Thursday, September 27, 2012

Lawless America Movie Promo - Nobody: Larry Mendoza - Santa Barbara California

Parents who had children wrongly snatched by social services win thousands in compensation

By ANDY DOLAN
UPDATED: 11:12 EST, 22 December 2008



A couple who had their children taken away from them for two years after falsely being accused of sexual abuse have been awarded a six-figure compensation payout.


Tim and Gina Williams went through a 'total nightmare' of having their three young children placed in separate foster homes after being wrongly placed under suspicion by social workers.

The couple's ordeal began after Mr Williams discovered an 11-year-old boy, semi naked and on top of his daughter, Courtney, then aged five, following a neighbourhood paddling pool party staged at their house.

Mr Williams called police, but a medical examination carried out as part of the subsequent examination resulted in social services stepping in.
Tim Williams, wife Gina and family

Tim Williams and his wife Gina with their children Ieuan (left) Courtney (middle) and Zara (right). The couple have been awarded sizeable compensation after they were wrongly accused of failing to protect their three children from sexual abuse

A doctor who examined the child claimed she had been the victim of abuse by an adult, possibly using an implement.

As a result, social services judged Mrs Williams to also pose a potential risk to Courtney and her elder siblings Zara and Ieuan, and the children were taken away in August 2004. Their parents were allowed just two 90-minutes supervised visits per week, at a neutral venue.

The family, from Newport, South Wales, were reunited two years ago after a High Court judge exonerated the parents, who then began a compensation battle against Newport City Council and Royal Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust.

They were yesterday awarded an undisclosed sum in an agreed settlement at the High Court in Cardiff.

The Williams family also received a full written apology from Newport Council. Under the terms of the settlement, the Williams's are banned from commenting further on the case. But they have previously spoken about the devastating impact the separation caused their children.

Speaking last December, they said Zara, now 14, Ieuan, 11, and Courtney, aged nine, were like 'three little strangers' at times.

Zara had always been studious but was increasingly disruptive in class, whilst Ieuan's sensitive, quiet inclination had been replaced by an angry persona. Courtney was left too scared to go to sleep in case she woke to find her parents gone.

Mrs Williams, said: 'None can bear to have us out of their sight because they think we won't come back. They believe they were taken into care because we didn't love or want them any more.'

Mr Williams, now 39, added: 'All three are extra clingy and constantly fight for our attention.

'If they don't see us at the school gates the moment the bell rings they freak out, so we have to get there 10 minutes early and stand in exactly the same spot. We take them everywhere with us because they refuse to go to babysitters. But whenever we see the children angry or in tears, we have to remember that it's not their fault.

'They were ripped from us and still don't understand why. One minute we were a family, the next thing we know social services are taking the children away. It was a total nightmare.'

The couple were banned from discussing the ongoing investigation with their children. When the day came for them to be handed over to social services, they told the trio they were going on a little holiday.

As they walked out of the social services office, they heard their children screaming 'Mummy! Daddy!'.

Over the next two years, they missed milestones such as birthdays, learning to ride bikes and school plays, and two Christmases.

The case against the parents eventually collapsed a week before a final court hearing, after the family consulted an American doctor who found there was no suggestion of any sexual abuse.

A UK doctor gave a second opinion which agreed with the US medic. The original doctor who examined Courtney then accepted their findings.

Newport council asked for the case to be dropped and the children were returned to their parents in September 2006.

The High Court was told at the time that initial evidence against the family was collected by a doctor using outdated practices to examine the girl.

The council later apologised for removing the children but said it had 'acted in good faith.'

In his judgment two years ago, Judge Crispin Masterman criticised social services for failing to follow recommended procedures and not carrying out a proper assessment of the family.

Speaking after the financial settlement yesterday, the couple's QC Robin Tolson said: 'This settlement brings closure, at least of a kind, for Tim and Gina Williams and their children.

'The effect of what happened will continue to be felt for a long time.

'But at least this now marks the end of four years spent fighting for their children and their rights before the court.'

A spokesman for the couple's legal team said that an initial report from the NHS Trust which claimed that Courtney was being abused had been 'fundamentally flawed'.

Justice for the children wrongly taken?

Apparently DHS thinks you're a bad parent if you repeatedly report each and every time your child shows up to a visit with a scratch, bruise, diaper rash (usually pretty bad and untreated) and covered in dirt, food or poop. Sorry, I thought parents were supposed to be concerned when their child is being treated like shit (especially when he was kidnapped in the first place).

Lawless America Movie Trailer by Naomi Chambers

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Adoption halted as court told baby milk led to 'innocent' couple being accuse of abuse


Vitamin supplements in baby milk may have led an innocent couple being condemned for battering their newborn son, a top family judge has heard

Adoption halted as court told baby milk led to 'innocent' couple being accuse of abuse
Adoption halted as court told baby milk led to 'innocent' couple being accuse of abuse Photo: ALAMY
The boy, who cannot be named, was taken away from his parents and was poised to be adopted after multiple broken bones were put down to child abuse.
But Lord Justice McFarlane halted the process yesterday after hearing how an extraordinary combination of medical events could have led to a case of congenital rickets being overlooked.
The parents, who have fought a three-year custody battle, have been given a final chance to get their son back.
It came after lawyers had what they described as a "light bulb moment" and understood the full significance of the child's medical records.
Michael Shrimpton, for the family, who are from the north of England, told the Court of Appeal in London that there is evidence that the boy was born with a Vitamin D deficiency, inherited from his mother, leading to "soft bones" and rickets.
It suggests that the broken bones could have occurred during his difficult forceps birth, or even in the womb.
Blood tests to check for signs of vitamin deficiency, when the boy was four weeks old were normal.
But the court heard hat it is possible that it was "masked" by the formula milk given to him by his mother – which contained Vitamin D supplements.
He added that there was "striking" evidence of severe abnormalities in the functioning of the baby boy's liver, an organ instrumental in processing Vitamin D.
The judge temporarily halted the adoption process and ordered urgent medical reports.
Having a child taken away is an “exceptionally awful” ordeal, he remarked, adding that it was essential to examine whether the Vitamin D deficiency explanation for the boy's injuries was "more than an intellectual possibility".
He also noted that there was no evidence of emotional difficulties, domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, or any signs of dysfunction within the family, to indicate a risk of child abuse.
Mr Shrimpton said that one of the country's top endocrinologists, Professor Stephen Nussey, who has carried out pioneering work on the causes and effects of Vitamin D deficiency, will be instructed to carry out that task if he is available at short notice.
Observing that medical knowledge on the causes of infant injuries is in a state of constant movement, the barrister added: "This is an important case. It is starting to take on the appearance of a leading test case".
After hearing expert evidence in June last year, a judge at Sheffield High Court ruled that one or other of the parents must have been responsible for the baby's injuries. The same judge refused to change her mind earlier this year and freed the boy for adoption.
However, Lord Justice McFarlane observed: "Medical knowledge of how some children may have bones that are more susceptible to injury than normal children has moved on".
Emphasising the extreme urgency of the case in light of plans for the boy's imminent adoption, the judge gave the parents 28 days to obtain a report from Professor Nussey, or another expert, in support of their case.
The local authority involved in the case had informed the Appeal Court that suitable adoptive parents have already been found for the boy but no further steps in the process would be taken prior to the court ruling on the case.
The case will return to the Appeal Court once the expert medical report has been obtained.

Congressional Testimony: Tatiana Poch to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Fargo, North Dakota

Congressional Testimony: Melissa Barnett to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Sacramento, California.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

County hands over $1 million dollars to family whose son was taken by Child Protective Services

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/County-hands-over-1-millon-dollars-to-family-whose-son-was-taken-by-Child-Protective-Services-152111865.html?tab=video&c=y




Kern County is handing over one million dollars to a family in the Weldon area for wrongfully taking their son out of their home in 2008. The dispute started between the child's school, South Fork Elementary School and parents over what their kid could eat. While the school can't comment on the case until the settlement is signed; attorneys on both sides are talking about the bigger issues being brought out by this case.


"They are relieved that the case is resolved, they are relieved that at least financially they are put back in a position where they were before this all happened," said Shawn McMillan attorney for Darlene and Larry McCue. McMillan says the McCue's spent every penny they had to get their son back through juvenile court proceedings. McMillan says his clients are now picking up the pieces of their lives after the four year court case has ended, with the McCue's winning a million dollar settlement from Kern County.

"I think it's a fair result under the circumstances considering what they had spent," said County Attorney, Mark Nations. According to the county the whole situation started in 2008 when McCue brought up allergy concerns with her 7 year old son's school. "He had a nut allergy and she did not feel the school had adequately addressed it," said Nations. According to county counsel, the boy's parents insisted on extensive medical testing which is what initially lead to questions about the boy’s safety. "We got a referral from UCLA Medical Center indicating that they were concerned that a parent was perhaps exaggerating the conditions of a child and receiving unnecessary medical care," explained Nations.

The county acted on that referral and after an investigation by CPS and the Kern County Sheriff's Department, the boy was taken from his parent's home for four months. Later, a juvenile judge ruled that there was no evidence that the boy was in danger. "There is a lot of frustration there is a lot of anger and understandably so. Mrs. McCue is still angry at the county," said McMillan the McCue family attorney. 

Child Protective Services is now working on a new policy that would require social workers to get a warrant from a judge before they can take a child from their home. "This is the first case of this kind that we've ever had in the county, it's helped us evaluate the way we do things," said Nations. The family's attorney also responded with positive outlook on the proposed policies. "Kern County is a shining beacon of hope in this state because they are really trying to make an effort to change some things," said McMillan.

Still no word on when CPS is going to change their policies to include a warrant, but the county tells us that ball is already rolling on that issue. We'll let you know what happens next.

Congressional Testimony: Dr. Sheila Mannix to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Chicago, Illinois

Congressional Testimony: McKayla Smith to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grays Harbor County Washington

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Lawless America Movie Interview: Tonya Frances Brown for Nolan Klein in Carson City, Nevada

Congressional Testimony: Scott Wallis to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Chicago, Illinois

Congressional Testimony: Linda Commeau to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Augusta, Maine

Congressional Testimony: Sharyn Eklund to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Springfield, Illinois

Bill Windsor of Lawless America...The Movie asks Americans to help Save America.

Lawless America Movie News Update - Day 96

Monday, September 17, 2012

Bill Windsor of Lawless America is interviewed for TV Show in St. Paul, Minnesota

Congressional Testimony: Lynn Marie Ford to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Congressional Testimony: Don Mashak to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Congressional Testimony: Marcia Erskine to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Spokane WA

Congressional Testimony: Lee Arthur Rice to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boise, ID

Congressional Testimony: Dale Karin Trowbridge to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Lansing, MI

Congressional Testimony: Mark Supanich to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Helena, Montana

Congressional Testimony: Stephanie Lynn Flygare to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in WA

Family Court Corruption - Bill Windsor of Lawless America and Carver County Minnesota Victims

Congressional Testimony: Laura McGarry to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Federal Way Washington

Congressional Testimony: Marcus Carter to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Seatac, WA

Congressional Testimony: Joli Pesek to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Seatac Washington

Congressional Testimony: Brenda Battle-Jordan to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Detroit

Congressional Testimony: Camille McMillan to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Detroit

Congressional Testimony: Terrence Popp to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Detroit

Congressional Testimony: Charles Wright to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Detroit

Crystal Cox explains to victims of corruption how they can expose corruption

Congressional Testimony: Deanne Upson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Arlington, Virginia

Congressional Testimony: Francesca Monteleone to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg

Congressional Testimony: Claudia Monteleone to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg

30,000 Page Views

Thank you for your interest. We've reached 30,000 page views. You all rock. I hope that you have taken an interest in the recent posts from Lawless America. So many examples of how corrupt our justice system is. Please continue to read!

Congressional Testimony: Tina Popolizio to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in New Jersey

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Judge Gordon GODfrey in Washington State believes he is GOD -- Lawless America investigates.

Congressional Testimony: Queena Hackney to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Congressional Testimony: Don Meehan to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Indianapolis, Indiana

Congressional Testimony: Willita Bush to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in St. Louis, Missouri

Bill Windsor of Lawless America talks about some of his personal experience with judicial corruption

Congressional Testimony: Connie Bauer to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Seattle WA

New doubts in 'shaken baby' fatalities

by Richard Ruelas - Sept. 15, 2012 10:53 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120904shaken-baby-fatalities-doubts.html#ixzz26caFCTUv


Drayton Witt kept insisting he had nothing to do with the death of his 4-month-old baby. He said it the night he brought the near-comatose infant into the emergency room on June 1, 2000. He said it during his sentencing, following his conviction on murdering the boy by shaking him. And he was still proclaiming his innocence as he started serving his 20-year sentence in 2002.

His lamentations didn't gain legal and medical weight until 2012. The Arizona Justice Project, a volunteer group of attorneys, filed a motion to toss out his murder conviction based on the evolving science around what was known as shaken-baby syndrome. The state did not file an argument in response. Witt was released on May 31, becoming the second Arizonan in the last two years to see his guilty verdict in a shaken-baby case erased.

Among those who helped secure Witt's freedom was the 97-year-old British pediatric neurosurgeon who, in 1971, first identified the trio of telltale symptoms that became accepted as proof that a baby had been violently shaken. Attorneys also secured a sworn statement from the medical examiner who originally ruled the baby died from being shaken. His revised conclusion was that the baby died of a disease.

Fifteen months earlier, in February 2011, a Buckeye man named Armando Castillo, 42, had his conviction overturned in the 1998 death of a toddler. Like Witt, Castillo maintained his innocence throughout. And, like Witt, Castillo would be imprisoned a long time before attorneys found medical evidence to back up his story.

In both cases, judges ruled that a jury would likely acquit each man after hearing the new medical understanding of the evidence.

The overturned convictions didn't erase the charges, just sent the cases back for a possible retrial. Prosecutors decided to keep pursuing murder charges in both cases. Castillo pleaded guilty to a reduced charge to avoid the risk of a retrial. Witt's murder trial is scheduled for 2013.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said that his office still believes that Witt was responsible for the death of the 4-month-old baby boy. "Obviously, we believed it the first time around," Montgomery said.

He said prosecutors now focus more on proving that a child was injured, not necessarily that he was shaken. Montgomery said speculation that suspected abused children died from diseases was just defense-attorney theories.

"I think we're still looking at cases where children were injured," Montgomery said. "How we prove that may change."

That's because a growing body of medical and legal experts, nationally and internationally, are casting doubt on what became known as shaken-baby syndrome. Pediatric neurologists and forensic pathologists say the long-held triad of symptoms -- bleeding on the brain, swelling of the brain and bleeding in the eyes -- thought to indicate a baby was violently and intentionally shaken could also be caused by a host of diseases, including infections.

DePaul University law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer, who wrote a 2009 study on the use of shaken-baby syndrome in courtrooms, said the easily spotted symptoms became not only a medical diagnosis but also a legal tool adopted quickly and used convincingly in courtrooms nationwide.

Physicians would testify that a shaken child would become unresponsive or go limp almost immediately after the abuse. So the last adult with the child would be the primary suspect. And the shaken-baby diagnosis also provided a motive: a frustrated caregiver looking to quiet a crying child.

Some shaken-baby cases included other signs of violent abuse, such as broken bones, bruises or fractures. But others, like in Witt's case, had no outward signs of injuries. Cases were built solely on the symptoms of shaken-baby syndrome.

"(The syndrome) did all of the work," Tuerkheimer said. Jurors would hear the experts testify with certainty and couple that with an "inclination to want to convict and hold someone responsible for such an awful outcome," she said.

In the last half of the 1990s, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office handled shaken-baby cases at the rate of two a week. During one stretch, it had a conviction rate, in non-fatal cases, of 84 percent.

Tuerkheimer said many of the defendants were convicted in emotional trials, while others took plea deals because they saw little chance of winning. She said there's no way to know whether the Witt and Castillo cases are isolated wrongful convictions or signs of a systemic flaw that will produce hundreds of reversals.

"No one has any sense of the numbers here," Tuerkheimer said.

Witt knows he is No. 2, the second shaken-baby conviction in Arizona to be vacated. But he figures the pattern that police and prosecutors followed in his case was repeated many more times.

"The system is flawed," he said. "I'm sure there's a lot of people like that."

* * *

Maria Holt's baby son, Steven, was just shy of being 5 months old on June 1, 2000. Dressed in a blue and white onesie, he slept in his car seat as Witt dropped Holt off for her evening shift as a waitress at the Bill Johnson's Big Apple restaurant in north Phoenix.

Witt, then 18, and Holt, then 20, had been boyfriend and girlfriend since they'd met two years before, but Steven had been conceived with another man during a breakup. Regardless, Witt saw the baby as his son; he was in the delivery room when Steven was born, and the child carried his last name. It was routine for Witt to care for Steven when Holt was at work; she often called home between tables to check in.

During one call around 8 or 9 that night, Witt told Holt he thought Steven might have had another seizure. His eyes appeared odd, Witt said, and he was fussy. Holt said to come get her at the restaurant and they would take the baby to the emergency room.

Steven had been a sickly baby, in and out of the hospital three times during his short life, including a six-day stay at Phoenix Children's Hospital just a month earlier when doctors couldn't get a bead on what was causing the baby's vomiting and seizures.

On this night, the boy stopped breathing during the 6-mile drive from the restaurant to Paradise Valley Hospital. Witt pulled over and climbed into the back seat to perform CPR while Holt took the wheel. At the hospital, doctors worked to get Steven breathing again. Then the baby's heart stopped. It took them about 30 minutes to stabilize him, after which he was flown to Phoenix Children's Hospital.

A doctor at Paradise Valley Hospital, in a report, diagnosed the cardiac arrest and said the baby was suffering from dehydration and possibly sepsis, a severe reaction to bacteria. He also expressed concern about brain injury caused by dehydration, too much acid in the blood, and not enough oxygen. There was no mention of suspected abuse.

Witt and Holt left Paradise Valley Hospital to drive to Phoenix Children's. Expecting another long hospital stay, they stopped by their home to pick up extra clothes.

* * *

The idea that violent shaking of infants could cause brain injury was first proposed in a medical-journal article in 1971. Not only did it gain acceptance in the medical community over the next two decades, it also seeped into popular culture. Child-abuse prevention groups started awareness campaigns; the phrase "shaken-baby syndrome" entered the Random House dictionary in 1996.

By 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics produced a position paper on shaken-baby syndrome, saying that doctors should presume abuse in any baby under a year old who had head injuries absent obvious trauma, such as a car accident. The paper, published in the journal Pediatrics, said the "constellation" of injuries in a shaken baby could not result from an accidental trip or fall.

The article also offered a psychological profile of adults who shake a child. "Such shaking often results from tension and frustration generated by a baby's crying or irritability," the journal article said, "yet crying is not a legal justification for such violence." It went on to warn that shaken babies were often misdiagnosed, meaning doctors needed to be extremely vigilant to spot them.

After Steven arrived at Phoenix Children's Hospital, a doctor who evaluated him wrote that the baby had no bruising or skull deformities, but showed some bleeding in the eyes. The doctor also noted that "the infant is flaccid. There is no response to pain."

At 3 a.m., a pediatrician wrote on a progress report that the baby's symptoms "raise the possibility of non-accidental trauma."

Medical records show doctors knew their infant patient had been at the hospital a month before for projectile vomiting and flulike symptoms. But by 7 a.m., doctors felt sure of what they were looking at.

"The findings are most consistent with shaken baby, plus or minus hypoxia injury," read a doctor's progress report on the case. Hypoxia refers to an injury caused by lack of oxygen.

Steven's condition did not improve. At noon, doctors declared him brain dead. One wrote the following: "Mom is currently hugging the patient and we are planning to withdraw support and allow him to progress to cardiac death later on this afternoon. The police have been notified of the findings."

Steven was pronounced dead at 3:30 p.m. on June 2.

* * *

In a case where shaken-baby syndrome seems a possibility, events quickly and simultaneously move along parallel tracks: doctors working to save a baby, police working to find a suspect.

But once doctors and police believe they are dealing with a shaken-baby case, they often ignore evidence that might suggest a different reason for a baby's illness, said Christina Rubalcava, an attorney with the Arizona Justice Project.

"You're already locked in to what it is," said Rubalcava, an attorney with Osborn Maledon who volunteered her time on the Witt case. She says that in general, once a doctor sees the triad of symptoms, a call to child-welfare agencies and police becomes automatic. The belief in shaken-baby syndrome "is like gospel to them," she said.

But Kathy Coffman, a pediatrician at Phoenix Children's Hospital who specializes in abuse cases, denied that doctors automatically diagnose shaking and ignore disease or infections or other causes. "We go through all the factors to make sure we're not missing something," Coffman said.

Coffman, a pediatrician for 20 years, was not at Phoenix Children's Hospital when Steven was treated and would not comment specifically on this case. She now is the medical director of a specialized unit at the hospital, made up of doctors and social workers, that handles suspected cases of abuse. "I don't think anybody who works in this field, law enforcement or anybody, is cavalier about making these calls," she said.

"The absolute last thing I want to do," she said, "is have someone go to prison for something they didn't do."

In the early morning hours of June 2, Phoenix police interviewed Witt and Holt as they sat in a room near their child. The questions seemed accusatory from the start, Witt said, and he ended the interview. A worker with the state's child-protection agency, in a report written later that morning, would say officers described Witt as "short-tempered and volatile."

After Steven died and Witt and Holt were leaving the hospital to go home, they found their car missing; police had seized it from the parking lot to search it for possible evidence. Friends drove them home, where they found two officers, armed with a warrant, who had been searching the trailer since 11:30 a.m. -- 4 hours before Steven died -- to find evidence to build a case.

"One thing after another," Holt said. "It's heartbreaking."

The police left at 9:30 p.m. They had pulled up carpet samples and took some baby items. The next day, officers knocked on the door and asked to take Witt in for questioning.

"Let's go," Witt said. "I ain't got nothing to hide."

Witt is a man of few words and didn't offer many to police. When detectives questioned him about what happened to the baby, Witt replied that he didn't know and that they should ask the doctors.

Witt was booked into jail on charges of first-degree murder and child abuse. He would remain jailed until his trial.

Holt said the arrest was devastating. "I lose my son, and then I lose the man who's done nothing but love me and love my son," she said. She had support from her extended family but felt some friends slip away. When she visited Witt in jail, which was often, she worked to buoy his spirits: "You'll be home soon," she would say. "This is just a misunderstanding. We know the truth."

Witt had a public defender who tried to get a plea deal, but Witt refused to take it. "When they arrested me, I figured somewhere down the line they'd come to their senses and figure out the right stuff," Witt said. "But clearly they didn't."

The trial started in February 2002.

"Steven Witt lived only five months," the prosecutor, Dyanne Greer, told the jury in her opening statement, according to a transcript. "He died as the result of violent, severe shaking. ... He died at the hands of a person who was supposed to be the caretaker ... and that man, ladies and gentlemen, is Drayton Witt."

Holt was called to the stand; she would be the first witness. It would be her job to tell the couple's story: how they "just clicked" when they first met through a friend; how Holt's extremely protective dog immediately warmed up to Witt; how, when she became pregnant by another man, Witt treated the child as if he were his own. She also told the jury about the baby's history of illnesses and hospitalizations, which included a respiratory infection, pneumonia, seizures and vomiting, and how the medicine he was given only seemed to make him worse.

After Holt, four doctors and the medical examiner took the stand. Each testified that Steven's injuries were most likely caused by shaking. To the jury, the evidence would have seemed strong and specific: The boy had certain injuries that, in the absence of major trauma, were possible only if he had been shaken violently. And the narrow, medically accepted time frame of the onset of the baby's symptoms pointed to Witt.

Witt, seated at the defense table, still held out hope. But his defense attorney called only one expert to cast doubt on whether the injuries were caused by shaking. Karen Griest, a forensic pediatric pathologist and former New Mexico coroner, said that "shaken-baby syndrome is sort of a hot topic of debate in the medical community. It's sort of an evolving process to figure out what is going on."

In closing arguments, the prosecutor painted a picture for the jury of Witt shaking the child.

"The defendant knowingly grabbed Steven, shook him so violently that he started to seize," Greer said. "Drayton had to know that Steven was being violently injured while he was shaking him to death, inches in front of his face," she said.

Jurors found Witt guilty of second-degree murder. When it came time for Witt's sentencing in April 2002, he told the judge that although he had been an unruly teenager, he had turned his life around with Holt and Steven. But he was not apologetic.

"I am not sorry, for I didn't do no wrong," Witt said, according to a transcript of the hearing. "I came up here to tell you how much my son meant to me."

The judge sentenced him to 20 years.

* * *

Though Witt asked for protective custody in prison, he said the request was denied, and he was put into the general inmate population. Three years into his sentence, he was attacked in the recreation yard by three men with improvised knives. Witt tucked himself into a ball and tried to cover his head, but said he was stabbed some 70 times before it was over. Ten of those wounds went through one or the other of his hands.

Witt was flown to a Flagstaff hospital, where doctors did surgery to repair his hands. Holt was at work when she got the call from Witt's parents telling her of the attack. When she saw him in his hospital bed, she knew they had to get married.

"Just wanting to make sure that he knew that I was there," she said. "And no matter what, he knew that if it came to 2020, I might be old and gray, but that I would be the one standing by that gate (waiting) for him to come home."

The wedding was in September 2006. The groom wore orange, his "carrot suit," as Witt called it. Prison rules dictate what a bride may wear: A wedding dress must have a neckline above the collarbone and sleeves that cover the arms. And no orange; that color is reserved for inmates. In the end, Holt just bought a dress she liked -- it was maroon -- and pulled a T-shirt over it during the ceremony to cover enough bare skin.

Tradition endures even in the strangest of settings. Witt said he paced in his cell nervously before the ceremony, held just before visiting hours. He would get to wear his wedding band in prison, but the bride had to provide prison officials proof of purchase. Guards did allow the groom to kiss the bride.

"It's emotional, no matter what," Holt said.

At the time of the wedding, all of Witt's appeals had been denied and exhausted. It appeared he would be in prison until 2020.

* * *

In 2009, Deborah Tuerkheimer published her paper, "The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts" in the Washington University Law Review.

"In its classic formulation, SBS comes as close as one could imagine to a medical diagnosis of murder," Tuerkheimer wrote. "Prosecutors use it to prove the mechanism of death, the intent to harm, and the identity of the killer."

Also that year, the American Academy of Pediatrics revised its position paper on shaken-baby syndrome. It urged physicians to stop using that term and instead describe injuries as "abusive head trauma." The group said it urged adoption of the "less mechanistic term" to stop the focus on shaking. Instead, the journal said, doctors should look at a wider range of possible causes.

Witt's prison records show that he was a model inmate after his marriage. He had been moved into protective custody following his assault. While there, he met Armando Castillo, another man who had been convicted of shaking a child to death.

The Arizona Justice Project filed its motion in Castillo's case in April 2010; his conviction was vacated 10 months later. The project took up Drayton Witt's case in 2011, and the news was a blast of hope, Maria Witt said. "You get that light sparked back in your life."

Those working on Witt's case assembled a list of medical experts who reviewed Steven's autopsy photos and medical records. Most concluded that Steven's death was likely caused by a blockage in the vein that drained blood from his brain.

The attorneys also spotted a letter in the New York Times Magazine from Norman Guthkelch, the British pediatric neurosurgeon who first wrote about the symptoms that indicated a shaken baby. In the letter, a response to an article about the changing medical opinions about shaken-baby syndrome, Guthkelch defended his 1971 paper that concluded babies can get severe brain damage from shaking. The city under Guthkelch's name: Tucson.

The Project attorneys asked Guthkelch to look at the records in the case. He filed an affidavit in support of Witt, which marked his first legal involvement on behalf of a person trying to reverse a shaken-baby conviction.

"The death of Steven Witt is the type of case where a diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome should not have been made," Guthkelch wrote. He said there were too many other possibilities that could explain the baby's death, and that while his process offers a possible explanation for some head injuries, any presumption that an injured child was shaken was a "distortion" of his theory.

Also key to the case was the affidavit of A.L. Mosley, the county medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Steven. Mosley was shown new analysis of his autopsy by doctors who spotted errors in his work. Most notably, doctors said, autopsy photos showed a blocked and swollen vein that was not noted in the report.

Mosley, in his affidavit, concluded that "if I were to testify today, I would state that I believe Steven's death was likely the result of a natural disease process, not (shaken-baby syndrome)."

Witt's attorneys filed the motion in February. The state did not file a response. The judge vacated Witt's conviction and ordered his release.

* * *

The newly cast scientific thought on shaken-baby syndrome is affecting other cases. A 2007 case against Lisa Randall, a day-care operator, originally filed as a death-penalty case, was tossed out before it reached trial. An expert hired by the prosecution in 2010 concluded that the child did not die from shaking as originally thought.

In 2009, prosecutors dropped murder charges against Craig Rettig in a shaken-baby case from 2004. The defendant's lawyer located experts who found that the baby died from striking his head on a coffee table, not from being shaken.

Also, in 2009, Keith Roberts asked that expert testimony about shaken-baby syndrome not be allowed in his trial on charges that he killed his infant son. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office argued that both sides should present their experts and leave it for the jury to decide. The judge agreed. Roberts took a plea offer the day before his trial was scheduled to begin. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Witt was released from custody wearing a jail-issued paper suit. He borrowed a cellphone from a passer-by to call his wife. It was 8 a.m. She had been told he wouldn't be released until noon. She broke speed-limit laws driving from the opposite end of town to get him.

Maria Witt said having her husband out of prison is validation.

"To finally have people believe in me," she said, "and be able to start the grieving process and what we missed out on, and be able to start on the life that we missed out on, is more precious than anything."

Drayton Witt, who is working on a construction crew, said he often feels like a modern-day Rip Van Winkle, awakening to find a world where so much is accomplished by cellular phone, or that there are self-checkout lanes at the grocery store.

Witt does not want to take a plea deal like his friend, Castillo, did. He hopes prosecutors drop the case before his trial next year.

He does not blame police or prosecutors for the decade he spent behind bars. He said officers and attorneys were just doing their job. And he always figured the truth would win out.

"You keep screaming," he said. "Eventually, someone will hear you."

Reach the reporter at richard.ruelas@arizonarepublic.com.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120904shaken-baby-fatalities-doubts.html#ixzz26ca27TaF

Friday, September 14, 2012

Congressional Testimony: Bradley Jardis to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in New Hampshire

Lawless America...The Movie: Your Worst Nightmare

Congressional Testimony: Rebecca McLaughlin to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Providence RI

Congressional Testimony: Anne Grant to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Providence RI

Congressional Testimony: Aimee Van Siclen de Groot to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in New York, NY

Congressional Testimony: Nancy Glover to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Philadelphia

Congressional Testimony: Henry Martoucchio to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Hartford

Congressional Testimony: Betty Lambrecht to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Salem, Oregon

Congressional Testimony: Sherry Hart to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Idaho

Judge Gordon GODfrey of Grays Harbor County Washington - Charges presented for Falsifying Oath and Residency Affidavit


http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1155:judge-gordon-godfrey-of-grays-harbor-county-washington-charges-presented-for-falsifying-oath-and-residency-affidavit&catid=25:judicial-corruption-and-dishonesty&Itemid=222

Congressional Testimony: Heather Taylor to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Augusta ME

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20120606/SAG0801/306069982/0/sag

Edmonton mayor recognizes Velvet Martin - Samantha's Law

Edmonton mayor recognizes Velvet Martin - Samantha's Law
http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20120606/SAG0801/306069982/0/sag

Local advocate wins service award

Edmonton mayor recognizes Velvet Martin's tireless advocacy for the vulnerable
By: Scott Hayes

| Posted: Wednesday, Jun 06, 2012 06:00 am



St. Albert disabled persons advocate Velvet Martin recently earned an award usually reserved just for Edmontonians.

Martin spent years pushing for a new law to improve the rights of children with disabilities and their families after her 13-year-old daughter Samantha died while in a foster home. Martin’s efforts earned her an award for outstanding service from Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel during his annual mayor’s awards ceremony recently.

Martin said the honour makes her feel humbled.

“I hadn’t even prepared a speech. I just spoke from the heart when I went up … mostly about just the fact that the award actually recognizes Samantha,” she said.

Mandel gave Martin the award for outstanding service for advocating for the rights of children, youth, vulnerable persons and seniors in her community.

“I am inspired by these individuals and organizations who are building a more inclusive city where all Edmontonians can participate fully and share their gifts with the community. My congratulations and thanks to all the award recipients and nominees,” Mandel said in a prepared statement.

Samantha’s Law, the reason that Martin was able to receive the award, is an amendment to the Alberta Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act. It requires that participants in the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Program are recognized as legally distinct from children in protective services under the intervention model.

It means that the government needs to involve the families when figuring out funding for children with special needs.

“What Samantha’s Law did … it changed the way that the legislation looking at parents of children with disabilities focuses now,” she began. “Now you do not need to have your child move out of home in order to access the services. The services are provided to the family.”

She called the previous legislation an “archaic way of looking at individuals with disabilities.”

“When my daughter was born in 1993, we were actually forced to place her into an outside home for care because the government wouldn’t support natural families in home, which is totally crazy. Now what the legislation does is it defines children with disabilities in good homes separately from the child intervention model.”

Congressional Testimony: Dorothy Knightly to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in New Hampshire

Women Behind the Wall Tonya Sadowsky Founder and Executive Director of "The Amanda Truth Project"

Listen to internet radio with 4justicenow on Blog Talk Radio

https://www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America is an effort to get Americans to take a new Pledge. If you want our government officials to tell the truth and act honestly at all times, and if you want all government officials to always protect our rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, please become a friend of Bill Windsor.

Congressional Testimony: Thomas Gage for Lawless America

Congressional Testimony: Valerie Kreager to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Bloomington, MN

Congressional Testimony of Cheryl Letson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Help Save America - Message from Bill Windsor

Congressional Testimony of Debra McDaniel to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Nebraska

Congressional Testimony: Justin David Shultis to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Huron, SD

Congressional Testimony: David Leach to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Des Moines, IA

Congressional Testimony: Natasha Bowers to Bill Windsor of Lawless America - Tyler, TX

Lawless America Movie Promo: Our Forefathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Congressional Testimony: Demetria Beaumont to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Congressional Testimony: Gary Michael Phillip to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Annapolis MD

Congressional Testimony: Kurt Christensen to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Delaware

Congressional Testimony: Garr Alan Sanders to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Philadelphia

Congressional Testimony: William McGaughey to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

April Hall tells the story of the murder of her granddaughter to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Congressional Testimony: April Hall to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Helena, Montana

The Lawless America Movement presents Proposed Legislation to Save America

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Candace Robertson tells Bill Windsor of Lawless America about her Biggest Mistake

Congressional Testimony: Cyndi Steele to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boise, Idaho

Congressional Testimony: Franklin Stafford to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boise, Idaho

Congressional Testimony: Dale Dutt to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boise, Idaho

Congressional Testimony: Tina Kufner to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Providence, Rhode Island

Congressional Testimony: Maria Melinn to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grand Rapids, Michigan

Congressional Testimony: Beth Berryhill to Bill Windsor of Lawless

Congressional Testimony: Binta Bah to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grand Rapids

Congressional Testimony: Denise Bruns to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grand Rapids

Congressional Testimony: Sally Brooks to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grand Rapids

Congressional Testimony: Mark T. Smith to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grand Rapids

Congressional Testimony: Diane Gochin to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Philadelphia

Congressional Testimony: Kit Slitor to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Arlington, Virginia

Congressional Testimony: Nancy Hey to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Arlington, Virginia

Congressional Testimony: Herb Lux to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Washington, DC

Congressional Testimony: Anjelique Covert-Bryant to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Arlington

Congressional Testimony: Steven Wicks to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg

Congressional Testimony: Barry Tangert to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg

Congressional Testimony: Robert Fulford to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg

Did Judge Gordon Godfrey falsify his residency?

GORDON GODFREY APPEARS TO HAVE FALSIFIED HIS RESIDENCY AFFIDAVIT -- THAT'S A FELONY, AND IT MAKES HIM INELIGIBLE TO BE JUDGE:

Ms. Willis, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Welch:
Grays Harbor County Commissioners
Grays Harbor County Administration Building
100 West Broadway, Suite 1
Montesano, WA 98563

Commissioners:

I respectfully submit that, based upon information provided to me, I believe Gordon GODfrey filed a false residency affidavit and false oath of office. This is a crime, and I believe you must immediately refer this matter to the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Spatz has provided you with a copy of the affidavit and oath, and I attach it again.

Judicial Candidates must be resident electors of their district and admitted to practice law in the courts of record of the State of Washington. (Reference State Constitution, Article IV, Section 17; RCW 3.50.057)

Gordon GODfrey shows his residence as 1412 ½ 2nd Street, Cosmopolis, WA 98537. Gordon GODfrey swore that this was his residence, but it is not. He also swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington, and he has failed to do so repeatedly.

According to friends of Gordon GODfrey, “the Cosmopolis address is the mother-in-law apartment behind Joe Shapansky's house. The person who really lives at that address is one of Mr. Shapansky's kids. GODfrey has used that as his bogus mailing address for years now.” Seehttp://www.graysharbortalk.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/48041/1.html

According to public records, Gordon GODfrey resides in a $1.2 million waterfront home in Olympia. Seehttp://www.ewingandclark.com/properties/details/1488386-5234_sunset_dr_nw_olympia_wa_98502_1578

Even GODfrey’s niece advised me this evening through an online post that GODfrey does not live in Cosmopolis. 

RCW 29A.08.810 provides the basis for challenging a voter's registration: 
(1) Registration of a person as a voter is presumptive evidence of his or her right to vote. A challenge to the person's right to vote must be based on personal knowledge of one of the following:

(c) The challenged voter does not live at the residential address provided, in which case the challenger must either:

(i) Provide the challenged voter's actual residence on the challenge form; or

(2) A person's right to vote may be challenged by another registered voter or the county prosecuting attorney.

(3) The challenger must file a signed affidavit subject to the penalties of perjury swearing that, to his or her personal knowledge and belief, having exercised due diligence to personally verify the evidence presented, the challenged voter either is not qualified to vote or does not reside at the address given on his or her voter registration record based on one of the reasons allowed in subsection (1) of this section. The challenger must provide the factual basis for the challenge, including any information required by subsection (1)(c) of this section, in the signed affidavit. The challenge may not be based on unsupported allegations or allegations by anonymous third parties. All documents pertaining to the challenge are public records.

Please advise if the prosecuting attorney will handle charges. If not, I am sure a number of registered voters would be delighted to file the necessary affidavit.

As to violations of the Constitutions, I can provide extensive evidence of this, if needed.

William M. Windsor
Bill@LawlessAmerica.com
Movie Trip Phone: 770-578-1094
Fax: 770-578-1057
www.LawlessAmerica.com

Congressional Testimony: Nubian Divine Muhammad EL to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Chicago

Congressional Testimony: Debbie Williams to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Lansing, Michigan

Congressional Testimony: Deanna Kloostra to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Grand Rapids

Congressional Testimony: Wesley Goodwin to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Congressional Testimony: Zed McLarnon to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boston, MA

Congressional Testimony: Aliana Von Richtofen to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boston

Congressional Testimony: Kevin Thompson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Boston

Congressional Testimony: Kathy Lee Scholpp to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Providence

Congressional Testimony: Michael Doyle to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Augusta, Maine

Congressional Testimony: Marie Miller to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in New Hampshire

Congressional Testimony: Sandie Fonzo to Bill Windsor of Lawless

Congressional Testimony: Damir Juric to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Albany NY

Congressional Testimony: Timothy Klatke to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in St. Paul

Congressional Testimony: Kelly Bingaman to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg

Congressional Testimony: Howard Hanson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in St. Paul

Congressional Testimony: Bonnie Roy to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Minnesota

Congressional Testimony: Monique Prince to Bill Windsor of Lawless

Congressional Testimony: Dottie Lafortune to Bill Windsor of Lawless

Congressional Testimony: Ed Bryans to Bill Windsor of Lawless

Bill Windsor of Lawless America reporting from courthouse of corrupt Judge Gordon GODfrey

Catherine Brooks of Grays Harbor County Washington: Corrupt Judge Gordon GODfrey

Congressional Testimony: Gene Wrona to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Harrisburg PA

Congressional Testimony: Hope Nardone to Bill Windsor of Lawless

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Child Abuse Laws: Legally Abducting Children by Broadening the Definition of “Child Abuse”

September 5, 2012
by Dr. Mercola
Child abuse is a horrific act, no matter how you define it.
That’s why we have so many laws, and public and private agencies, set up specifically with the charge to protect children and maintain their safety. It’s exactly why so much funding is directed toward this goal.
But did you know that the money funneled to states and child protective services actually encourages them to accuse you of child abuse and even murder, and to take your children, even if you’re not guilty, and even though they have absolutely no proof that you harmed your child?

The Legal Abduction of Children

Horrendous as it sounds, it’s true: child abuse has become a business – an industry of sorts – that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption!
Even more unbelievable is that, instead of pumping the money back into child protective service programs, some states actually are putting it into their general funds to help balance their budgets.
A number of groups have tried to reform this shady practice, but it was a California politician who caught media attention this past summer, when he said that, if elected, he would expose how local governments were amassing billions of dollars in annual reimbursements, in exchange for what amounted to legal abduction of children.
“Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services provide the county,”John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper“These profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.
Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families intact. “As such … our county government is a major factor in the dismantling of families and/or destruction of children’s lives,” he said.
He then cited San Diego CPS for “egregious behaviors” that included accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.
The ugly truth is that San Diego isn’t the only community where false accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and foster care have started to cry “foul.”

About the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.
As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.
In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.
But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.
In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.
Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs. The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur.

How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports

What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new. In 1991, the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured out that children were being taken from their families “prematurely or unnecessarily” because federal formulas give states “a strong financial incentive” to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.”
As a result, the federal government and a number of states created legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports, those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouragedmore adoptions.
Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give “bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child  for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number,” NCCPR reports. And again, all the help goes to foster and adoptive parents. “About the only parents the federal government won’t help indefinitely are birth parents,” NCCPR found.
But the injustices don’t stop there, because in order to get that money, states have to have children to take away and place – and therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no evidence to do so.
“CPS nationally are doing a job they’ve never been trained to do,” says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for more than 18 years. They’re investigating people who have never been charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and they get paid to do it.
This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting.”
The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse accusations, Hart said.
“And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them immunity if they’re wrong,” she said.
“So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers.”

How are States Spending this Extra Money?

According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification. This is based on President Obama’s $4.681 billion foster care budget for FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.
But this decrease is based on “placement of children in more permanent settings.” In other words, states are getting moremoney to take care of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.
The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to $8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for adoption.
The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead, by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or a range of other home-based services!
In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn’t get a direct answer when he demanded that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was going. But a look at any state’s budget – from Minnesota to Florida to Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children’s services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their budgets .

Not Enough Abused Children? Change the Definition of Child Abuse

This certainly is a convoluted way to stop child abuse, if for no other reason than it’s a form of child abuse to tear families apart and take children away from parents who are accused of doing something they didn’t do. It also doesn’t explain one of the newer definitions of child abuse that came along after CAPTA was enacted, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).
Reliable statistics on SBS do not exist, but according to the National Shaken Baby Coalition (NSBC), as many as 1,500 babies a year are shaken by their parents, and either severely injured or killed.
While the numbers may not seem exceedingly large, they still add another arena in which CPS can seize children from their parents, and place them in adoptive homes – and claim the booty that the federal government gives them for doing this.

On the Backs of Children, an Industry Based on Child Abuse has Arisen

In San Diego, CPS proudly announced that due to their efforts, child abuse reports had gone down. But again, Van Doorn busted them – the numbers went down, he said, because the public had begun to catch on to the county’s recent court casesthey’d lost in conjunction with false child abuse allegations.
When you apply this same thinking to the national statistics, it makes you wonder how many other states and local municipalities are dealing with false allegations.
The truth is staggering, according to Hart, and is so prevalent that countless blogs have popped up addressing the problem, as well asentire websites devoted to helping people who’ve been falsely accused of child abuse.

Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?

Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.
“This is an inverted pyramid,” Yazbak says. “It’s an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.
This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it’s the other side that’s making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.
It’s obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they’re literally convicting people before they’re even accused. It’s the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent.”
A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their “businesses” going.
Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.
Again, the numbers tell the story:
In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation.  Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS “investigations.” Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.
But with a “more inclusive” definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.
But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn’t explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.
So what can you or I do about it?
According to Hart, this is an issue that can’t be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It’s a national problem that’s gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.
Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse “prevention” that I’ve talked about here.
In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I’ve included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.
While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it’s possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the “immunity” clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can’t do so without being held responsible.
References:
National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290.
Copyright Dr. Joseph Mercola, 2011. All Rights Reserved.