attorney, declined comment Monday when contacted about Flynn’s restitution order.
Attorney Andrew Peters, who represents Venica Padilla, couldn’t immediately be reached.

GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado — A former Mesa County Department of Human Services caseworker and her husband have been sentenced to jail terms for welfare fraud.
Venica Padilla was sentenced to 30 days in the Mesa County jail, while her husband, Tony Padilla Jr., was given a 90-day sentence on Wednesday.
According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the Padillas were charged in 2011 with defrauding an adoption subsidy program of more than $53,000 by claiming they were financially supporting two adopted daughters between September 2003 and November 2009. Investigators determined the girls were not living in their home.
Tony Padilla received a longer jail sentence because he had been convicted of four prior felonies.

 * I trust the judge knew what he was doing... but 30 days in county jail and a 90 day sentence for this felony? And this guy already had four prior felonies. Sounds like a repeat felon to me. 90 days?

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Mom gets children; DCF gets skewered

Miami Herald
Posted on Fri, Nov. 08, 2013
By Carol Marbin Miller

 " ... A young Miami mom was stripped of the right to raise her four children. The father of the youngest child was allowed to keep the girl.
Just another day in child-welfare court.
But then a child welfare judge in Miami discovered information that troubled him: A social worker who gave damaging testimony against the woman — while lavishing praise on the father — had had sex with the father, at least according to the man himself. Another case worker whose testimony also was damaging to the mother had told colleagues she wanted to adopt her children after the mother lost all rights to them.
Calling the actions of the two child welfare workers — as well as their bosses and lawyers — “reprehensible” and “manifestly unconscionable,” the judge returned the four children to their mother this week. In a 40-page order tinged with anger, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael A. Hanzman said the reversal was necessary in order to undo a miscarriage of justice.
Hanzman, who presides over child welfare cases in Miami’s Allapattah juvenile courthouse, wrote that the woman could not have received a fair trial because state child welfare “agents withheld information that demonstrated bias on the part of two material witnesses.”
The Department of Children & Families “and its cadre of private sector agents are a collective prosecutorial arm of the state, charged with a public trust,” Hanzman wrote in the order, signed Tuesday. “The constitutional rights of the families brought into our dependency courts depend upon the faithful and impartial exercise of that trust. When it is betrayed — as it was in this case — due process is denied.”
The mother, Hanzman added, “was entitled to a fair trial. She instead received the ‘parental death penalty’ in a proceeding infected by bias and conflict…The parties prosecuting her knew the process was contaminated, but took no corrective action. The fact that the lives of this family would be permanently altered — and the mother’s constitutional rights severed — was of no moment. The state simply trampled on those constitutional rights in its zeal to win at all costs.”
Child welfare officials in Miami-Dade had some harsh words in return for the judge. They said he had just recently ignored warnings from them and left an infant in the care of a relative who accidentally smothered him.
The woman at the center of the controversy, and her children, are not being named by the Miami Herald to protect their privacy.
Neither of the caseworkers named in Hanzman’s order — “lead witness” Tatiana Ashley and Michelle Sales, both of the CHARLEE foster care program — remain with CHARLEE, said a spokeswoman for the Our Kids agency, which oversees private child welfare programs in Miami under contract with DCF. Ashley was fired for “performance” issues unrelated to Hanzman’s order, and Sales resigned, the spokeswoman said.
Neither woman could be reached by the Herald for comment.
DCF’s ethics watchdog cleared the two women of wrongdoing in a lengthy report last August.
The Inspector General was asked to investigate the mother’s claims in January by an Our Kids’ regional manager. The IG, Christopher T. Hirst, concluded the mother’s allegations regarding Ashley could not be substantiated without a witness to the alleged affair. Likewise, Hirst wrote that there was no proof that Sales lied on the witness stand, and that her desire to foster or adopt the children did not create a conflict of interest.
DCF’s interim secretary, Esther Jacobo, who was leading DCF’s Miami district when much of the controversy unfolded, said Friday her agency is most concerned with the future welfare of the mother’s children — not with what has already occurred.
“The claims of unethical behavior by these caseworkers were thoroughly investigated by the DCF inspector general and not substantiated. Now, two years later, our attention must be centered on these children — their safety, security and emotional health. With all the information and facts in hand, my sincere hope is that the judge will do what is best for the safety and well-being of these children.”
Hanzman’s return of the four children occurs at a time of deep animosity between the judge and Miami child welfare administrators.
Earlier this week, a Miami infant born with medical concerns owing to his mother’s drug use died at the home of his adult half-sister in Broward. Hanzman, records show, sent the boy to live with his half-sister over the objections of DCF lawyers, an Our Kids foster care provider and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, which had conducted a study of the woman’s home and concluded she was not fit to care for the boy. Records suggest the half-sister may have accidentally smothered the infant while sleeping with him on a couch.
The mother at the center of Hanzman’s order this week emerged from a troubled home herself, sources told the Herald. Now 23, the woman “aged out” of foster care at age 19 with four small children, and sources say DCF continues to harbor serious concerns about her ability to raise the kids.
In July 2010, the agency’s hotline received a report that the mom and the youngest child’s father had an altercation. The children remained “safely” in the mother’s care, the judge wrote, until March 2011, when a relative complained that the father had pulled a gun on him.
When DCF was alerted to the incident by the mother, the agency placed all four children in foster care. Two months after that — and after the mom had mostly completed a laundry list of tasks designed to improve her parenting skills — the woman was arrested on a shoplifting charge. DCF abruptly reversed course, filing a petition to terminate the woman’s parental rights.
The mother, a petition said, had been “unable to gain the necessary insight required” to safely parent her children.
At trial in August 2011, Ashley, the case worker, testified that, while the mom had completed parenting, domestic violence and anger classes, and although she was “bonded” with her children, Ashley had “concerns as to her parenting,” the judge wrote.
As to the youngest girl’s father, the one who had allegedly wielded a gun, Ashley was far more complimentary. She testified that he was always “appropriate” in his visits with the little girl, and that she had no concerns about his parenting skills. Ashley recommended that he retain rights to the now-4-year-old daughter.
Sales, the order said, worked with the mother and her kids from October 2010 through the following January. Sales dropped the case, she testified, because she became fearful of the mother following a fight she witnessed between the mother and another woman. The mother insists that no such incident occurred, the judge wrote.
At a hearing on the mother’s concerns over the fairness of her trial, and in comments to the inspector general, Ashley strongly denied having a sexual relationship with the father. The father himself acknowledged the affair. The caseworker had begun “flirting” with him “while the two were in her car discussing what he had to do to get his daughter back,” the man testified. “They eventually wound up in the back seat having intercourse,” Hanzman wrote.
And, although the inspector general wrote that there were no witnesses, the father’s brother testified that he was at his mother’s house when the father and Ashley were in a bedroom having sex.
The mother of the children arrived at the father’s house in August 2011 while he and Ashley were “fooling around” in a back bedroom, the father testified. The father’s brother alerted him that the mother was walking up the stairs to see him. She confronted the couple and hit the father with a mop stick, the judge’s order said.
The caseworker, the father testified, told him that neither she nor CHARLEE were eager to sever his rights to the youngest child. He said he failed to disclose the sexual relationship out of fear that it would interfere with his custody rights.
As to Sales, numerous people — including several employees of CHARLEE — testified that she wanted to adopt the children.
So concerned were CHARLEE administrators about Sales’ desire to adopt the kids that they asked an Our Kids boss if it made sense to transfer the case to another foster care agency “to avoid any kind of conflict of interest.” The administrator, Hanzman wrote, refused the transfer request. Another judge who was presiding over the case was never told about the alleged conflict.
That omission, Hanzman wrote, “can only be charitably characterized as blatant incompetency.”... "

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/08/v-print/3740811/mom-gets-children-dcf-gets-skewered.html#storylink=cpy

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Saturday, November 9, 2013

A Republic, Not A Democracy. New Deal or Double Dealing?

" ... It was under Wilson that the first huge legislative steps to break down what the Romans would have called "our mixed constitution" of a republic, and convert it into the homogenous jelly of a democracy, got under way with such measures as the direct election of Senators. And it was under Wilson that the first great propaganda slogan was coined and emblazoned everywhere, to make Americans start thinking favorably of democracies and forget that we had a republic. This was, of course,
the slogan of the first World War: "To make the world safe for democracy." If enough Americans had, by those years, remembered enough of their own history, they would have been worrying about how to make the world safe from democracy. But the great deception and the great conspiracy were already well under way.

New Deal or Double Dealing?

The conspirators had to proceed slowly and patiently, nevertheless, and to have their allies and dupes do the same. For in the first place the American people could not have been swept too fast and too far in this movement without enough alarms being sounded to be heard and heeded. And in the second place, after the excitement of World War I had sunk into the past, and America was returning to what Harding called "normalcy," there was a strong revulsion against the whole binge of demagoguery and crackpot idealism which had been created under Woodrow Wilson, and which had been used to give us this initial push on the road towards ultimate disaster. And during this period from 1920 until the so-called great depression could be deliberately accentuated, extended, and increased to suit the purposes of the Fabian conspirators, there was simply a germi-nation period for the seeds of destruction which the conspirators had planted.

Not until Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power in 1933 did the whole Communist-propelled and Communist-managed drive again begin to take visible and tangible and positive steps in their program to make the United States ultimately succumb to a one-world Communist tyranny. Most conservative Americans are today well aware of many of those steps and of their significance; but there are still not enough who realize how important to Communist plans was the two-pronged drive to convert the American republic into a democracy and to make the American people accept the change without even knowing there had been one. From 1933 on, however, that drive and that change moved into high gear, and have been kept there ever since. ... "

There is an eight page PDF titled:

"Robert Welch founded The John Birch Society in 1958 and led it until just prior to his death in 1985. This essay was first delivered as a speech at the Constitution Day luncheon of We, The People in Chicago, on September 17, 1961.
The principles he espoused in that speech are timeless. The American Republic will endure only so long as those principles
are sufficiently understood by each succeeding generation of Americans."


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Veterans of the USA - The Goads

This is a classic tribute to the many men and women who have gone before us.
We take this moment to say, THANK YOU, for FREEDOM in the U.S.A.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Sunday, September 15, 2013

WND EXCLUSIVE. Federal database to include your children? Regulations creating repository for 'every public school student's personal information'

The federal government is laying the foundation for a national database that could include all of the personal details of every student in every public school in every state, warns a report by the leading homeschool advocacy group.

The report, compiled by Will Estrada and Katie Tipton of the Home School Legal Defense Association, points out that a “slew of new federal incentives and federally funded data models have spurred states to monitor students’ early years, performance in college, and success in the workforce by following ‘individuals systematically and efficiently across state lines.’”

The authors “believe that this expansion of state databases is laying the foundation for a national database filled with personal student data.”

The report notes that the U.S. Department of Education is banned by law from creating a national data system, but under the Obama administration, new regulations have opened the door.

Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, parents were promised they could access their children’s personally identifiable information collected by schools. But the schools were banned from sharing the details with third parties.

The law explains that personally identifiable information includes names of family members, address, Social Security number, date and place of birth, disciplinary record and biometric record.

The new report says, however, the Department of Education has reshaped FERPA through regulations so that “any government or private entity that the department says is evaluating an education program has access to students’ personally identifiable information.”

Postsecondary institutes and workforce education programs can also be given the data.

While the change has prompted a still-unresolved lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the framework of a national database slowly is slowly being implemented, the report says.

The Home School Legal Defense Association has long opposed the creation of a national database.

“We believe that it would threaten the privacy of students, be susceptible to abuse by government officials or business interests, and jeopardize student safety,”  the report says. “We believe that detailed data systems are not necessary to educate young people. Education should not be an Orwellian attempt to track students from preschool through assimilation into the workforce.”

The report points out that guidelines for building state longitudinal data systems that can collect and link personally identifiable information across state lines have been released by task forces funded by both the Department of Education and special interest groups

Many of the recommendations were compiled in the National Education Data Model, a project funded by the Department of Education and overseen by the Council for Chief State School Officers, one of the organizations that created Common Core.

Already, 18 states and many local education agencies are building databases, the report says, and other states are using similar database models.

“Concentrating data collection around a few models means that states are getting closer and closer to keeping the same data and using the some interoperable technology to store it,” HSLDA reports.

The report says 46 states now have databases that can track students from preschool through the workforce.

Several other federal programs also are pushing the creation of databases, including Race to the Top, which was to allocate $4.35 billion to schools that make “certain changes” in their policies, including the adoption of the Common Core initiative, which seeks to standardize curricula nationally.

“Every state that agrees to the Common Core in order to receive RTTT funding also commits ‘to design, develop, and implement statewide P-20 (preschool through workforce) longitudinal data systems’ that can be used in part or in whole by other states,” the report says.

HSLDA warns that the “heavy involvement of the federal government in enticing states to create databases of student-specific data that are linked between states is creating a de facto centralized database.”

“Before our eyes a ‘national database’ is being created in which every public school student’s personal information and academic history will be stored,” the report says.

The authors of Common Core, the report notes, “have been heavily involved in developing data models and overseeing data collection.”

The impact might someday be measured in lost dreams and evaporated opportunities, the report suggests.

“A crucial part of the responsibility of parents is protecting the privacy of their children. This enables parents not only to guard their children’s physical safety, but also to nurture their individuality and secure opportunities for them to pursue their dreams apart from government interference,” the report says.

“The rise of national databases threatens these freedoms.”


1. What is the Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards (“the Common Core”) are two sets of K–12 academic standards that outline what students are expected to learn in English language arts and mathematics each year from kindergarten through high school. The goal of this checklist is not literacy, proficiency, or increased graduation rates but to make students “college- and career-ready.”1 The Common Core was written by the National Governors Association (NGA)—an organization of governors, their head staff members, and policy makers—and the Council of Chief State School Officials (CCSSO). States receive Race to the Top (RTTT) federal funding for committing to adopt and implement the Common Core and to collect student data from preschool through the workforce. Read the topic paper >>

2. Is the Common Core already being implemented?

3. How is the federal government involved in the Common Core?

4. Does the Common Core have a philosophical bias?

5. Does the Common Core provide for individualized education?

6. Is there any evidence that centralized education works better than decentralized education?

7. Will the Common Core impact homeschools and private schools?

8. Does the Common Core lead to a national curriculum?

9. Does it matter that testing is being aligned with the Common Core?

10. Does the Common Core include a national database?

11. Who supports the Common Core and why?

12. Who opposes the Common Core and why?

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Friday, September 13, 2013


Purpose vs. Power: Parens Patriae and Agency Self-Interest

Daniel L. Hatcher

University of Baltimore - School of Law


New Mexico Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, p. 159, 2012


The purpose of human service agencies to serve vulnerable populations such as abused and neglected children derives from the common law doctrine of parens patriae, embodying the inherent role of the state as parent of the country. However, along with this foundational purpose, the parens patriae doctrine also provides power that is illusive to public knowledge and oversight. To maintain their cloak of power, the very agencies created to fulfill the parens patriae obligations — to protect the rights of children — have systematically battled the children’s efforts to claim those rights as their own. Also, the agencies have now come to view their child beneficiaries as a source of revenue. As the agencies continue to face bleak budget outlooks, anti-tax sentiment, and the desire to cut state spending, revenue maximization strategies have led to conflicts between the obligation to serve the interests of children and the fiscal interests of agency self-preservation and growth. Considering just one of the agency practices of treating children as a revenue source, foster care agencies across the country are taking over a quarter of a billion dollars each year from foster children in their care. Part I of the article describes the conflict between parens patriae purpose and power in its historical, theoretical, and practical context. Part II exposes the details of self-interested fiscal pursuits of human services agencies. Part III explains the additional layers of interrelationships between the agencies and the federal government, the poverty industry, and their parent states that both heighten and further complicate the conflict. The article concludes with recommendations to restore purity to parens patriae, both in theory and in agency application.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 44

It can be downloaded from HERE.

It can also be read from "My library of publications". It is labeled: "Purpose vs. Power..." on the book shelf in the right hand column of this page.

*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

Thursday, September 12, 2013


It's amazing that what Paul Harvey predicted in 1965 has come true today. 


*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207