Organized Crime in Child Protective Services

Organized Crime in Child Protective Services
(90 minutes)

Listen to internet radio with Marti Oakley on Blog Talk Radio

James Roger Brown from The Sociology Center joins the show this evening to discuss the organized crime rings operating in Child Protective Services.  Federal funding dependent on a quota system plays a large role in the abduction and kidnapping of children from their homes to then be placed in foster care for profit.
We will also cover Mr. Brown's "The Family Defense Manual", a book he has published with essential tools for protecting you and your family from state actors and agencies in complete violation of the law.
http://www.thesociologycenter.com/
1. Services that detect and document pseudoscience, science fraud, structural corruption and organized crime in government agencies and programs; 2. Specialized knowledge publications such as THE ESSENTIAL SKILLS OF CRITICAL THINKING for Home Schooling parents and other parents who want to enhance their children's skills for college, and THE FAMILY DEFENSE MANUAL, the only publication that integrates corporate legal strategy and model legal forms designed to discourage false child abuse allegations being made or pursued by corrupt or extremist government employees; 3. Application of advanced intelligence collection and analysis methodology;
BIO: James Roger Brown, Sociologist, Intelligence Collection and Analysis Methodologist
Called by some “The most dangerous mind in North America,” Roger’s general field is sociology of knowledge with specializations in the sociology of intelligence operations, cultural reality models, and how cultures define and relate to the spiritual world.
THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN
P.O. Box 101
Worthington, KY 41183-0101
(606) 836-7613

List of US Federal Government Funding Programs

Total Funding  $1,974,042,215,500

Programs   1607

Justin Heminger, Jaylene Day, judy ringstad, bruce downs, Kelly Anderson, Katie Dabney, Fairbanks office of childrens services.
*The posts made in this blog are of our opinion only* Without Prejudice UCC 1-207

NH Supreme Court: Parental Alienation Inimical to Child’s Best Interests

NH Supreme Court: Parental Alienation Inimical to Child’s Best Interests

April 4th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
This case is excellent, not only because of its result, but mostly because of its sound analysis.  It should serve as a template for courts not only here in the U.S. but in other countries as well.
It comes to us from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire and analyzes a situation in which false allegations of child sexual abuse were used by a mother to deprive a father of contact with his children.  It’s a familiar pattern of facts and altogether too rare an outcome.
In 1999, James Miller met Janet Todd online.  They developed a relationship and, although they never married, had two daughters.  Laurel was born in 2002 and Lindsey in 2003.  Ultimately, a New Hampshire court awarded joint custody with Todd as primary custodian and Miller with visitation rights.
But early on, Todd’s mother claimed she had seen Miller sexually abusing Laurel.  Thus began a long series of allegations of child sexual abuse against Miller.  They were still going on as late as March, 2009, some five years after the first one.
Each and every claim was investigated; each and every claim was determined to be unfounded.  As part of the investigations, the girls were subjected to invasive pelvic examinations at least twice each.
False though the allegations were, they served a purpose; they caused the New Hampshire family court to suspend Miller’s parenting time with his children throughout the course of the proceedings.  That meant that, for over two years, he had no contact with his daughters and they none with him.
Eventually, in July, 2006, the court ordered psychologist Dr. Peggie Ward to thoroughly examine Miller, Todd, the girls and the family situation to determine issues of custody, alienation, sexual abuse, etc.  It took Ward 17 months to produce her 88-page report which the court found to be “extraordinarily thorough.”
What Ward concluded was that there was no reliable evidence of sexual abuse by Miller.  She also concluded that Todd had probably not set out to deliberately alienate the girls from their father; that probably originated with Todd’s mother.  The problem stemmed not only from the various claims of abuse, but from Todd’s almost total inability to accurately process everyday occurrences.

[p]sychological testing shows that Ms. Todd has a “serious
impairment in her ability to accurately process the information she takes in from her surroundings and the degree of misperception she demonstrates has major implications for her adaptive functioning. Ms. Todd’s level of distortion is substantial and predisposes her to misunderstanding and misconstruing intentions, motivations and actions of other people. This places her at great risk for faulty judgment, for errors in decision-making, and for behaving in ways that are based on inaccurate information.  These data indicate that Ms. Todd will not only fail to recognize or foresee the consequences of her actions at times, but that she will also become confused at times in separating fantasy from reality.”

In other words, Todd was unable to sort out false allegations from real ones.  Into the bargain, Todd failed to protect her daughters from her own feelings and fears about what she thought may be happening, thereby perpetuating the girls’ own confusion about the nature of what daddy had or had not done.
So, given years of false allegations against Miller and the manifest inability by Todd to (a) distinguish fantasy from reality and (b) promote a healthy relationship between Miller and his daughters, the trial court did what so many of them do; it gave custody to the children’s mother.
That violated New Hampshire law which requires parents to promote positive relationships between the opposite parent and the children.  It also ignored the rather startling fact that Todd’s emotional problems posed obvious risks for any child in her care.
So why did the court give her custody?  Because the kids had been with her for several years during which time they’d had no contact with Miller.  They’d developed friendships at school and so, according to the court, their “best interests” required them to see little or nothing of their father, depending on the decisions of their clearly unbalanced mother.
If that makes sense to you, please explain it to me.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court squashed that one like a bug.  Its opinion grasps what so many courts do not – that continuing, deep and rich relationships with both parents are in the child’s best interests.  The mother’s obstruction of  such relationships between the children and the father is per se not in their best interests.
Why that should be so difficult to understand is beyond me.  The statutes of New Hampshire make it clear as do the statutes and courts of other jurisdictions.  The court said:

“Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.”

And yet time and again, courts ignore statute and case law and look only at the fact that the child has been separate from the father for a certain period of time.  They then conclude that the he cannot have future contact or that it must be limited, without ever noticing how his lack of contact came about.
The New Hampshire court specifically objected to the concept that Todd had “benefitted from her own misbehavior.”  That’s a concept I’ve waited many years to hear a court articulate.  For as long as I’ve been a student and advocate of fathers’ rights, I’ve been astonished at courts’ willingness to ignore mothers’ wrongdoing in order to grant them custody.  That happens as a matter of routine in adoption cases.
What Miller v. Todd does is to show that the requirement on the part of each parent to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent is necessary and beneficial to the child.  It also shows that courts will not reward the alienating behavior of parents.
And that, in a nutshell, is how courts should rule in these cases.  They should make it clear that false allegations of abuse are not acceptable and that they will not be used to benefit the alienating parent.
It’s a simple concept that more courts need to grasp.

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

CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PARENT vs. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Child Protective Services Manual

 3.9.1  PREPARATION FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

AUTHORITY:  AS 25.23.180 Relinquishment and Termination of Parent and Child Relationships,
AS 25.23.130(c) Effect of Adoption Decree
, AS 47.10.089 Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental
Rights and Responsibilities, 25 U.S.C. 1913 (a) & (c), 1915 (P. L. 95-608, Sec. 103(a)(c), Sec. l05
(a)(c)(d)(e); Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978).AS 47.10.

PURPOSE:  To  provide guidelines for the voluntary relinquishment by a parent.

h. When parents have relinquished their parental rights with the understanding that their child will be adopted by a specific person, the worker will notify them if the proposed placement fails. The requirement to notify the parents applies from the time of the relinquishment until the adoption is finalized, even after termination of parental rights. After receiving notice that the proposed placement has failed, a parent may notify OCS, in writing, of a desire to withdraw the relinquishment. If the parent does not submit such notice to OCS within 30 days of being notified of the failed placement, OCS is not required to have any further contact with the parent. The parent’s request to withdraw the relinquishment is not automatically granted. OCS decides whether to consent to the withdrawal or not, based on the circumstances of the case. Consents for withdrawal must be approved and signed by the Children’s Services Manager.

 3.9.2  CONSENT TO ADOPTION BY PARENT

AUTHORITY:  AS 25.23.060 Execution of Consent; consent as power of attorney, AS 25.23.070
Withdrawal of Consent, AS 47.10.086(b) Reasonable Efforts, 25 U.S.C. 1913 (P. L. 95-608 Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978).

PURPOSE:  To provide guidelines on the Consent to Adoption by Parent process as an alternative to a relinquishment.

DEFINITION: Consent to adoption by parent(s) is a voluntary agreement signed by the child’s parent in which the parent agrees that adoption is best for the child. The child’s birth parent does not relinquish their rights to the child; instead the parent is able to formally consent to the adoption of their child. The consent to the adoption by the parent is often a thoughtful decision by the parent who feels that the child will benefit from adoption.

b. For ICWA cases, the parents may change their mind and withdraw the consent to adoption anytime before the finalization of the adoption. This must be done through a written notice to the department, or to the court.

 d. In the consent to adopt, the parent will retain residual rights to the child up to the finalization of the adoption. Once the decree for adoption is signed by the court, the birth parent’s rights are terminated at the same time.

e. The decision to consider consent to adoption by parent rather than a relinquishment or termination of parental rights must be based on what is in the best interest of the child. Additionally, the decision to pursue consent to adoption by parent must be discussed by the Permanency Planning Conference team.

 PROCEDURES: 

b. Consent to adoption by a parent can be considered in cases in which there is agreement on the child’s adoptive placement. Any contacts after the adoption between the child and birth parents are at the discretion of the adoptive parents, unless otherwise legally agreed upon between parties.

 d. The OCS will work with the parent(s) and the parent’s attorney to have the parent sign the consent to adoption by parent. The parent must be fully informed that in signing the consent to adopt by parent, the parent is consenting to the permanent adoption of the child with an identified adoptive family. Additionally, the worker will inform the parent that the residual rights to consent to marriage, military enlistment, non-emergency medical care, visitation, and adoption, as well as the residual responsibility of child support continue until the point that the adoption is finalized. The parent must also be fully informed that once the adoption is finalized, the parent’s rights to the child are terminated based on the decree of adoption or birth certificate.

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

The Schoolyard-Bully

Here is a cute little quote I found. I thought I would post it. It is an interesting little tid-bit that can be read into any way you choose.

 In an era of high education and specialty degrees—from psychology to political science—perhaps it was inevitable for simple common sense to fall by the wayside. To understand all this, one need only turn to the classic “schoolyard bully” paradigm, that any child can understand.

Not especially large or strong, the schoolyard bully—generally a prickly, nasty fellow—picks on two groups: 1) those who are obviously weaker than him and 2) those who, while larger or stronger than him, willingly give in to him—willingly appease. Bullying the first group, the weak, is an easy matter for the bully. As for the second group, whose capacities and responses are unclear, these he must first determine through a few bully trial-runs—to see whether they will fight back, or whether they will give in. He begins small—a shove and harsh word here and there—and takes it from there, always seeing how far he can go.

The bully will receive one of two responses from the second group, those not smaller or weaker than him: either appeasement and giving in, or a punch to the nose. If he receives the former, he continually ups the bullying to see how much more he can get away with: harsh words and shoves become demands for lunch money and stolen jackets. His work becomes complete with the absolute subordination of his victim.

 As for the one who does not put up with his bullying—who gives him a swift punch to the nose—not only does the bully leave him be, he even begins to respect if not befriend him.

 (Beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing!)

 For centuries, people from all walks of life knew this—from experience if not common sense. Children knew it.

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

Child Protective Services and the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution

From  http://voices.yahoo.com/child-protective-services-sixth-amendment-2744288.html
Published by MD Lynn

 The United States of America's citizens have a Bill of Rights granted to us in the US Constitution. Of these rights, I've regularly written about violations, such as my articles where many public school districts require children and parents to waive their Fourth Amendment rights in order to receive a free public education.
Today, I want to tackle the US Sixth Amendment and Child Protective Services. First, let me start with the Sixth Amendment. Many of you probably know this as the 'Right to a speedy trial amendment'. However, there is much more to the Sixth Amendment than that.
Let's look at the text first: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
The part I want to focus on in this article is the bolded part that reads: "... to be confronted with the witnesses against him..."
Child Protective Services Procedure
There are many ways a report of alleged child abuse can occur. The only proper way is for the person suspecting the abuse to notify local law enforcement officers and let them investigate the crime. If the law enforcement officer believes there is enough evidence a crime has occurred, that officer can bring in Child Protective Services to offer services to the family.
Unfortunately, it usually happens the other way around. Generally, people report child abuse directly to CPS, and more often than not, they use the toll-free anonymous hotlines. The problem with anything that is 'anonymous' is that anyone, for any reason (including nefarious reasons) can report a suspicion of alleged abuse.
How Anonymous CPS Hotlines Circumvent the Sixth Amendment Rights
The Sixth Amendment provides that people have a right to face their accuser. In the instance of a CPS anonymous telephone report, there is no ability to face an accuser. CPS will use whatever information gathered in the hotline report to conduct their investigation, and any evidence found against the alleged perpetrator of child abuse or neglect is offered to the courts.
How this circumvents the Sixth Amendment is by letting CPS do the investigation, they are then using what is found in the investigation as the evidence against the alleged perpetrator, thus making CPS the accuser instead of the anonymous tipster.
CPS Doesn't Have the Right to Investigate
This is where knowing your rights becomes so very important. CPS does not have the right to investigate a family or children based on an anonymous CPS hotline phone call. They can attempt to perform an investigation, and if the parents or legal guardian allow them to by consenting to the investigation, they can use anything they gather or see during the investigation against the accused.
However, if all CPS has to go on is an anonymous phone call placed to a CPS hotline, and the parent or legal guardian refuses to cooperate, the only things CPS can do at that point is call law enforcement, get a court order (without evidence, this is tough) or close the case uninvestigated. This is true even when the tipster is not anonymous, because anything the tipster says to CPS is hearsay until investigated or proven by some other means, and that other means is usually found during the investigation that isn't required to happen.
Hearsay Is Inadmissible in Court
Because the accused has a right to confront their accuser, as provided in the Sixth Amendment, hearsay is not admissible in court. Therefore, CPS cannot use information gained from a CPS hotline call as evidence in court for 'probable cause' to get an order to enter a home or remove a child.
You Can Give Up Your Rights
CPS will not tell you the legalese of the pamphlets and brochures they give you, but it comes down to this: you don't have to let them in your home, you don't have to let them talk to your child, and you do not have to cooperate with a CPS investigation.
You do, however, have to cooperate with a police investigation. This is usually how CPS intimidates parents into cooperating. They will show up at your door with a police officer and ask to be let in to discuss things with you. Your response at that point should be, "I would be happy to comply, if you have a court order. Do you have an order to enter my home and search it and speak to my child?"
If their answer is, "No," your response should be: "I'm sorry, then. I cannot let you enter. Thank you." Then close the door. A police officer might come with them, but that officer knows as well as you should that he can't force his way into your home. He's there for their safety and for the intimidation factor the gun and badge and uniforms brings for the social worker with CPS.
If I'm Not Guilty...
Many people wonder why they should refuse an investigation with CPS if they know they aren't guilty. Many mistakenly assume that if they aren't doing anything wrong, nothing bad can happen to them. There are entire websites and programs and groups dedicated to the very fact that CPS can indeed find something wrong if they want to find it, even if the child is not abused or neglected.
It is in CPS's best interests to find something wrong with your household. They get paid for it if they do. If you refuse investigation by CPS, they will have no choice but to get law enforcement involved and go before a judge to get a court order.
The courts know that unless there is physical evidence to show justifiable cause that a crime of child abuse or neglect has occurred, they cannot allow CPS or law enforcement to enter your home (that's your Fourth Amendment right). The courts also know that if the only evidence CPS has is a phone call to a hotline reporting alleged abuse, that is not enough evidence to issue a court order to come into your home.
If you don't allow CPS into your home, they cannot gather evidence to use against you in a court case, and thus, you maintain your Sixth Amendment rights to face your accuser (in this case the caller/reporter of alleged abuse). Because CPS can't reveal the person, or the person refuses to reveal themselves, CPS has no choice but to close the case and leave you alone.
Protect Your Rights but Be Calm and Professional
An accusation of child abuse is stressful and frustrating at best. Please try not to take it personally, even though it might feel personal to you. CPS employees are only doing their jobs, and some of the workers do still believe they are doing the right thing and protecting children. Remember, even the employees of CPS are victims of the system for which they work. However, they do know what your rights are, and they will try to circumvent those rights as much as possible in order to do their jobs. It's not personal to most of them; it's just a job.
Stand your ground. Invoke your rights. Tell them you are not guilty, but you also know your legal rights and you choose to invoke them. If it makes you feel better, and you can afford it, contact an attorney. CPS doesn't like when attorneys get involved, because they know they have to watch their steps and actually follow the law.
Be firm, but be polite when you turn CPS away from your door. Never raise your voice, never get angry or show anger toward the social worker from CPS, and never threaten them in such a way that they can claim evidence of abuse.
The law is on your side, and it's actually on the side of your children too, if you know how to take advantage of your legal rights and require they are enforced.
Not Condoning Abuse
Please know that I do not in any way condone child abuse and that I'm not trying to say that people who abuse children should not be severely punished and the children protected. What I am saying is that law enforcement is better trained and equipped to deal with allegations and investigations of abuse than a social worker for CPS is, and that law enforcement knows how to handle evidence so that evidence is all admissible in court, so that real abusers don't walk away on a technicality. If you see abuse, don't be afraid to report it immediately to protect that precious child, but be sure to report it to the right agency - law enforcement!
To read more about CPS and your rights as a citizen and parent, see The Truth about Child Protective Services, my other article on this topic.

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

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights (Official Movie)

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

Child Protection Worker

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

Children Just Don't stop Dancing

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

Happy Birthday

To our Grand Children,

Someday... when you kids are old enough to use this and other information to burn the narcissistic ones that destroyed your life for fun and profit, make sure you make it very personal. Name names and institutions responsible. Dead or alive, we will be with you. Sue them for all it's worth and you will be set up for life. Also, let it be known that Gramma and Grampa did indeed wish you a happy birthday on the first year we never saw you on your birthdays. It must be a proud year for the narcissists. No matter what rock they live under or what mask they hide behind.

WE love you,
Gramma and Grampa.


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

Pseudo-Sciences

 The majority of reasonably intelligent people today recognize that Nazi attempts to designate one race as superior to others based on physical racial characteristics was nothing more than superstitious bigotry unsupported by science.  The Nazis actually created a ‘science’ of racial studies, endorsed by ‘experts’ and supported with manufactured ‘scientific evidence,’ in order to support their pet theory that the so-called Aryan race was superior to all others.  They had panels of experts, advisory councils, college courses, and specially trained bureaucrats to develop and implement their ‘racial hygiene’ policies.  This cadre of ‘experts’ would devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize the various racial hygiene programs, including Lebensborn.  Nazi society abounded with popular literature, textbooks, and manuals touting this most important Nazi platform.  Nazi Germany was inundated with racially based propaganda which extolled the virtues of the Aryan and justified the ‘solutions’ imposed on inferior races. 
          Of Pure Blood by Marc Hillel and Clarissa Henry is a 1976 book detailing the Nazi Lebensborn program.  “Doctors specializing in ‘racial knowledge’, all members of the SS or the police, were out in charge of racial testing at the reception centers. . .The children’s heads, bodies, arms and legs were measured, as well as the pelvis in the case of girls and the penis in the case of boys, and they were then divided into three groups: a - those representing a desirable addition to the German populations: b - those representing an acceptable addition to that population, and c - the unwanted. . .More than 200,000 Polish children were thus declared . . to be ‘racially useful’. 
           In the United States, the state cannot legally evaluate a person based on their race, or use physical or racial characteristics to judge them.  CPS agencies use something much more subtle, but no less specious than Nazi racial hygiene measurements; they use psychological measurements to determine how defective (dangerous to his own child) a parent has been or is likely to be.  Under the mechanism of court ordered or coerced ‘voluntary’ psychological evaluations, many parents are being ‘diagnosed’ as a ‘risk’ to their children based on psych eval findings from service providers who are paid for by the state; who conduct their evaluations based on a tainted family history provided by the state; and who, by their own admissions, stand to lose their contract with the state if they submit any findings that are contrary to what the caseworker has ordained.  
          American law has already established protections for persons who are disabled by virtue of their psychology.  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, ( 42 U.S.C 12101, 12102, & 12131 et seq), disability is a physical or mental impairment the substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; having a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. Caring for, nurturing and raising their children is undoubtedly on of the most important major life activities of a parent.  This country, through CPS, has raised psychology to the exalted status of Nazi Racial Studies on no more scientific evidence than the Nazis had to support their theories and programs.  This pseudo-science is used to demonize parents and justify the legal kidnapping of their children in order to satisfy the state’s need for adoptive children.  
          For example, the most popular psychological test given today is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index (MMPI II).  According to one whistle blower evaluator, the completed test is fed into a computer that analyses the responses and returns a list of diagnoses to choose from. It is then up to the evaluator to decide which diagnosis applies to the subject.  This is not a scientifically-based, measurable, objective diagnosis if it is left up the subjective interpretation of the ‘expert.’  The selected diagnosis is based on a gut hunch, intuition, or maybe wishful thinking, or perhaps a state-contracted fee.  Whatever it is based on, it is not based on measurable science in any instance; nor even the most rudimentary common sense in the hands of many self-serving psychological evaluators.  
          Psycho-sexual evaluations for allegations of child sexual abuse are used by caseworkers as tool of making a determination whether or not the accused was a perpetrator.  Many psychological experts will assert that these tools are not designed to be used on anyone who has not admitted guilt.  However, caseworkers continue to use this tool inappropriately to validate allegations.  
          There are volumes of tests employed against parents.  This process is inherently flawed based on the fact that once the children have been taken, the parents are depressed, suspicious, angry, anxious, traumatized, worried, frightened, and more.  Requiring any person to submit to any psychological evaluation under these horrendous emotional circumstances is clearly setting them up for failure.  There is no hope they could present as being ‘normal.’  Naturally, psychological ‘deficiencies’ will show up, and those deficiencies are effectively used by the experts against the parents.  
          However, none of the findings from psychological tests were ever designed to indicate that the parents actually are mentally impaired or that they legitimately justify the application of any psychological label upon the parents.  Experts will admit that the findings of the parents’ tests show that they share some of the same characteristics with others who are so psychologically labeled does not mean that any findings are proof positive that the diagnosis is scientifically accurate.  
          The United States has a powerful industry backing up this ‘science.’  There are schools and seminars that teach and accredit the psychology of child abuse/child abusers; advisory councils against child abuse that advise powerful political figures and who lobby for intrusive and offensive legislation that undermines the sanctity of the family; cadres of ‘experts’ who analyze, devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize child abuse and prevention programs in the private and public sector and whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of this pseudo-science; and millions of service providers who provide ‘voluntary’ or court ordered services and whose livelihoods literally depend on the removal of children from their homes.  There are many ‘expert’ tomes on the subjects of the psychology of children, parents, child abuse, risks of abuse, and prevention of abuse. Parents have no credibility in the face of this multi-billion dollar industry.  
          These people take this pseudo science very seriously, sometimes with deadly consequences.  The May 24, 2000 Rocky Mountain news reported about a therapy technique used on a troubled child in Evergreen, Colorado.  The 10 year-old child had been adopted in 1996 and died as a result of this ‘therapy.’  “Sheriff’s investigators say Watkins and Ponder, both therapists, wrapped Candace in a flannel blanket to simulate a womb that the girl should be “born” from.  Then, in an attempt to mimic birth contractions, all four allegedly pushed against pillows Candace was lying under.  
          “Rebirthing is a controversial technique Watkins has used for about a year.  It is used to treat children who suffer from attachment disorder, which prevents children from bonding with their [adoptive] parents. Critics of the technique call the treatment radical and say it hasn’t been researched well.”  However, these ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge what anyone with common sense can see - that perhaps removing this child from her mother precipitated the attachment disorder in this child; that they caused this child’s psychological problems by employing this pseudo science in the first place.  
          Traditional parenting practices are under massive attack with responsible parents being targeted for their refusal to conform to this pseudo-science.  The ‘virtuous’ parents are those who do not spank or punish or subject their children to any undesirable circumstances such as an argument; and who casually inflict their consciousless brats on decent society saying, “Oh, isn’t my darling so cute?” when he’s really too bratty to bear.  Conspicuous by its absence is any expert acknowledgment for the self-evident consequences of this pseudo-science - as demonstrated by offensive childhood behavior from the regular cacophony of temper tantrums in department stores; to bratty kids running out of control in inappropriate places; to children’s complete lack of respect for others; all the way to the extreme of kids mowing down their classmates with guns because they were ‘teased.’  
          Demonstrating a callous lack of common sense, the practice of this ‘science’ is based on the premise that removing a child from his parents presents less trauma to the child than being merely ‘at risk’ of future abuse if he remained with his family in a dirty house.  People often say, ‘They don’t remove a child for a dirty home!” shocked that anyone could even suggest such a vile act.  But there are volumes of documented cases where not only were the children removed for a dirty home, but parental rights were terminated based on that initial removal and the resultant, non-scientific ‘risk assessment’ administered by the intake caseworker.  


Nazis and CPS by Suzanne Shell 
Pseudo-Sciences
Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children 
Turning Children Against Their Parents
Social Work
Abuse In State Custody
Throw away Children
Returning Children Home
Evaluating The System

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

Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children

  In Of Pure Blood, the authors report “ . . . many Norwegian women were trapped into going to Germany against their will.  The kidnapping process was given a semblance of legality by a Nazi ruling that defied the fundamental laws of a sovereign nation and legalized the separation of mother and child against the mothers’s will.”  
          Heinrich Himmler, in a speech to officers of the Deutschland division, November 8, 1938 stated, “I really intend to take German blood from where it is to be found in the world, to rob and steal it wherever I can.”  Orders were issued to implement this ‘stealing’ of children.  These orders had the force of law in Nazi occupied territories.  
          A Top Secret order, no. 67/1, 1941 from SS Gruppenführer Ulrich Greifelt, head of the Central Office of the SS and SD in Poland ordered: “The children who are recognized as bearers of blood valuable to Germany are to be Germanized. . . .between the ages of six and twelve in state boarding schools, and between ages of two and six with families to be indicated by the Lebensborn society." 
          “ . . .the Lebensborn Society will see to the distribution of these children among the families of childless SS men with a view to subsequent adoption.  The Lebensborn Society will assume guardianship of the children accommodated in the Lebensborn Children’s homes.  
          In a Reichsfürher circular dated June 14, 1941: “I think it right that young children of especially good race belonging to Polish amilies should be gathered together and brought up by us . . .health reasons should be given for taking the children away. . . .After a year consideration should be given to handing such children to be brought in childless families of good race.”   
          Of Pure Blood - “ . . .the Lebensborn organization was the obvious agency for Germanizing the children abducted from Eastern Europe.  The program was initiated as early as 1940 . . . .it was decided, in agreement with the Reichsfürher, that it was preferable for the organization to deal with children under six.  There was a simple reason for this: Whether Polish, Russian or Yugoslav, at this age they would be more receptive to Nazi indoctrination than the older children . . .Because they were so young, they would remember less which would enable Dr. Tesch, the Lebensborn legal expert, to falsify their identify the more completely. . . .By 1941 in Germany, Party and SS members were falling over themselves in their wish to adopt a child of good blood . . .and so demand had outstripped supply.  Withing a few months the round-ups of children in the occupied territories would make it possible to satisfy the demand of childless couples. . .  
          Who were children targeted by the Lebensborn Society?  “. . .all places were children were assembled; children of Polish adoptive parents or unmarried mothers; children having Polish guardians; children of mixed (Polish-German) marriages; children whose parents opposed Germanization; children of mixed marriages whose parents had divorced; children of deported, liquidated, or banished parents (the great majority); children picked up at random; children born in concentration camps, women’s labor camps or children of mothers deported for forced labor; abandoned children; children to whom special orders applied, children sent to Germany for forced labor.”  Danish, English, Russian and other eastern European countries all lost children to this legalized kidnapping campaign.  
          Abducted children were ‘skimmed’ or evaluated according to racial purity, and the acceptable ones, approximately 10%, were Germanized.  The others became slaves of the Reich.  
          “The technique of approaching children in the street did not vary greatly. A hungry child would be offered biscuits (cookies), sweets, sometimes even a bar of chocolate or a slice of bread, thus creating an opportunity to question it about its parents, its home, the color of its brothers’ and sisters’ hair. That same evening they submitted their list of names and addresses to special teams of kidnappers . . .Several days would elapse, and then the child would be taken, the abduction generally taking place at night. The child’s parents would never see it again.  
          “The kidnapping game does not seem to have been played in accordance with any fixed rules. The decision whether a child was to be sent to its death or back to its parents depended on the whim of a medical examiner or even of the SS man on guard at the door.”  
          “. . .in 1942, and 1944 . . .kidnappings [in Russia] grew steadily more numerous. In the street, at school, at home, at kindergartens and even in public parks children were the victims of raids which nobody dared oppose. A climate of terror prevailed. . . .[Kurt Heinze, head the Oberweiss home] escorted whole train-loads of children whom the Lebensborn organization rapidly placed in State schools or families.”  
          One account was remembered by a kidnapped child, “The chief of them immediately insisted that the women, who had a long and tiring journey to a labor camp ahead of them, should let the children go first by bus. . .He also insisted that the mothers should hand over their children voluntarily. Obviously none of the them were willing to be parted from their children. To show he meant business, he fired a shot in the air with his revolver. This of course caused panic among the mothers and children. The Germans took advantage of this to go for the mothers and snatch us from their arms.  
          “Believe me, that was a moment that none of us will ever forget, even in forty of fifty years’ time. It’s like a horrible, brutal film that keeps on passing before our eyes.”  
          According to recent government statistics, 67% of child abuse reports are false right off the top. As much as 60-90% of the ‘substantiated’ reports do not meet the statutory definition of abuse or neglect according to anecdotal data. This happens because parents are poorly represented by counsel and threatened, intimidated or coerced by their attorneys and caseworkers into falsely admitting guilt as a condition of seeing their children. By this action, the parents are forced to give the state legal authority to kidnap and keep their children. Once this occurs, the state does not have to prove the child was abused or neglected in order to terminate parental rights. Parents who do resist find themselves having to prove their innocence in order to win their children back, and it often takes months to accomplish.  
          In America, the presenting incident, which is the report of abuse or neglect, becomes the mechanism to gain access to the child and the family. This is the contemporary ‘skimming’ process. The American CPS ‘skimming’ tool is called a risk assessment. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary concern is now the ‘safety of the child.’ Thus, the mere, speculative risk of abuse or neglect satisfies the legal requirements to take custody of children without any evidence of abuse or neglect. This country has effectively legalized the separation of parent and child against the will of both parents and children.  
          There is a virtual army of people out there looking for children to target. Under mandated reporting laws, anyone who has regular contact with children (teachers, counselors, doctors, dentists, etc.) are required to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The schools are especially effective at reporting suspected child abuse or neglect - not based on statutory definitions but on subjective assessments. They will also provide caseworker access to the children in the school and allow the caseworker to legally ‘kidnap’ the children from the school without notifying the parents, no questions asked. Hospital emergency rooms also provide many children for CPS.  
          There seem to be no fixed rules for determining which children are taken and which are not regardless of statutory requirements. It depends on the whim of the caseworker, many of whom falsify reports in order to support her claims. The children are subjected to intimidating and often professionally incompetent questions by the caseworkers. They will use coercion, threats, leading questions and even lie in order to validate the report of abuse. They excuse these tactics by rationalizing that a child often is unwilling to disclose abuse and they must use pressure to extract an accusation. They also object vehemently to having all interrogations video taped stating that it would traumatize the child. What it would do is expose their incompetence and predispositions.  
          The laws do not allow a caseworker to take a child without a court order. Only police can do that. However, under the color of law, they will often take the children by force. Parents routinely report their children being dragged, screaming, from their arms without having been presented with any evidence of abuse or neglect. Midnight raids on unsuspecting, sleeping families are not uncommon.  
          If an agency suspects the parents might resist their requests to question the children, S.W.A.T. teams have been used to circumvent the fourth amendment in Utah and other states. Michigan is actually considering legislation that allows force if a parent asserts their constitutional rights - which is being defined as uncooperative. One Arizona mother held a police S.W.A.T. Team off for 24 hours until they jumped her and took her toddler by force. All criminal charges were dropped but she never got her daughter back. Her frantic initial phone call to an associate, audio taped before her phone lines were cut, demonstrated her fear as the police kicked their way into her home and pulled weapons on her as she was nursing her baby. 


Nazis and CPS by Suzanne Shell
Pseudo-Sciences
Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children 
Turning Children Against Their Parents
Social Work
Abuse In State Custody
Throw away Children
Returning Children Home
EvaluatingThe System

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

Turning Children Against Their Parents

 We must remember that an important element in brainwashing anyone involves trauma. It’s pretty easy to traumatize a youngster simply by denying him his mom and dad.  
          From Of Pure Blood - “When children were taken for Germanization, “ . . .Psychological methods were used to make a child forget or even hate its parents. He would be told they were dead, and there was nothing honorable about the way they died. The mother would be said to have been of doubtful morality and to have died of tuberculosis, drink or other shameful disease, while the father had died of cancer or drink, or been killed by Polish bandits. The object was to give the child a sense of inferiority about its origins and of gratitude to the Germans who had rescued it from the degeneracy of its home environment.  
          “In the German Federal Republic we met a young woman who, at the age of five, had been taken to a church by the Germans and shown a bishop’s coffin and told it was her mother’s. Some years later the child was traced, but she refused to go back to her mother, who had survived deportation. ‘I had stood by my mother’s coffin once,’ she said, ‘and I did not want to do that again.’”  
          Sigismund Krajeski, born in Poznan on April 17, 1933 told Hillel and Henry, “I was taken by force from my family on 20 May 1943.” He went on to describe what they were told by the Nazis, “. . .The child would be told his parents were dead and that he was going to get new ones.”  
          Mrs. Witaszek, survivor of Auschwitz, whose 4 and 6 year-old daughters were adopted when she was arrested. “Years afterwards my younger daughter told me she had often been kept awake at night, wondering why I had sold her to a foreign family. Did I have so little money that I had to sell her? Children at that age were simply incapable of understanding what had happened to them.”  
          Kidnapped Aryan children would be subjected to intensive German language classes and were forbidden to speak their native language after a couple of weeks. Discipline was described as ‘very, very strict.’  
          Children who refused Germanization had to stay in the chapel “ . . .in the dark on their knees with their arms crossed for hours. They wept, and soon fainted. They were punished like that for saying something in Polish or talking about their parents. They were beaten and deprived of food. But even apart from that, the children were always sad. They lived in fear and were homesick . . .”  
          Many don’t believe we would treat our children so harshly in America. To those I suggest that they talk to the children who have been ‘protected’ by CPS agencies.  
          I have interviewed many former and current foster children. In the most benign cases, the children are often punished by exasperated foster parents when they cry for their mom and dad by being sent to isolation in their rooms. Children report being punished with isolation and withholding food for praying to be returned home. They are denied affection and understanding and feel depressed and homesick and frightened. When they see their parents, they often act out after the visit out of their natural frustration and impotence to change what they perceive to be unfair and cruel. As a result, they are punished by being denied their next visit with their parents.  
          They describe being told that their parents aren’t able to take care of them because their parents are ‘sick’ and need help. That it isn’t safe for them to live with their parents. Many children are told that their parents aren’t trying hard enough to complete the case plan and the children live in uncertainty as to what their future holds for them. They are actually told that their parents don’t want them or can’t afford to keep them. Children report that they are told their mothers are prostitutes, or drug users when they know it is false. They are psychologically manipulated until they begin to believe. They begin to resent their parent’s failures and imperfections that prevent reunification. But many of them are ultimately diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder and others similar emotional problems as a direct result of state efforts to undermine their bonds with their parents.  
          One young boy in Elbert County, Colorado, under the supervision of caseworker Holly Sielaff, was repeatedly forced to deal with the ‘issue’, under the guise of therapy, that his mother had cross-dressed him. The child had no memory of that event, and mom denied doing it. He reports he was verbally abused by his therapist during his court-ordered therapy sessions for his refusal to admit that his mother forced him to wear girl’s clothing. Sielaff then reported to mother in this reporter’s presence and on tape, that they were addressing this issue ‘because it was the child’s reality’ and whether or not it was true, it must be treated as if it were true. Since mom was forbidden to speak of that allegation to the boy, she never learned that he consistently denied it until he was returned home. Many children are not strong enough to resist this kind of abusive psychological pressure.  
          Many of the children I have spoken with have been runaway foster children. They report being told that they must accuse their parents in order to return home. They are promised that if they accuse, they will be allowed to return home and the state will provide ‘help’ to their parents. If they do make a false accusation based on these promises, they are often denied all access to their parents. This isolation from their parents is used in the vast majority of cases. Besides being used to emotionally traumatize the children to make them more receptive to state suggestions, it also has the effect of preventing the child from reporting to his parents any problems, lies or abuses that are being covered up by state agencies under confidentiality laws and ‘in the best interests of the child.’  
          If children in state custody are fortunate enough to see their parents, it is usually under supervision, where their every word is scrutinized. They are forbidden to hug, to whisper, or to display too much affection. They are forbidden to speak about what happens in their foster home, and to even report any abuse they suffer there. Many parent-child bonding rituals that have been established in the home, such as singing favorite songs or tickling games are forbidden between the parents and children during these visits for specious and/or undefined reasons.  
          There are documented cases where the psychological experts and caseworker not only actively subvert the parent-child bond, but actually employ dubious and traumatic methods in order to brainwash the child to bond to his foster parents. In once instance, a five-year-old child in Weld County, Colorado, was forcefully ‘regressed’ to infancy by being placed in diapers and forced to break potty training, forced to crawl rather than walk, fed only from a bottle and denied all access to her mother in an effort to make this child bond to her foster parents. The mother’s act of abuse? She fell asleep after major surgery with her toddler at home, having been denied daycare assistance by Social Services until she recovered, and the child got into a bottle of Tylenol in mom’s purse. No treatment was provided at the hospital for the alleged overdose in spite of mom’s timely response to the emergency.  
          The most heinous of tactics is to place the child in residential treatment. This often happens to children who are resistant to caseworker indoctrination and especially where there is a risk the child will divulge a truth that is damaging to the caseworker, the CPS agency, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or other service provider. Often, caseworkers will predetermine a ‘diagnosis’ of the child in order to facilitate this placement. They can find an ‘expert’ who will validate the diagnosis and present this information to an unsuspecting court or a court who acts with complicity. The court will order the child to the residential treatment facility were they are often drugged. This drugging renders them more susceptible to suggestion and compliance at the expense of the emotional well-being of the child. Since the facility is only provided with the state’s version of the child’s history, the treatment is based on that tainted information.  
          In Pueblo County, Colorado, there is a story of a young boy who has been institutionalized for four years at La Junta Boys Ranch based on a caseworker diagnosis of psychotic behavior. Mom has been unable to obtain a release for the child, and all reports of the brutality he suffered at the hands of the staff are covered up. He finally had endured all he could and killed some of the turkeys on the ranch. He was shipped to the State Hospital in Pueblo, where for over a month the doctors there insisted he wasn’t psychotic and that he had been misdiagnosed and improperly medicated. The caseworker began lobbying for the original diagnosis because, ‘she would lose the funding for him if he weren’t psychotic.’ The doctors at the State Hospital finally began to capitulate under funding pressure. Meanwhile, this child, now 15, clings to his mother during visits and the doctors are telling him that is inappropriate and denying him this only comfort in his life. This child has been sacrificed on the alter of psycho babble disguised as child protection. Too many foster children would never have been forced to endure such levels of psychological abuse at the hands of their parents from whom the state was ‘protecting’ them. 


Nazis and CPS by Suzanne Shell
Pseudo-Sciences
Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children 
Turning Children Against Their Parents
Social Work
Abuse In State Custody
Throw away Children
Returning Children Home
Evaluating The System

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

Social Work

 The women charged with kidnapping children in Nazi occupied territories were called the “Brown Sisters.”  
          “Actually these women belonged to the NSV, established in 1933 to devote itself to the welfare of the German people. . .To those who suffered under them, these fanatical Nazi women, totally dedicated to the Fuhrer, were perhaps even more loathsome than the killers of the SS or the SD; stony-hearted robots was one description. The sight of these women . . .brutally snatching from its mother’s arms a baby who was smiling at her remains an intolerable memory to those who experienced it.  
          “The special training of the ‘Brown Sisters’ included intensive courses in which they were taught the racial criteria by which Nordics could infallibly be distinguished, and they were instruct in how to observe a child without being noticed themselves; they were also taught ways of abducting it in the street, at home or at school. . .” Of Pure Blood.  
          Caseworkers in America also receive highly specialized training pertaining to popular culture parenting techniques, child abuse, child abuse prevention and more, all based on theory rather than science. They are trained on the job to put pet theories into practice, with children and families being the guinea pigs. The good ones become disgusted in short order and leave for greener pastures.  
          Many ‘protected’ children actively hate the caseworkers who control their lives and their access to their parents. Once free of caseworker control, they often vent their anger in very expressive ways. I have one pair of sisters who opened up in front a video camera with threats and gestures all directed at their Arapahoe County, Colorado caseworker, Dawn Shields. They accused Shields of lying in order to obtain the court order terminating their parents’ parental rights. All of the children I have spoken to express the highest level of disdain, distrust and anger toward their caseworkers and GALs.  
          Parents universally describe caseworkers as heartless, soulless, evil, deceitful, arrogant, two-faced and more. I have personally seen caseworkers utter the most vicious false statements against a parents on the witness stand in court, then embrace the numb parents in the hall with apologies for what she ‘had’ to do to them. This feigned concern for the parents is abhorrent. At least the Nazis were honest about their bigotry and evil plans.  
          I have had one caseworker tell me, “I’m sorry for [your son being taken] but that was years ago. Get over it.” It is incomprehensible to a parent that anyone could be so callous and hardhearted to even consider they’d ever ‘get over’ having their child kidnapped by the state for whatever length of time, but especially if the parent-child relationship was destroyed as a result. This attitude clearly demonstrates their lack of understanding of the depths of the bonds that exist between parent and child and how their meddling is, too often, more destructive than helpful.  
          For an indication of the state of mind of the affected families decades after the children were taken, let’s look to Of Pure Blood, “. . .Parents did everything possible to trace children who were unaware of their existence and will never know the distress the absence still causes. In some Polish villages the grief is still so vivid after thirty years that one ends by wondering how such a thing can be possible.” It is not unreasonable to presume that the pain inflicted by contemporary caseworkers will be comparable and equally unforgettable for millions of American parents. This pain is compounded in many cases by the caseworkers’ casual use of deceit and manipulation of their undeserved credibility with the court in order to win their cases. Many parents not only despise caseworkers, but hate the people they themselves have become as a result of their constant, unpleasant and threatening contact with these toxic bureaucrats. As a result of these abuses, there is little sympathy from victimized families for caseworkers who are assaulted and killed in the course of their work. 


Nazis and CPS by Suzanne Shell
Pseudo-Sciences
Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children 
Turning Children Against Their Parents
Social Work
Abuse In State Custody
Throw away Children
Returning Children Home
EvaluatingThe System

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

Abuse In State Custody

  In one indoctrination home, where children were taken before being sent for adoption to Nazi families, there “ . . .is a cemetery in which most of the graves are of ‘victims of Nazi barbarism’. Tadeus Martyn, a member of the Polish commission for Hitlerite Crimes . . .told about the authors about a child named Zygmunt Swiatlowski: ‘He was taken from his parents against their will at Poznan and brought here. . .He felt himself to be Polish and would not be Germanized. . .One day, after refusing to greet a German in German, he was killed on the spot by the woman in charge of the invitation, Johanna Sander. The children who died in the home were buried anonymously, but the German who buried Zygmunt revealed his name to the Polish woman caretaker of the cemetery. So this grave remains the only memorial to the martyrdom of Polish children and Kalisz.’”  
          Alycia Sosinka, born at Lodz in 1935, taken from her mother in September 1942. “ . . .for months, when my [adoptive] mother came to tuck me in at night I used to jump out of bed and stand at attention . . .” due to abuses suffered during her indoctrination period.  
          When a Lebensborn home tended by SS ‘nurses’ was liberated by allied forces, a nun who was subsequently charged with caring for the children observed, “These children did not know what tenderness was. They were used to being in bed or living in groups, and were frightened of any grownups who approached them. . .The older children, the three and four-year-olds could not even talk. They merely expressed them onomatopoeically, like young animals. That is typical of children brought up in institutions. Also they were very backward in Mental development in comparison with other children of the same age.  
          According to Department of Health and Human Services statistics, approximately 50% of the children who die of child abuse, die in foster care. Children in foster care are also subjected to more severe abuse in foster homes than they ever endured in their own homes. The Denver Post began a five part series of articles exposing the unsafe nature of foster care on May 21, 2000. They report that abuses are perpetrated by foster parents, biological children of foster parents, and other foster children. This finding supports the overwhelming number of reports of foster care abuse nationwide received by parents and family rights advocacy groups.  
          In the summer of 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens commissioned a task force to look into the foster care and child welfare issue due to the deaths of four children, three of whom were in foster care. The task force returned their findings if0.20 early in 2000, months prior to the Denver Post series, but nothing has been done by Colorado Department of Human Services (DHS) to insure that children are safer in state custody than in the homes they were removed from. Foster care providers are not held to the same standards of safety as parents are. In fact, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) applies only to parents. CPS agencies, foster care providers, and institutions do not fall under the jurisdiction of CAPTA even though they are charged with keeping children safe under CAPTA. The standards of care and safety that foster care providers are required to keep are only defined vaguely in CPS policy manuals.  
          Abuse of children in foster care is drastically under reported because there is no independent investigative body to whom foster care abuse or neglect is reported. The CPS agency places the children; and chooses, licenses and oversees the foster homes. Reports of foster care abuse and neglect are made to CPS agencies. Abuse and violations of standards of care are investigated by CPS agencies. As a result, most reports are determined to be ‘unfounded;’ after all, how good would it look if they were to expose the level of abuse that occurs in their own foster homes and contract institutions? Even if abuse is substantiated, the providers do not lose their own children or their foster care license, and the abused children will often remain in the foster home. Occasionally, the alleged abuse will rise to the level of a crime, but even then it is not consistently prosecuted and foster care providers openly acknowledge that any penalties imposed on them will be minor at most.  
          An Adams County, Colorado mother reported that when her children were returned home after over a year in foster care, she caught her 7 year-old son humping her 5 year-old daughter. She was terrified that the children would be removed again. Since she had never been accused of sexually abusing her children, they could only have learned of this in the foster home. An El Paso County, Colorado, twelve year old had his arm broken in a group home while being restrained. He was lucky. Some restrained children die. A youth in DHS custody who resided at the Colorado Boys Ranch was locked up in his room for 23 hours a day, and during his recreational hour, he was shackled and chained. He had not been charged or convicted of any crime. 13 year-old Veronica from Larimer County, Colorado was repeatedly coerced to falsely accuse her father. Upon her return home, she was unable to fall asleep without her bedroom light on and her mother by her side for six months. She’d hide in a closet whenever someone knocked at the door.  
          Taler Barnes, was taken from his mother at birth due to a false hospital social worker report. While in Kansas foster care, he suffered broken ribs, broken hip, constant bruising, his eyes were gouged until he is legally blind, and he suffered shaken baby syndrome resulting in brain damage. He was emaciated and starving when he was finally returned to his family at 22 months old. During the course of her visits, his mother would photograph the injuries, but the judge ordered her to stop and to remove her web site that documented her case and the abuse her son suffered at the hands of the state. Even the courts cover up foster care abuse.  
          At the very least, parents report that the children who are returned to them from foster care are not the same children that were taken. They are easily frightened, clingy and needy, they act out sexually or are physically and verbally abusive, they wet the bed, they test their parents’ love and violate established rules, schoolwork suffers, they are haunted and distrusting, and more. Evidently, foster care is not the warm and fuzzy panacea it’s cracked up to be. 


Nazis and CPS by Suzanne Shell
Pseudo-Sciences
Legalizing Kidnapping Of Children 
Turning Children Against Their Parents
Social Work
Abuse In State Custody
Throw away Children
Returning Children Home
Evaluating The System

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