Hello Friends!
I'm a little late to share this, but I wanted to say Thank You for your support. We recently just hit 100,000 visitors! WOW! I never imagined that we would receive this much attention.
Since This Started
It has been quite a while since we started this blog. Our son had been taken away, and he was gone for 17 months. It was a hard battle, but eventually we got our son back and our family whole again. It wasn't without much pain, and we're still recovering 2 years after he came home. Our son and daughter never leave each other's sides. Whether this is due to their close age or the fact that she had to visit her baby brother at a DHS office, who knows for sure. But they love each other very much.
Both of our children have since been diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos Type III, which is a hypermobility branch of the disorder. My son has more severe symptoms, often having tiny pinpoint bruises and joint pain, especially in his feet. My daughter seems to have a less severe case, though she did just suffer an elbow injury that was made worse due to her naturally bendy elbows.
We're finally starting to break away from the damage caused by the judicial system. For the longest time we were stuck living with my in-laws. We were stuck there for 4 years! As you can imagine, tension builds up after a while. But now we finally bought our own house and can start raising our kids.
Still Seeking Action
Again, I want to Thank You all for your support. The battle isn't over as we are still on the "child abuse registry" that Oregon DHS keeps. We are trying to work with lawyers and public officials to change this law since it does violate our due process rights. We know this battle is hard, maybe one of the most difficult ones in life. Keep strong, and I hope that we can support you as much as you have supported us.
Daniel Dossey
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Monday, February 17, 2014
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
First Christmas with his girls for father wrongly jailed for child cruelty
Family broken up in 2007 when Ben Butler was accused of abusing child Ellie- Mr Butler was forced to share jail cell with a convicted child abuser
- Parents say reuniting with kids is like 'suddenly having grown up twins'
- The girls and their parents are enjoying their first Christmas as 'a proper family'
By DAVID WILKES
|
With their two smiling daughters cuddled up on his knee and his loving partner by his side, Ben Butler looks every inch the contented father.
But such scenes of simple domestic bliss are a new experience for all of them - after the family was ripped apart when he was wrongly jailed for child cruelty.
It took three years to clear his name and two more for he and the girls' mother Jennie Gray to win back Ellie and Isabella after a series of legal battles.
Enlarge 
Ben Butler and his two daughters Ellie, 5, and Isabella, 3, get ready for their first Christmas together
Together again: Jennie Gray, Ben Butler's partner, joins the family for a long awaited season celebration
The four had never all lived together - and the two beautiful little girls had not even met each other until a few weeks ago after each being put into separate foster care as babies.
Now the sisters are joined at the hip, excitedly rushing up to 'daddy' and 'mummy' to ask if they can have another chocolate from their advent calendars or to show them their festive drawings of angels, stars and candles.
As the happily reunited family look forward to their first Christmas together - just one of the many milestones they were previously denied by their unjust ordeal - Mr Butler and Miss Gray, both 33, say it is 'like suddenly having grown-up twins'.
And the doting parents are delighted Ellie, five, and three-year-old Isabella are settling in so well after their return to the family home.
Mr Butler said: 'I worked out I've spent more than six months of my life in criminal and family courts over this. All we ever wanted was to be a family, but it was all so draining, there were times I thought it would never happen.
'But we knew we had to keep fighting, fighting and at last here we are back together - just like it should have been all along. We are trying to catch up on the lost years but are Ellie and Izzy are a joy.'
The ordeal began in February 2007 when Mr Butler, a removals man, saved then seven-weeks-old Ellie's life when she stopped breathing while he was looking after her - only to be accused of harming her.
He cleared her airway after she collapsed and rushed her to hospital. But doctors found head injuries similar to those caused when a baby is deliberately hurt by being shaken.
Mr Butler, of Sutton, South West London, insisted he had not harmed Ellie. Miss Gray, who was not living with him then, supported him.
But the couple were arrested and he was charged with grievous bodily harm and cruelty. Ellie, despite going on to make a full recovery, was taken in to foster care.
Mr Butler says having is girls back is like getting two 'grown up twins'
Despite advice from others, Miss Gray remained true to the father of her children and now her concitions have paid off in getting her family back
While awaiting trial the Family Court ruled Mr Butler could see Ellie twice a year for four hours.
Miss Gray, a graphic designer, was allowed contact with her baby six times a year for two hours at a time.
Miss Gray said: 'I was told at one point that if I went against Ben it would be to my advantage and I'd have more chance of getting my daughter back. It's outrageous.'
At his Croydon Crown Court trial in March 2009 Mr Butler was convicted. Given an 18-month sentence, he was forced to share a prison cell with a convicted child abuser.
He said: 'I was put with sex offenders. I never spoke to the guy I shared a cell with - it's like being put in a mental hospital when you're not mental. It was just a horrible, dirty feeling where everyone is on a different wavelength.' After three and a half months behind bars,
Mr Butler was released pending appeal.
Brought together by the nightmare engulfing their lives, he and Miss Gray started seeing each other again.
She became pregnant with Isabella and, by now 'terrified' of the social workers, tried to keep her birth secret. But Isabella too was also taken into foster care aged six months - and social workers wanted her to be adopted.
Mr Butler's conviction was quashed in 2010 after fresh medical evidence showed Ellie's injuries were caused by a traumatic birth and it was also highlighted how if they had been caused by shaking her full recovery 'would not have been expected'.
It further turned out that Ellie had a cyst in her throat which Mr Butler had pushed out of the way when he cleared her airway after she collapsed. The cyst is clearly visible on a scan taken in hospital, but it was not shown to the original jury.
It then took another two years of battling in the Family Court for the parents to persuade judges and social workers that Ellie, who had been allowed to live with her grandparents, Miss Gray's parents, and Isabella, should be returned to them.
Finally, in October this year, High Court judge Mrs Justice Hogg praised the couple as she ruled the two girls should be allowed to go home.
She said: 'The last five and a half years must have been an extraordinarily difficult time for the parents ... [They] have weathered the storm. They have each been resilient and determined, and shown tenacity and courage... I wish the parents well: they too deserve joy and happiness.'
The couple had at last achieved their dream, but were understandably anxious how their daughters would cope. Isabella came home first, then Ellie a short while later on November 11, to their new matching pink bedrooms.
Ellie is so attached to her grandparents and had been away so long they were worried if she would settle - or be jealous of the little sister she had never met.
Miss Gray said: 'We started building them up about each other and put a picture of each other next to their beds. Their first meeting came when we took them bowling, one of Ellie's favourite things.
'We thought it would be difficult and they wouldn't be able to connect quickly. But they gave each other a kiss and they were very good with each other.
'The bond has grown between them. They play so well together and do everything together. It's so cute. Ellie helps put Izzy's shoes on and tries to do her hair for her.
'We're learning so much so fast about them, things like what their favourite colours and toys are - Ellie loves Minnie Mouse and Izzy Tinker Bell - that it's like suddenly having grown up twins.'
Mr Butler said: 'I hadn't seen Izzy for two and a half years but she was calling me 'daddy' from the first time we met again. Now you wouldn't know she'd been away. Her foster carers are lovely people and we thank them for all they did.
'But what happened to us was all so wrong. My trial came down to medical opinion only and the medical evidence just didn't add up.
'We've not had a normal life for nearly six years and the pressure has been immense. We've missed out on so many things, like seeing our daughters' first steps and some birthdays.
'Now we're just looking forward to seeing them grow up with us, taking them places and enjoying normal, everyday things. That's all we ever wanted - to be a proper family.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252644/First-Christmas-girls-father-wrongly-jailed-child-cruelty.html#ixzz2G5kl7FED
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Friday, October 5, 2012
Fractured Leg, Fractured Family: A Misdiagnosis Leads to Allegations of Child Abuse
Reposted from: http://jjie.org/fractured-leg-fractured-family-misdiagnosis-leads-allegations-of-abuse/43001
Anthony Richards, Jr.
When Anthony Richards, Jr., was born on an early Sunday morning in June, the only complications involved his family getting the cameras in focus to capture his arrival into the world. He was a healthy baby and his parents, Queenyona Boyd and Anthony Richards, Sr., couldn’t have been happier. Yet, only four days later Anthony was put in foster care after doctors discovered an unexplained broken femur, his distraught parents the suspects of child abuse.
A Protective Father’s Discovery
After the hospital discharged Boyd and her baby boy, Richards took the two straight home later that Sunday. The following day, Boyd slipped out to pick up her prescriptions at a pharmacy only a short drive away. She wasn’t gone long when she received a phone call from her husband. Something was wrong with Anthony.
Although Boyd had a daughter already, Richards was a first-time dad. And like many first-time dads he was protective to a fault and he worried, maybe a little too much. So when he found a lump on Anthony’s leg while changing a diaper, he grew concerned.
“Did you notice his leg has some swelling?” he asked Boyd.
“Is it where he got the hepatitis B vaccine?” she asked. Richards said it was. Boyd wasn’t worried. Swelling around inoculations is normal, she thought. But she came home just in case.
Queenyana Boyd
Her husband wasn’t convinced the swelling was from the vaccine so he called his sister, a nurse. She told them to put warm compresses on the leg and massage the swollen area. Baby Anthony never cried while his parents followed the nurse’s advice. He even fell asleep.
Anthony was due for his three-day check-up with the pediatrician on Wednesday, but his parents moved it up to Tuesday as a precaution. The swelling was still present despite their efforts.
At the check-up, the pediatrician gave Anthony a clean bill of health. The only problem he saw was the swelling on the baby’s leg. He referred them to the emergency room at Children’s Health Care of Atlanta’s (CHOA) Egleston hospital in metro Atlanta. (A spokesperson for CHOA declined to comment for this story citing patient privacy concerns.)
In the ER, the doctor looked Anthony over and said that he thought the swelling could be a result of the hepatitis B injection missing the muscle. Swelling like Anthony had is not uncommon if the injection is mistakenly delivered subcutaneously. The doctor ordered X-rays and an ultrasound to be sure. Through it all, Anthony didn’t cry except when they were changing his diaper and Boyd suspected this was because Anthony had been circumcised Sunday.
First, they X-rayed Anthony’s leg. While the images were developing they took Anthony for the ultrasound, but just before they were to begin, the X-ray technician rushed into the room.
“Stop the ultrasound,” she said. “There’s a break.”
That’s when everything changed for Anthony’s parents.
The Science of Misdiagnosis of Child Abuse
In a recent report, the federal Administration on Children, Youth and Families estimated that 702,000 children were victims of maltreatment in 2009. That’s the equivalent of nine abused children for every 1000 in the population. But the report also says that only one in five investigations of abuse are substantiated. The rest, 80 percent, are cases in which the children are “found to be non-victims of maltreatment.”
What is not counted in the study is the number of investigations leading to deprivation (the state taking the child from the parents and placing them in foster care) before the parents are ultimately cleared of abuse. No one knows how many incidences of misdiagnosis occur each year. But one Child Welfare Law Specialist from Atlanta, Diana Rugh Johnson (who would eventually represent Boyd and Anthony) says she has brought six cases of misdiagnosis to trial in the last two years.
“Once a child abuse expert says there has been child abuse, that’s not the end of the investigation,” she said. “It’s the beginning.”
Experts must determine whether an injury is the result of trauma or was accidental or natural. But once a child abuse expert makes a determination of abuse, says Dr. Julie Mack, professor of radiology at Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania, it becomes very difficult to change the tenor of the conversation.
“The problem,” Mack wrote in an email, “is with the assumption of trauma — it becomes the default diagnosis, the one that is assumed as most likely. This is a dangerous assumption for the patient (who may have an underlying medical disease) and for the parents (who will appropriately deny trauma if none existent).”
In her cases, Johnson has found the same thing. She relies on out-of-state medical experts because she often cannot find a doctor locally who would publicly disagree with CHOA’s child abuse expert.
“Once [the child abuse expert] says it’s child abuse, everyone else shuts up,” she wrote.
But in infants especially, Mack wrote, “it is not appropriate to assume trauma is the most likely diagnosis, particularly in the absence of outward evidence of trauma.” Although, she adds, no physician she knows believes child abuse is not a reality. “Children are abused by their parents,” she wrote. Because of that, it is important to work hard to find the correct diagnosis.
“Fractures in the absence of history of significant trauma,” she wrote, “are also a characteristic feature of fractures caused by bone diseases such as osteogenesis imperfecta, bone disease of prematurity, and bone disease associated with vitamin deficiencies (rickets).”
Often cited as a contributing factor is rickets, a disorder that causes weak or soft bones. Rickets is often caused by a deficiency of vitamin D and in many cases a vitamin D deficiency in the mother will lead to the same deficiency in their newborn. But vitamin D deficiency may be hard to diagnose.
In a commentary in the journal Pediatrics, Dr. Colin Patterson of the University of Dundee, Scotland, writes that one difficulty in the diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency, “is that the radiologic signs may be absent or unimpressive in cases of children with biochemically severe deficiency, which is particularly true of infants younger than one year.”
The conundrum, Mack says, occurs in an infant with fractures. “If a child presents with multiple fractures, but no clinical history or signs of trauma, ‘hidden’ (abusive) forceful trauma is often assumed,” she said. “The logic used is ‘abuse is present because the parents have failed to explain the fractures.’”
Queenyana Boyd struggled with a vitamin D deficiency throughout her pregnancy with Anthony.
“Are you here to take my child away?”
Boyd and Richards were in shock. How could Anthony’s leg be broken? You must have the wrong family, they told the X-ray tech. They had brought the newborn to the hospital because of complications from a vaccination. But the tech confirmed their details. It was true; Anthony had a broken leg.
When Boyd and her husband returned to their room in the ER, the doctor and a social worker met them. The doctor spoke first.
X-ray of Anthony Boyd's fractured leg.
“I’m sorry,” he said. “I should have asked you if you could have dropped Anthony or if he could have fallen.”
Absolutely not, Boyd and Richards told him. The social worker spoke up wanting to know what happened, so Boyd told them both the story, from the moment her husband discovered the swelling to when they arrived at the ER.
Richards’ eyes were tearing up. “Are you here to take my child away?” he asked the social worker. Boyd refused to believe that. They’d done nothing wrong.
“Well,” the social worker said, “we’re going to have to admit him to the hospital and do further tests.”
No one took their son that day. In fact, Boyd and Richards were allowed to stay in the hospital with Anthony, often alone in their room with the door closed, while Anthony was breastfed.
A caseworker from Georgia’s Child Protective Services (CPS) arrived later that day and began interviewing Anthony’s family. He spoke with Boyd and Richards, Boyd’s 7-year-old daughter Anya, Boyd’s sister and Richards’ mother, who had flown in after the birth. He also interviewed the nurses who had treated Anthony in the hospital. No one had a negative thing to say. The caseworker even told Boyd that her Anya was very happy and showed no signs of abuse. (Repeated calls to CPS were not returned.)
Boyd then asked the caseworker to contact Anthony’s pediatrician. She was told he would get to that later. He then explained to Boyd and Richards they needed to meet with a representative from the hospital’s child protection division. In the meantime, doctors continued to run tests on baby Anthony.
The next morning, the couple arrived for the interview with the child protection division. Once again they told the story of finding the swollen leg and how they had wound up in an interview with protective services. The representative said that she saw no indications of abuse; the break looked like “one of those things that happens.” Boyd agreed. She was also struggling to pinpoint when or how the leg could have broken.
Boyd and Richards were beginning to feel a little relief. They felt that if the hospital or CPS truly suspected abuse they would have contacted the police by now. At this point, it had been more than a day since the break was discovered. Boyd and Richards had been left alone with Anthony on multiple occasions. No one involved in the case had indicated seeing any signs of abuse. But as the day wore on, the couple began to worry. Although it was true no one had said their case looked like abuse, no one had told them they were cleared either. The pair repeatedly called the CPS caseworker asking for information but they never received any.
That evening, the CPS caseworker walked into their hospital room with a security officer. “I’m sorry,” he said, “but I have to take your son into custody.”
With those words Boyd felt the air go out of her. “Why?” she managed to ask. “Why are you taking our son?”
The caseworker explained that the report from the child protection division doctor who had examined Anthony concluded the break was non-accidental and to investigate possible child abuse.
“There’s nothing we can do,” he told her.
Boyd pleaded with the caseworker, asking if her sister could take Anthony rather than placing him in foster care. She was told that was impossible. He had no choice but to put Anthony in foster care. As CPS took her son away, Boyd felt like Anthony was being kidnapped. She had no idea where her son was — CPS wouldn’t tell her — and she had no way of continuing to breastfeed him. Boyd wouldn’t learn where her child was for five more days.
How Big a Problem?
Misdiagnosis of child abuse occurs, especially in infants. It is the word of the parents against the medical opinion of the doctor who examines the child. But is it a growing problem?
“I think it has been a problem since the 1990s or maybe a little earlier -– we just didn’t know it,” Seattle attorney Heather Kirkwood said. “In the past decade, it has begun to spiral, I think . . . one of those pendulums that swings too far and is due for correction. [The same thing] happened in antitrust, too, just not with such disastrous consequences. Here, I suspect that we are looking at hundreds to thousands of destroyed families and falsely imprisoned parents and caretakers.”
Kirkwood has handled a number of high profile cases of misdiagnosed child abuse. Her cases have been written about in The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune. Others were featured on the PBS documentary series, Frontline, as well as on NPR and ProPublica.
According to Kirkwood, many misdiagnoses originate “simply because we don’t know (or in some cases have forgotten) how to diagnose vitamin D deficiency (rickets), vitamin C deficiency (scurvy), etc.”
“Often the key to the diagnosis,” she said, “is that the child has no bruises, no pain and the ‘fractures’ are self-curing — with good nutrition, the bones will develop normally without any other intervention. Not, in short, your typical fracture picture.”
The first step for Kirkwood when investigating is to do a retrospective diagnosis.
“In that stage,” she said, “I work with experts and read the literature to see how the medical findings fit together, both within the disciplines and with the clinical history. Sometimes it takes quite a few tries before we begin to put the entire picture together.”
Over time, in what is an evolving process, she has learned what to look for.
“When I first began to review cases,” she said, “I assumed that one fracture might be accidental but that multiple fractures without a major accident must be abusive.”
As she examined more cases, however, she began to conclude “that in cases in which the baby has no bruises or signs of abuse and otherwise seems well cared for, the opposite is true: the more fractures there are, the more likely it is that we are looking at some type of metabolic bone disease.”
And rickets often leads to fractures. Patterson, in his commentary in Pediatrics, writes, “In a recent retrospective study, fractures were found in seven of 40 children younger than 24 months with overt radiologic evidence of rickets.”
A Mother’s anguish
It was Wednesday evening. Boyd’s son had been placed in foster care earlier in the day. She was distraught and couldn’t understand why CPS wouldn’t let Anthony go with a family member. She called her aunt who had been in the delivery room when Anthony was born.
She was feeling hysterical and needed to talk to someone she trusted who would calm her down. While on the phone, her aunt began flipping through the pictures she’d taken at the delivery. And that’s when — in the middle of the conversation — Boyd’s aunt made a startling discovery that would further alter the course of events.
“I’m going to send you a picture,” her aunt said. “Did you see your son’s leg?”
Boyd’s aunt immediately emailed the camera phone picture to her. Boyd looked at the photograph, taken moments after delivery before the umbilical cord was cut; Anthony’s leg was already swollen in the photo. Boyd searched her own pictures for a higher resolution picture and found another that showed Anthony’s leg was swollen at birth. She discovered a picture on her camera taken at nearly the same moment as her aunt’s picture. It two appeared to show swelling on Anthony’s leg.
If the leg was broken before Boyd had even held her baby — and the swollen leg in the photos would seem to indicate that — CPS had no case. This was all the evidence she needed, Boyd thought. She emailed the photos to CPS the same night and asked that they be shown to the doctor at the child protective division at CHOA hospital. She never heard back.
Outraged at CPS for not communicating with her and impatient for the first hearing Monday (delayed until after the weekend because of a state furlough day on Friday), Boyd enlisted the help of Johnson. When shown the photos from the delivery, Johnson was astonished.
Photo from just after Anthony Boyd was born showing his swollen right leg.
A mandatory “72-hour” hearing was held Monday to determine if further foster care was necessary for Anthony. The judge granted Boyd and Richards’ daily visitation rights with their son. They could spend three hours a day with him, but they weren’t allowed to bring him home yet. The judge scheduled an ad judicatory hearing for nearly three weeks later.
Adjudication is similar to a trial, but the judge makes the final ruling without a jury’s involvement. In this case, the judge would decide if the allegations of child abuse were true. The hearing lasted five hours. The prosecutor argued that Anthony must have been abused, as there was no other explanation for the broken femur. Both the CHOA hospital child protective division doctor and the obstetrician from Anthony’s delivery testified that the kind of break that Anthony had could not have happened at delivery. They were too rare.
Johnson brought in Dr. Julie Mack, a medical expert from Lancaster, Pa., who countered that claim. Mack had research that showed numerous similar cases. In nearly every one, the break wasn’t diagnosed until days later, even if the baby never left the hospital. She also compared the photos from the delivery with Anthony’s X-rays, showing that the swollen area in the picture was where the break was in the X-ray.
The judge ruled for Boyd and Richards. Anthony could finally come home with his parents.
While she is overjoyed to have her son back, the experience has left Boyd scared and upset. She worries every time she has to take Anthony to the pediatrician. She’d done nothing wrong when she took Anthony in with the swollen leg. In fact, she did everything right. But CPS took her child anyway. Boyd felt as if she were guilty until proven innocent. Until CPS said otherwise, she was an abusive parent.
Anthony was later diagnosed with a vitamin D deficiency, likely inherited from his mother. However, he was never tested during the abuse investigation and has not, to date, been diagnosed with rickets.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
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'.
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'.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
A RESOLUTION urging the members of the United States Congress to take necessary action to propose the Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution for ratification; and for other purposes.
11 LC 35 2236ER
H. R. 738
- 1 -
House Resolution 738 By: Representatives Neal of the 1st, Weldon of the 3rd, Williams of the 4th, and Jasperse of the 12th
A RESOLUTION
1 Urging the members of the United States Congress to take necessary action to propose the
2 Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution for ratification; and for other
3 purposes.
4 WHEREAS, the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is
5 a fundamental right protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of
6 Georgia; and
7
8 WHEREAS, our nation has historically relied first and foremost on parents to meet the real
9 and constant needs of their children; and
10 WHEREAS, the interests of children are best served when parents are free to make child
11 rearing decisions about education, religion, and other areas of a child's life without
12 government interference; and
13 WHEREAS, in 1972, the United States Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder held that "This
14 primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond
15 debate as an enduring American tradition"; and
16 WHEREAS, in 2000, the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville produced six
17 different opinions on the nature and enforceability of parental rights under the United States
18 Constitution; and
19 WHEREAS, this more recent decision has created confusion and ambiguity about the
20 fundamental nature of parental rights in the laws and society of the several states; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been proposed
23 and may soon be considered for ratification by the United States Senate, which would11 LC 35 2236ER
H. R. 738
- 2 -
24 drastically alter this fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children;
25 and
26 WHEREAS, this convention has been acceded to by 192 nations world wide and has been
27 cited by United States courts as "customary international law"; and
28 WHEREAS, international influence is being exerted on the United States Supreme Court, as
29 demonstrated by the 2005 decision of Roper v. Simmons, where "the Court has referred to
30 the laws of other countries and to the international authorities as instructive for its
31 interpretation" of the United States Constitution; and
32 WHEREAS, Senator James DeMint of the State of South Carolina and Representative Peter
33 Hoekstra of the State of Michigan have introduced in the United States Congress an
34 amendment to the United States Constitution to prevent erosion of the enduring American
35 tradition of treating parental rights as fundamental rights. The amendment is outlined as
36 follows:
37 SECTION ONE: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their
38 children is a fundamental right.
39 SECTION TWO: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right
40 without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the
41 highest order and not otherwise served.
42 SECTION THREE: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law
43 be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this
44 article; and
45 WHEREAS, this amendment will add explicit text to the Constitution of the United States
46 to protect in perpetuity the rights of parents as such rights are now enjoyed, without
47 substantive change to current state or federal laws respecting these rights; and
48 WHEREAS, the enumeration of parental rights in the text of the Constitution will preserve
49 and protect such rights from being infringed upon by the shifting ideologies and
50 interpretations of the United States Supreme Court and by treaties or international laws.
51 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that
52 the members of this body affirm and support the Parental Rights Amendment to the United
53 States Constitution and strongly urge Congress to immediately take all such steps as may be11 LC 35 2236ER
H. R. 738
- 3 -
54 necessary through whatever means necessar
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Texas boy missing 8 years to remain in foster care
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
(03-28) 10:06 PDT HOUSTON (AP) --
A judge has ruled that a Houston boy who disappeared as an infant eight years ago and who was recently found will remain in foster care while officials determine whether he should be reunited with his parents.
State District Judge Mike Schneider agreed Wednesday with a Child Protective Services recommendation that 8-year-old Miguel Morin should remain in the state's care at least until a May 16 hearing.
The judge also accepted a CPS plan to have Miguel and his parents, Auboni Champion-Morin and Fernando Morin, undergo therapy separately to see if the boy is ready for a reunion.
Miguel has been in foster care since authorities found him living with his godmother elsewhere in the state. Police say she abducted him in late 2004 when he was 8 months old.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
A Houston boy who disappeared eight years ago and was found earlier this month could soon be reunited with his parents, or he might remain in foster care.
A Texas judge is expected to make a decision Wednesday on the fate of 8-year-old Miguel Morin after a court hearing.
The boy has been in foster care since being found after police arrested a family friend. Police say the friend, who is the boy's godmother, took him in late 2004 when he was 8 months old and had him living with her in the East Texas town of San Augustine.
At the hearing, child welfare officials are to discuss whether Miguel should remain in foster care or begin to have visits with the parents, said Estella Olguin, a spokeswoman for Child Protective Services in Houston. Auboni Champion-Morin and Fernando Morin, both 29 of Houston, are seeking to regain custody.
A psychotherapist who has been meeting with Miguel also could testify about how the boy might react once informed about his situation.
Olguin said CPS has made a decision on what it thinks is best for Miguel but would not disclose it ahead of Wednesday's hearing.
"His parents are saying they want what is best for Miguel and they would do what is necessary," she said.
An attorney for the parents did not return phone calls from The Associated Press on Tuesday.
DNA tests released last week confirmed Fernando Morin is Miguel's father. Test results on his wife are expected to be released at Wednesday's hearing.
The Morins have not met with Miguel since he was found but at a hearing last week, they asked state District Judge Mike Schneider if they could meet with the boy but not reveal their identity to them. The judge ordered the couple to be psychologically tested before ruling on their request.
Olguin said the Morins' four other children, who are between the ages of 7 and 14 and are living with another couple, could also be discussed Wednesday. She said confidentiality issues prevent her from detailing why the kids are not living with their parents.
Champion-Morin had previously implied her four other children were living with her and her husband.
Miguel's godmother and former baby sitter, Krystle Tanner, has been charged with kidnapping along with her mother, Gloria Jean Walker. The two remain in the San Augustine County Jail.
Officials have previously disclosed in court that Miguel, in interviews with child welfare authorities, said his name was Jaquan and identified Tanner as his mother when shown a picture of her.
The long-dormant case got new life last summer when Tanner took the boy to a hospital for a leg injury. When she couldn't provide his name or a Social Security number, hospital staff contacted child welfare investigators who eventually were able to link Tanner to the 2004 Houston case.
Child welfare officials have said the Morins were uncooperative with investigators when the boy initially was reported missing. The parents deny the allegations.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/28/national/a002144D49.DTL#ixzz1qTZIJ2cu
Sunday, March 25, 2012
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.
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.
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.”
“She must become self-sufficient rather than relying on Mr. Reale or his personal connections, including obtaining suitable housing.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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”
“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.”
“In the event that she (Mrs. Reale) reconciles with Mr. Reale, permanence will be delayed.”
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…
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???
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 secret
evidence, 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!
evidence, 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 range
discretion; 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.
discretion; 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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)