Perjury

State Sanctioned Kidnapping

U.S. Observer

By Jim Dossett

Jim Dossett's Grandchildren

My understanding of the court system was similar to most Americans understanding of it. We read about court proceedings online, in newspapers and we hear about them on TV. Obey the law, no problem. Disobey the law and we have the finest system going. Our system compared to many is far and away the best. However it has, as I have come to learn, certain flaws that have evolved and have tilted the scales of justice.

My understanding of the court system in a nut shell was that, truth is found by careful and dutiful dissection in the court room. Evidence is paramount and lies are dissolved. Unfortunately politics, ego and dollars have consumed it.

This is our story. It could happen to anyone. It has and is happening here (Yamhill County Oregon) and around the country. Families are caught up in the bureaucratic functions of state departments so consumed by their internal policies that any attempt to cast reason their way is met with condemnation. That condemnation is supported by their superior understanding of the legal system. It did not happen overnight. Over years and decades, laws have been generated that enable government to pursue an agenda that would normally be considered unconstitutional by most American standards. In Oregon the Department of Human Services (DHS) primarily pursues court actions through the juvenile court system. The opposing party is put on the defense. An opposing party is considered guilty until proven innocent. In cases like ours the judge is the decider, no jury required. The State has unlimited funds for legal representation and experts. Unless money is of no consequence to those challenging the state, a public defender is the degree of legal help most receive. Money was of a consequence to us though we soon found out, that a public defender is not the best option in today’s court. Time is of no consequence to DHS. Once embroiled in a court case they are exacting their job description. Whereas their opponents have to shift, maneuver and crunch their daily lives at the expense of the system. Understand that court is only held during the work week and during normal working hours.

My experience with the system was brought on by an injustice that occurred in my family. I am the grandfather of an infant that was stricken with rickets. His parents are the typical loving mother and father. They have been accused by the State of Oregon of abusing their five week old son.

Here is our story:

On October 1, 2011 - my grandson was born. He was like his mother, stubborn as he refused to come out when the time was near. It had been two weeks since his scheduled delivery time. The doctor wanted to induce labor. My daughter was upset and concerned as she had read a lot about the medicine they were going to use. It was Pitocin, a highly controversial induction medication. I assured my daughter that the doctor knew what was best. The delivery was rough to say the least. My grandson got stuck coming out. My grandson was what is known as “Shoulder Dystocia”. His shoulders were stuck in the pelvis. The doctor manipulated my grandson with his hands for about 90 seconds which was a long time, in a scary situation. The infant was blue and not breathing when he finally inched through. The delivery team corrected his breathing and aside from being bruised, my grandson looked fine. His ABGAR score at birth was 3 (out of ten). That is a scale hospitals use to assess a child’s health at birth. He was not X-rayed at the time as X-rays are not normally done on newborns for obvious reasons. Unfortunately another infant was admitted to the hospital that was dead or dying on arrival. We totally understand the hospitals priority in that matter. Though, his misfortune took up practically the entire hospitals attention, which included the pediatrician on duty. Although close monitoring of my grandson by the pediatrician had been requested by the delivery doctor, it did not occur.

To top off my grandsons condition he had jaundice. Not severely but it took a few days to clear up. (In the past year I have researched many publications and presentations, one of particular interest for our case was a Dr. Sabah Serveas. She presented a power point lecture at a radiologist conference about birth injuries that resemble abuse. A Dr. Kleinman did an article addressing the problems with diagnosing metaphyseal fractures which mentions rickets.)

After leaving Willamette Valley Medical Center (WVMC) my grandson had to return the following 2 days for check-ups on his jaundice condition. The parents were exceptional in looking after his health needs. He had 2 well baby checks in his first two weeks. At about the third week he was seen by a doctor that performed a circumcision. On Nov. 7th he was seen along with my daughters mid wife. The mid wife admired my grandson during their visit. And of course the doting grandparents were almost always hovering close by. Everything was just perfect.

Clearly nothing was out of place. If there was any sign of neglect or abuse it is only logical that it would have been reported.

The nightmare that ensued has challenged my belief and respect for the system. It all started on Nov. 8th 2011. My grandson was 5 weeks old at this time. He had from birth been fussy and requiring a lot of love and attention. He was fussier than normal, and on Nov. 7th, his temperature was slightly elevated and he had been expelling a higher than normal amount of gas. My daughter administered baby Tylenol for his fever and an over the counter gas relief (gripe water). The next day his temperature was still slightly elevated (100.1). Whenever he was adjusted for feeding or diaper changes it was obvious he was in discomfort. The parents called an advice nurse that instructed them to have a doctor take a look at the infant, just to be on the safe side. It was after 5pm and the only available medical attention was the emergency room at WVMC.

When they arrived they saw a receptionist that took care of the initial paper work and had them wait for their examination. That wait was about an hour long. Important, as it must not have appeared that the infant required any emergency care. Once in the exam room, a triage nurse evaluated my grandson’s condition. Of importance is that she is quoted in her report stating, “All four extremities are strong and moving equally”. She does not pass down any concerns about the infant’s leg or suggest special care to the on duty pediatrician. Next, the duty pediatrician (Dr. Shaver) examined my grandson, noting in his report that upon entering the room he sees the infant laying on the table calmly looking about. After doing a visual check the doctor performs a hip check. My daughter and son-in-law heard and see my grandson scream. This is the first time either of them has heard him scream in his short few weeks. The doctor performed another hip check and another scream occurred. The doctor said that it was normal for an infant with abdominal issues. The doctor requested an abdominal X-ray and left the room. At 2006 hrs an X-ray tech entered in the room with a portable X-ray and attempted to do an X-ray of the abdomen.

As described to me: While positioning the child, the tech asks my son-in-law if the doctor had said anything about the child’s leg. The doctor had not. The tech X-rays the abdomen and leaves with his portable X-ray. Thirty minutes later at 2036, the tech returns with his portable X-ray and performs an X-ray of the child’s leg. This x-ray shows that the left femur is fractured. (During court, the doctor stated that he had ordered the X-rays at the same time.) The doctor advises that because the parents cannot explain how this happened, he is doing his job and starts a mandatory investigation. The parents are sincerely concerned for their child and hope the investigation explains what is wrong with their child.

Of note and surely to battle in the court room later is why did the doctor not convey his concerns about the leg from the beginning? In the judge's opinion it was stated that the doctor was immediately aware of a problem with the leg. Seriously? He ordered an abdominal X-ray. He does not pass on any information to the X-ray tech about careful handling of the leg? Had my grandson been discharged that night with concern only for his stomach what would have been the hospitals response when later he was brought in for a broken leg? Prior medical attention would have been considered thorough and no sign of injury.

Jim Dossett's Grandchildren

Anyway, my grandson is transferred to Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU)/Doernbechers hospital. There, a battery of tests is done. At this time there is slight swelling on the left leg that had not been there before. There was a skeletal survey done and it showed the femur fracture, some metaphyseal fractures and three rib fractures healing in various stages. There was no bruising, no soft tissue damage, no retinal hemorrhaging, no neck or head injuries, and no internal organ damage (internal CT scan was completed also with only minor differences in bone condition). The Abuse team nurse requests a vitamin D level blood test. Complete blood panels are done. Calcium, Phosphorus and PTH levels are also requested. Vitamin D, Phosphorus and calcium and PTH levels are essential to establishing bone strength without doing a bone density check (which was not done). The Vitamin D test was lost? The Calcium and Phosphorus were classified as Quantity Not Sufficient. And the PTH was Not Received.

Later - this is extremely important, everyone totally ignored this major discrepancy in our case.
On Nov 9th at an emergency hearing in Yamhill county court we had our first taste of how the DHS exults its power. After hearing all of the evidence the judge (Easterday) ordered that my grandson and his sister be allowed to stay with the parents until the jurisdictional hearing in January, under the stipulation that I and my wife be safety supervisors. That was generally accepted, as the parents and children were living with us at the time. At that point the DHS case worker Becky Brewster raised her hand and told the judge that she must reconsider. She told the judge that she needs to know that the infant boy had multiple fractures and liver damage. The word fracture was used for effect by DHS. Metaphyseals are located on the ends of the bones. Whenever someone hears fracture the visual of a bone snapped in half comes to mind. That is not the case with metaphyseal. The article by Dr Kleinman states that metaphyseal are indistinguishable from Rickets. And the presentation by Dr Servaes describes them as common in birth.

Becky Brewster in my opinion is an overzealous attention seeking case worker that feels that she is empowered with the duty of saving the children no matter what the cost. Unfortunately that weighs in with ignoring parenting rights, the constitution and lying under oath to accomplish her mission.

For the record - My 18 month old granddaughter was subjected to a skeletal X-ray upon the judge’s request. Her health was perfect.

The petition that was presented to the court listed the femur fracture as a fracture, the metaphyseal and rib fractures were at the time listed as possible and probable. The liver was not listed as damaged. The petition stated that liver enzymes were elevated, indicative of liver damage. The enzymes were elevated. At the time of the emergency hearing we explained that the doctor that performed the tests had confirmed to us that there was no liver or any internal damage. We fought that misrepresentation for most of our battle with the state. The judge (Cal Tichenor) wrote in his opinion that liver damage was ruled out and was not a consideration in his findings. One thing that annoys me is that we told everyone that my grandson had a low fever and that he had been given children’s Tylenol. Our research found that Tylenol raises the very liver enzymes that were being used to accuse us of abuse. Really, none of the doctors gave it a thought.

As is protocol for skeletal X-rays a follow up is required approximately 2 weeks later for evaluation of the healing process. On December 2, a second Skeletal X-ray was performed. On this one the same radiologist that read the first one mentioned that there was minimal periosteal formation on the 5th rib. Periosteal is what forms around bones in the healing process. The original X-ray showed no signs of a fracture on the 5th rib, nor did the CT scan (The radiologist had ordered the CT because she stated that it has a better modality for viewing ribs). The first Skeletal X-ray and CT scan on Nov 9th were basically identical though the CT scan reader had actually identified a rib (#7 rib) that the radiologist for the skeletal X-ray had identified as a fracture, stating that it was actually just artifact(?). The infant was out of the parent’s custody as of the 10th of Nov.When the Skeletal X-ray was done on Dec 2nd any fracture phase not on the first set was something that had to have occurred while in the states custody.The logical explanation is that a bone was fractured while the infant was in the states care. The radiologist did try to maneuver around how it could have happened. She was unable to deny that it was possible and could have occurred while my grandson was in foster care (state custody). Judge Tichenor ordered a 3rd X-ray during our first hearing to settle that argument. DHS ignored that order. Also, of note is that one of the liver enzymes presented as being elevated and indicative of a fracture (ALT) was at its highest level when checked while in the states care.

Our case was never one with criminal charges. It has always been a fight with DHS over custody. They had taken an infant away from a family without any factual evidence. There was no evidence of a crime having been committed. Yes, a non mobile child had a broken leg. There are, as I have found numerous medical explanations for weakened bones in infants. Diseases and vitamin deficiencies account for many. An infants' bones are “normally” strong and or pliable and do not break easily.

If as the experts had detailed in our case, there should have been attendant signs of abuse if in fact abuse had occurred. In our case where there was no explanation for what happened to my grandson’s femur. There was no swelling, no bruising, no soft tissue damage, no internal organ damage, no head or neck injuries.

When a child is taken from a family by the state, the court system gets involved and that is where this case turned horrific. On Nov.10, 2011 DHS took control of my grandson. Then the court system had to set up a hearing to hear testimony and the evidence. That was not possible until Jan.5th - almost 2 months later. Imagine having your child taken away knowing that he must have some kind of a condition that caused all of this and the system just whisks him away for months until you prove it was a health condition. It is insane. The parents have no drug, alcohol or domestic issues. Both are educated with a degree or seeking a degree. They have a perfectly healthy 18 month old (at that time). The infant that was taken had a rough delivery. All of this background info readily available and they take the infant away. The State knows that once they take custody, they are aware of the immense burden that places on them. They now have to justify it. The State has a huge legal team at their disposal. We know something is wrong with the infant’s bones. We make an appointment with the Shriner’s Hospital to have him checked out. Upon DHS finding out about this Becky Brewster cancels the appointment. When on the stand and asked if she had in fact cancelled it, she denied it. The judge presented her with the Shriner’s Document that showed her name as the person that had in fact cancelled the appointment! This action was ignored by the court; accept to make DHS arrange for another Shriner’s appointment. All DHS allowed Shriners to do in that rescheduled appointment was to review current medical records. No new testing was done.

Judge Tichenor heard our case in January and disregarded all of our experts, including one Dr David Ayoub, a radiologist with 23 years experience. That expert diagnosed my grandson with neonatal rickets and was 100% sure of his diagnosis. Two other doctors, one a pediatrician with 16 years experience and a medical emergency doctor with 30 years experience. Both felt that abuse was not the cause of the injuries. Pointing out that they had never seen a traumatic leg fracture without attendant outside signs of injury. Even the infant’s pediatrician who had been seeing the infant while in the states care wanted further testing done. He was not convinced it was abuse.

In my opinion the judge ruled in such a way as to take the responsibility away from the court. This also allowed him to let his DA win the case. If the judge ruled in favor of the state, it would go as most cases go. The State will control what the parents have to do to get their infant back. Psychological testing, parenting classes, visitation control, etc. All under the guise that it is in the best interest of the infant. It is a win win for the judge. All he has to do is write his opinion so as to justify his ruling. Now, what if the ruling affects the rest of the life of the parents and the child’s future? In our case with the parents, one has a psychology degree and the other is working towards one in that field. Where will they be able to use those degrees? They will be placed on a child abuser list for the rest of their lives. Would you think that it would be in the best interest of your child to give up your future source of income and their stability? Throw away all that money invested in a private college (Linfield College).

Currently we are still fighting. We lost our case in the first hearing. Albeit we believe that the transcripts bear out that the judge’s decision was wrong. He admitted that he did not know what happened to the infant. Plus how can he rule on a preponderance of the evidence when there was still doubt as to the occurrence of the 5th rib being fractured? The appeals Court chose the same course of action as Judge Tichenor. They did not read the transcripts as we requested.

New evidence has surfaced since the first hearing. Of course it could not be presented to the appeals court because it was not part of the first hearing. We are requesting a new hearing to review that an endocrinologist report done after the hearing showed that my grandson had been started on a high dosage prescription - Ergocalciferol D2 oral Nov 25th . During the original hearing the States expert, Dr. Valvano had convinced the judge that vitamin D was not important. We had argued during the hearing that Vitamin D fortified formula was used extensively prior to the blood test and that alone would have significantly increased his vitamin D level. My grandson’s levels were deficient at 20.7 even after formula supplementation.(Formula contains at least 40 IU of vitamin D per serving size)We are aware of 5 straight days of only having formula prior to the blood test which equates to about 400 UI a day of Vit D. We are adamant that the supplementation not only raised his levels, but was used along with the Ergocalciferol D2 to treat a bone condition.Which ironically is the vitamin that Dr Valvano said was not important.

At one point during this ordeal we suspected sex abuse and physical abuse of my grandson. The judicial system proved its unworthiness to me again. Once we submitted for a hearing to get my grandson out of that situation. The court in its almightiness scheduled a hearing for 2 weeks away. Yes, two weeks. All the while the infant was to stay in a home that had had suspected child abuse. When we finally made it to court the state argued for almost an entire day. The hearing was originally scheduled for an hour and changed on the day of the hearing for 3 hours. After all was said and the day was completed. The hearing was not. It was again scheduled to be seen again in 2 months. YES, two months later, all the while my infant grandson remained in the same foster care. It is ludicrous! Nothing in the world boils me over as much as the double sidedness of the court. When child abuse is suspected by DHS the state will take your child away in an instant. But when the shoe is on the other foot, the lines are crossed and the rules changed. No one has been able to explain to me how the best interest of the child is served when the State is only concerned with its own best interests!

We have been fighting this case now for over a year. We know that we are right and that the only reason this has gone on for so long is because of the states power. They control the courtroom in this particular kind of a case. They are normally dealing with parents that are either guilty or can only afford a public defender that probably councils them to do whatever the state says and just walk away. We have had three public defenders and have hired 3 different attorneys. One has stood by our side the entire time. His experience in this type of a case spans 35 years. He is determined to win. We also hired an attorney to represent us in a petition for review, sent to the Oregon Supreme Court. We found out this past February that the Oregon Supreme Court will not take on our case. We will not stop fighting.

My daughter and Son-in-law did not abuse their son. That is the truth and the truth stands alone, it will always be the truth.

Jim Dossett
ABH1 (E-6)
USN Retired

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 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'.

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 Photo: ALAMY

By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor

11:58AM BST 20 Sep 2012

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.

Charges dropped in toddler assault case

By Nicole Montesano
Of the News-Register 

Charges against a McMinnville man accused of fracturing a toddler's skull were dropped on Thursday, after a grand jury declined to indict him.

Nicholas Ryan Bates, 25, had been charged in May with third-degree assault and first-degree criminal mistreatment, after his girlfriend's 2-year-old son was found to have suffered a fractured skull and collarbone.

Grand jury proceedings are secret by law; not even the defendant is allowed to be present. During the proceedings, the jury receives evidence favorable to the prosecution; no defense is presented. It then determines whether it believes that the evidence, if unexplained or contradicted at trial, would support a conviction. If so, it determines which charges are supported.

Defendants are informed of the outcome at a court hearing, when they are either formally advised of the charges against them, or the charges are officially dismissed.

Prosecutor May Chou said, that "at this point, I do not expect to" file any additional charges in the case. She declined further comment.

The case came to light in mid-May, when the toddler's mother, 22-year-old Felicia Megan Manley, took him to the hospital emergency room.

According to the Yamhill County Sheriff's Office, she told investigators that she and the child had been at Bates' home when she stepped outside to smoke a cigarette, and returned inside, to find the child had a small amount of blood on his mouth, as if he had bitten his tongue. The next day, the toddler was unresponsive and acted as if his arm hurt, so she took him to the hospital, where doctors discovered the injuries, and notified police. She told investigators she did not know how the toddler had been injured.

Bates said that he is no longer with Manley.

He said he does not know how or when the child was injured.

"We were not being good parents, that's all I can say. ... We were just having a bonfire, everyone was drinking, no one was paying attention."

The situation continues to be a painful one, he said, because he feels his reputation has been permanently damaged.

"I wish there was any way to fix that, but the damage has already been done. I don't know if anybody is ever going to believe me," he said. "I'm not a child beater. ... I'm just pretty upset about the whole situation."

http://newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=charges-dropped-in-toddler-assault-case--1339857429--3759--news

LA court commissioner admonished by judicial panel

(04-03) 16:01 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) --

The state commission on judicial performance has publicly admonished a Los Angeles court commissioner for repeatedly being rude and belittling to attorneys and litigants in family court.

According to a public order issued Tuesday, Commissioner Alan Friedenthal should be severely publicly admonished for misconduct and ethics violations in five family law cases.

In one case, he threatened to award custody of a child to non-parental family members in response to a father's statements that he needed a payment plan to pay court fees.

Friedenthal says his rude behavior was infrequent, and came in response to difficult litigants.

The cases were heard between 2007 and 2009 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

A commissioner is a subordinate judicial officer to a judge in California courts.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/03/state/n160117D07.DTL#ixzz1r4yNWt27

Emergency child custody hearings too disruptive, Juvenile Court says; judges may stop taking calls

 By Sarah Jane Tribble, The Plain Dealer 


CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Judges in Cuyahoga County's Juvenile Court want someone else to make the final decision for removing children from their homes during emergencies -- in part because telephone hearings disrupt the magistrates' schedules and personal lives.

The court's magistrates and judges also want to be relieved of the duty because they feel that many of the calls for emergency hearings and the resulting court orders are "not true emergencies," according to a memorandum filed last month by the children and family services unit of the county prosecutor's office.  

But the controversial proposal disregards an Ohio Supreme Court recommendation and has as made for some unlikely partnerships. The prosecutor and public defender's office, often courtroom adversaries, have joined the county Children and Family Services agency in opposing the move.

The change would mean that a magistrate or judge would not be the deciding party. Instead, they would likely appoint the social worker as a servant of the justice system to make the final decision.

The juvenile court administrators declined requests for interviewers, though confirmed in an email Tuesday that they are reviewing how they handle emergency custody cases.

"We look forward to continue to seek solutions that are in the best interest of the children of Cuyahoga County," the email stated.

The prosecutor's memo -- quoting from an internal juvenile court memo written in November -- notes that the magistrates complained that such calls for emergency telephone hearings were "very disruptive" to their daily dockets and personal lives.  

In 2011, there were 617 cases that required the magistrates in Juvenile Court to hold an emergency telephone hearing, and then issue a court order for the removal of a child, according the prosecutor's office.

Emergency cases typically involve children who are deemed to be in immediate threat or danger of being harmed. One common case is when neighbors report children who have been left home alone.

Under the current system, a social worker quickly investigates such cases, often visiting the home and interviewing relatives or neighbors. Then, a report is given to others at children and family services. Once the division is in agreement, social workers consult the prosecutor's office and call a juvenile court magistrate for an out-of-court hearing. If the magistrate agrees, a court order is issued over the phone. All of this can happen within a few hours.

In only three of the 617 cases last year did a magistrate go against the opinions of the social worker and prosecutor and refuse a court order, said Pat Rideout, administrator of children and family services.

Still, having an impartial representative of the court as the final decider in such emergencies is crucial, Rideout said.

"This is an enormous intrusion on a family and a parent's rights and you simply don't do that lightly," Rideout said. "The court's role is to review what we do. ... I very much want the court's review and approval."

Rideout, who before taking the helm of the agency last year worked in the juvenile court system as an attorney and magistrate, said Cuyahoga County's court had previously appointed social workers to be officers of the court and gave them the authority to remove children from their homes.

But the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed Cuyahoga County's juvenile justice system in 2004 and strongly urged against the practice. While the practice "appears to be legal," the higher court wrote, it is "not a best practice and may well be a conflict of interest."

Instead, the high court said, children and their parents should have an in-court hearing. If that is not possible, the second choice would be a hearing by telephone, which is what is practiced now.

The high court wrote "ex parte hearings and telephonic orders ensure procedural protections at the earliest possible point in the process."

Cuyahoga County's juvenile court switched to the recommended practice within a few of years of the published report, though in a 2005 response to the recommendations the administration hinted at a concern about the increased caseload telephone hearings might cause.

The letter, dated from July 2005, said the court would review the suggestion and "may conclude there is a need to increase the caseload of the Administrative Judge's Magistrates."

Stephen Rubin, a national court consultant and past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said "it's not that complicated" to figure out a solution for busy dockets.

"The judges need to change the way they do business," Rubin said. "They need to dedicate a different judge every day to be the on-call judge."

It is unclear how the judges and magistrates in Cuyahoga County's juvenile court handle emergency hearings because they did not provide an interview. Rubin said the county's juvenile court system had once participated in the national council's model court program, which establishes guidelines for handling cases. But the court dropped out of the program -- a move that is unusual, he said.

"The real focus of the resource guidelines is getting the families the help they need and not taking the kids into care unless it's absolutely necessary," Rubin said.

For Yvonne Billingsley, an assistant prosecutor and supervisor of the children and family services unit in the prosecutor's office for more than 16 years, an in-court hearing would be ideal for giving both the children and family ample opportunity to make their case. But the time and resources in-court hearings take make them unlikely.

A telephone hearing, with or without parental involvement, is the next choice and allows the magistrate to ask a "handful of critical questions" of the social worker to make a final decision.  

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges offers guidelines saying that the unplanned removal of a child is always traumatic and that the court must make as careful and considered a decision as possible during an emergency. It also states that the courts must provide protection for parents as well.

In his March 21 letter to the Juvenile Court Judges, Cuyahoga County Public Defender Sam Amata, who supervises the juvenile division, argues that the telephone hearings should continue, stating that having a social worker make the decision would be "shirking this obvious judicial responsibility."

State continues to see high turnover of DCS case managers

INDIANAPOLIS -

A call for action for all who have children, work with them, or know someone who does.

Advocates say it's everyone's job to prevent child abuse. The state can't do it alone, as the turnover rate for case managers spikes in some areas. 13 Investigates broke down the numbers and the warning signs.

Every 10 seconds, a report of child abuse is made nationwide. Here in Indiana, 198 children have died from abuse or neglect over a four-year period. Those are the latest numbers available between 2006 and 2010.

"It certainly is frightening in terms of what is happening or may be happening to our children. So anything we can do to prevent child abuse and neglect is going to make our entire society healthier," said Dr. Roberta Hibbard.

Hibbard has fixed the broken bones and bruises of wounded children as the director of the Child Protection Program and Riley/IU Health. She has a warning for grandparents, parents and babysitters.

"Babies shouldn't have any bruises and if they do, you need to ask really serious questions," Dr. Hibbard warned.

When it comes to older children, she says to watch out for "when you see lots of bruises, weird places or are in the shape of a specific object, that's a big red flag."

Indiana's Department of Child Services is charged with investigating abuse and neglect. For years, the agency has faced the challenge of keeping trained workers on the job.

13 Investigates obtained the department's turnover rates for family case managers. We found in a one-year period, DCS hired 511 new case managers. Twenty-one transferred to other positions during that same time, while 280 simply quit. It created a loss of 18.1 percent agency-wide, roughly the same loss as the previous year at 18.7 percent.

13 Investigates found much higher turnover in specific DCS regions. Struggling most was Region 10, which consists only of Marion County, where more than a quarter of its case managers left - 26.6 percent, to be exact.

DCS Director Judge James Payne recently talked about the turnover improvement in Marion County.

"In 2004, in Marion County, I know it was over 35 percent," he said of the revolving door of case workers.

Neighboring Region 11, including Hamilton, Hancock and Madison counties, took a dramatic jump, up 10 points from 16 percent to a 26 percent loss.

Pam Knight has had 12 years on the job in Madison County and says she wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

"It's an honor to have families allow you to walk into their lives and help them," Knight said.

"I think we have grown and made great strides and have saved a lot of lives," added Heidi Jordan, who has 17 years with DCS and now works at its central office.

Last month, Governor Mitch Daniels was so worried about case workers throwing in the towel, he delivered a pep talk at a DCS training.

"Yes, a great case worker or manager is really important. The training they have and if they're really good at what they do, we don't want to lose a single one and I just didn't want that to start happening," Daniels told 13 Investigates.

The numbers are more alarming when it comes to keeping workers answering the state's child abuse hotline. Half of the workers hired left.

Still, Payne was unavailable for comment, but said at a news conference weeks ago, that families were helped last year.

"We received over a 140,000 phone calls, 97,500 families actually received an assessment or a referral for services," he said.

DCS has been actively recruiting case managers for years, pushing their rolls up to around 1,500, but losing roughly 18 percent of their expertise each of the last two years.

Now here's what you can do: Don't ignore patterns of suspicious bruising or changed behavior in children. If you suspect abuse or neglect, call 1-800-800-5556. It could save a child's life.

Case manager turnover 2010-11

Case manager turnover 2011-12

http://www.wthr.com/story/17324970/state-continues-to-see-high-turnover-of-dcs-case-managers

A CPS insider reveals "secret rules" that corrupt "Child Protection Services" Inc. must follow:

KANGAROO COURTS TARGET “CHILDREN”

KANGAROO COURT… WAKE COUNTY FAMILY COURT!

Stop into courtroom 4C in the Wake County Courthouse located at 316 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.  They conduct KANGAROO COURT daily.

A KANGAROO COURT is a common everyday term for a sham legal proceeding. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, for the purpose of ensuring conviction (or in my case, whatever is to be interpreted as so-called “victory” while advancing the agenda of the State, County or other Government entity), either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.  Here in North Carolina Chapter 7B of the North Carolina General Statutes have been written to accommodate such proceedings.  These statutes either circumvent and more often attempt to directly undermine the United States Constitution; for the sole purpose of making it easier to initiate an action or proceeding against Parents and entire Families, and to further prolong such proceedings “under the color of law” in the interest of generating Revenue for each of the agencies involved.

A KANGAROO COURT’S proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency and “Profit.” Such rights include; the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secretevidence, the right to control one’s own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude Judges on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.  Most of these rights are never completely realized in a KANGAROO COURT!  Many, not at all!

Speaking of appeals, I personally have several appeals pending from rulings that have originated from such sham proceedings.  My first appeal is still in process and the County attorneys have now filed yet another “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.”  That’s right, they filed their first “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” in District Court and were Denied by Judge James Fullwood in June, 2011; and have since filed their second “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” in July, 2011 with the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  Basically it comes down to the factthat they are “rolling the dice” hoping to get the appeal kicked on simple LUCK (for the second time)!  There are no grounds.  Despicable acts, you would ONLY expect from a scumbag Defense attorney with no morals and in particular, one with no other REAL basis by which to defend their position. These are the GAMES they play in KANGAROO COURT!

KANGAROO COURTS often claim immunity from prosecution or damages.   Not so fast; this violates both State and Federal Constitutions and there are exceptions under Title 42, Section 1983.  I have a Federal Action in the works bringing 32 Defendants forward to answer for their acts of deprivation and conspiring to deprive my entire family and I of our Constitutional Rights.  We are seeking relief in the form of an order requiring the immediate return of our minor children to our full legal and physical custody and other relief by way of back and front lost income, back and front medical and mental health expenses, actual, compensatory and punitive damages, and all legal fees and costs.

Because the Defendants acted knowingly, recklessly and in disregard of well-established law and agency guidelines and regulations, with no objective reasonable basis for their actions, they do not have qualified immunity from damages under the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and by the Eastern District of North Carolina Federal Court.  Even judicial immunity is defeated with respect to the two Defendant District Court Judges when, “though judicial in nature,” their acts were “taken in complete absence of jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco (1991).  Furthermore, attorney immunity with respect to the Defendant court appointed attorneys (pretenders) is defeated since attorney immunity for intentional harm to one’s client was never so protected at common law, Tower v. Glover (1984)

These KANGAROO COURTS abuse their power each and every day with a wide rangediscretion; wide enough to render a reasonable defense or accountability impotent; specifically with regard to Judicial misconduct, the misconduct or unlawful acts of other Court Officers and the misconduct or unlawful acts of County Employees (Social Workers, Guardian ad litem, Mental Health Professionals, Etc.).  Then when you file a Motion to Recuse as I have in this case, after months of experiencing such incompetence and abuses of power, the Judges “close-ranks” and simply look out for one another.

This exists in Juvenile KANGAROO COURTS and other Courts associated with CPS in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency cases.  In addition KANGAROO COURTS regularly rule in favor the State/County and without skipping a beat, they quickly support and adopt guidelines set forth in the ever-popular “SERVICE AGREEMENTS” generated by CPS which really helps to destroy the family and to strengthen the County’s agenda, while continuing to ignore any reasonable defense.

KANGAROO COURTS teach Pretenders (court appointed attorneys) how to coerce their clients into signing off on these long-term cookie-cutter “SERVICE AGREEMENTS” requiring front-loaded psychological evaluations, completion of CPS-driven parenting classes, and other so-called therapeutic services, Revenue generators ALL.   My wife has been victimized by these very acts of coercion and intimidation while her so-called (court appointed) Pretender not only stood by and allowed these constitutional violations, but even helped draft the language of these so-called “SERVICE AGREEMENTS” which were accompanied by various verbal, written, and implied “empty promises.”  All this, “after” my wife and I had reconciled our marriage and began the steps of seeking to address or marital issues.  As a result of this so-called “agreement” and the empty promises from CPS, my wife has not seen our children in over 11 months, not even to visit and they are separated by 3,000 miles!  THAT’S RIGHT, ALMOST AN ENTIRE YEAR & 3,000 MILES – FOR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING AN UNLAWFUL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT PURPORTED TO BE IN PLACE TO PROTECT HER FROM ME; WHICH IS NOW VOID – FROM THE BEGINNING – AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED???  Here are just a few documented statements from various conspirators.

---

“If you don’t do whatever they ask, you will never see your children again.”

Rick Croutharmel, Mother’s Pretender

---

“She must become self-sufficient rather than relying on Mr. Reale or his personal connections, including obtaining suitable housing.”

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

---

“Mrs. Reale appears to need assistance in this area.  While she denies any contact with Mr. Reale, she continues to involve herself in situations that are governed by Mr. Reale – such as housing, car ownership, utilities, income, etc.”

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

---

“This social worker notes that Mr. Reale does ask about Mrs. Reale and he continues to wear his wedding band indicating a commitment to Mrs. Reale.”

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

---

“I have continued to express concern for my wife’s wellbeing.  I will continue to wear my wedding band as a commitment to her as her husband.  I have no intention to file for legal separation, divorce or any other action requesting the dissolution of our marriage or our family.”

Ron Reale, Father/ Husband

---

“Mrs. Reale continues to state that the allegations she made against Mr. Reale were false and she stated that she coached the children to lie about Mr. Reale because she wanted to get away from him because the couple was simply not happy in their marriage.  She admits to doing the same type of thing before, in 2002”

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

---

“Mrs. Reale adamantly denies that anything she has said in the past against her spouse was true but says she will do whatever we ask her to do so she can get her children back.  She reports that getting the children is her only focus and that she will worry about the marriage later.”

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

---

“In the event that she (Mrs. Reale) reconciles with Mr. Reale, permanence will be delayed.”

Monica Bousman, District Court Judge

---

Then there’s the treatment of minor children; parroting the term “best interest of the children” these KANGAROO COURTS quite arbitrarily order similar services for the children involved.  So-called Experts are destroying children, drugging them needlessly; even using “adult only” psychotropics. They are not only destroying the child psychologically but physically.  Children who grow up without a father are 33 times more likely to be abused and an even higher percentage are abused while in Foster Care.  Children are being removed from loving homes with judicial rubber stamping who are not even close to imminent danger.  In our case, our minor children were removed based on the allegation that my wife and I violated a Domestic Violence Protective Order which was UNLAWFULLY entered by Judge Lori Christian in May, 2010.  That order has since been vacated as a Void, from the beginning, as if it never existed since it was deemed “unlawful” by the very Judge who entered the order.  However, the county and the KANGAROO COURT have refused to return our children.  Appeal pending…

KANGAROO COURTS allow case workers and pretenders to perjure and doctor paperwork without consequence.  The KANGAROO COURT rules allow hearsay (this is even written into the statutes under Chapter 7B) while child protection workers dig for more “dirt” on imperfect families often as far back as the parent’s “childhood” (going back in some cases as many as 25-30 years).  Judges in KANGAROO COURTS are legislating from the bench and are routinely and deliberately ignoring our civil rights as set forth in the United States Constitution while hiding behind the unconstitutional statutes of Chapter 7B (North Carolina General Statutes).

Children are disappearing by the thousands, even tens of thousands in this system, raising serious questions of both competence and child trafficking.  Adoption incentives are encouraging family destruction not family preservation.  There is even an incentive for CPS to keep parents apart (like in our case), since the Federal Government matches child support $$$, making payments directly to the agency (above and beyond the actual $$$ amount ordered).  Keep in mind that the $$$ award is higher when there is 0% custody than when custody is split 50%/50%; and when neither parent has custody, the $$$ award is calculated based on 0% for each parent ( i.e. the highest $$$ award).  In our case, my wife is under order to pay almost $1,000/mo. and I am under order to pay over $1,400/mo. based on the 0% since neither of us currently has custody.  Do the math; that produces a MATCHING amount of over $2,400/mo. paid directly to CPS by the Feds!  Not to mention that CPS also keeps/redirects the lion share of the original $2,400/mo. as “repayment” for WELFARE services provided to the Foster Care giver.  Legalized Racketeering???  Organized Crime???

There is no community education on this topic whatsoever.  The KANGAROO COURTS, Pretenders and CPS are deliberately keeping the community ignorant.  KANGAROO COURTS conspire with Pretenders and CPS who lie, minimize, and cover-up information routinely.  This system is quickly depleting the Social Security reserve.  Most of the public is oblivious to this system’s very existence and are obviously unaware of the millions of dollars spent on propaganda and other forms of misleading rhetoric.  Special interest groups along with progressives have an agenda of destroying families and their worth to the community in the name of “Dependency” of the Government and “Profits.”

The number of angry Citizens now affected continues to grow and they are becoming less Patriotic, realizing they no longer live in a country where they can obtain relief for their redress of grievances in particular when it comes to protecting and maintaining their family.  Psychological Associations, Medical Associations, The Judiciary, CPS, and even Drug Companies collaborate to make this complex system a financial benefit for each of them, and easy prey of targeted families.

THE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” IS TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THERE IS FREEDOM AND DUE PROCESS NOT WHAT KANGAROO COURTS HAVE CREATED!