My Report


Cindi Miller, Mother

Description of Malicious Acts
Part 1

    On September 20, 2016, a hearing took place in the separate juvenile court of douglas county to determine whether the mothers(a pro se litigant) visit should be suspended with her seven-year old daughter. The reason stated was that the mother had made threats to case professionals and therefore safety to the child was considered at risk. *1*

The mother was not informed of this hearing by proper service, because the worker, Jill , submitted a sworn affidavit stating the last known address for the mother was 1626 Victor St, which is where she was living when removal occurred two years ago. Since this time Jill has been to mothers new home in person, and visits were approved to occur in the home a short time later. The guardian ad litem for the child states in an email that she sent the information to the mother at her address on Park Avenue, which was in fact the correct address, on the same day this hearing to suspend visits was taking place. Also at the same time the worker was turning in a sworn statement that the last known address was not park ave but on victor st.  The reason that the mother was able to see the court order at all was due to her inviting everyone to a family team meeting at her home due to the reports to the court that they did not know if mother had a home or not. In the process of attempting to avoid a family team meeting in the manner it should always have been conducted (yet only occurred correctly once) this order was sent to mother. The mother also was told in the beginning that it was the workers belief that a family team meeting with all of us there were not a good idea due to “hostility” between family members and that she would like to meet privately with the mother. 

The therapist in this case, who has sessions with the child only has continued to express her opinions to the court about a mother whom she has never spoke to, or had therapy with. The child has not seen her mother for 6 months therefore there could be no possible way that the therapist could blame the mother and have knowledge of the mothers behaviors from the child. There is also the fact that the IDI on the child has two different logos, two different addresses, different information contained in each, and obviously different signatures on them yet was admitted to court as Exhibit 11, one document. One of these has numerous lies and heresy that, had the therapist practiced due diligence, would have been easily disproven as it is all public knowledge.  There was no prenatal exposure to meth on Kiyah as claimed, mother was wearing a drug patch for the state while getting her son back during her pregnancy with Kiyah. She has never been charged or incarcerated for methamphetamines as stated, nor has the mother been hospitalized for suicide attempts.    *4**5**6**7*

Then there’s the fact that the judges orders are Void Ab Initio due the original call alleged only drug use by the mother and she was adjudicated only on engaging in domestic violence.  An incident that occurred seven months prior to removal in which time a significant change in circumstance had occurred which made removal unnecessary. Nebraska statute ____________ states that the original allegations must be relevant or related to the adjudication for it to be court substantiated which they are not. The mother challenged the jurisdiction of the court at two separate hearings and the judge all but ignored the challenge and attempted to trick the mother into giving him jurisdiction by telling her she had to request another hearing for that which according to federal courts is false.  *8* *9* *10**11*

The Judge also has shown extreme bias due to the mother choosing to represent herself in this matter, repeatedly informing her that if she continued pro se she was going to lose her daughter, and then asked the maternal grandparents what they planned to do to keep their rights when she lost hers.

The Summons served to the mother at 1626 Victor was not dated until the day after it was given to mother and the child removed. The affidavit attached to the petition was full of lies, misrepresentation, multiple levels of heresy, and irrelevant facts, Most of which come from the grandmother (Carol) who was never a witness to any of the events that occurred. She could have had no first hand knowledge of how the real course of events went. She also admitted to forging the mothers signature to enroll a child in school claiming she could not locate the mother, yet in the affidavit she states that she picked Kiyah up for school every morning and fed her dinner at night because if she did not then the child wouldn’t eat because the mother would fail to prepare a meal.

Then there’s the fact the call was placed by the father who hopes to receive full custody of the child providing and obvious motif. His name was released to me and he was denied immunity due to the state removing her from his care as well, though he took plea agreement he has never tested positive for any drug as the petition alleges she was removed under exigent circumstance from him as well as the mother for.

These facts are shocking and horrifying to anyone with children and have been the cause of severe trauma and parental alienation of this mother from her child, who once shared an extremely close bond which is also evident in the last removal preceding where the same judge and GAL praised the mother for her parenting and bond with her daughter and the mother having her returned to her custody in just seven months, a record time to be in and out of the system. This mother has shown parental fitness and a committment to her children more than once, more than she ever should have had to. This family has been through 13 years of constant harassment from cps due to false allegations and malicious prosecution and it is time we return things the way they were before these heinous act so that this family can begin to heal and rebuild what is left of their relationship that the state and judicial system has destroyed maliciously and intentionally.

The first appearance hearing was not until 12 days after removal under ex parte orders, and the pretrial hearing was held with out her father or I present and the record of it was waived by the court. It also took place before mother had a protective custody hearing due to it being continued for her and not the father who plead to the allegations.

The mother suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel due to not providing mother with the IDI prior to hearing and not presenting any evidence or cross-examining the writer of the report due to no negative things being said while she was testifying while letting the document and its contents go undisputed. A logical well-known fallacy was used in closing argument when the P.D. argued it was a slippery slope the judge was traveling down allowing an incident from months prior to be included at that point. Mothers counsel then rested without presentation of evidence as shown in the court report.  The P.D. also avoided the request to appeal from the mother *13* and left the state of Nebraska shortly after trial.

The P.D. that was then assigned to the mother informed her that she was extremely paranoid when the issue of the separate IDI’s was brought to her attention and subsequently she was fired. At which time the mother requested her case file to represent herself and was denied numerous times by counsel.

Chelsea  states in a message to mother that she has set up the same visit worker to supervise our visits as requested and then a few weeks later, contradicts her own statement by saying that one visit worker is very uncommon and that the judge could not enforce that so he would not have ordered it, when the previous emails clearly show she had been informed of the mothers and judges wishes.

The child has come to visit with mother saying things like she is ruining a family because she is on drugs and has no job and no home, which obviously would not have come from anything the mother said to the child as claimed. The GAL ignored this fact when mother played to recording of this visit to her, instead becoming angry at the mother for “yelling” at her daughter, though they had been in a very noisy family fun center at the time.

The Mother informed everyone at a family team meeting at Brian’s office that she would be recording it and they stated that if mother would not stop recording that no one would speak. And the had me removed from the meeting with threat to call police because i was asking them questions and expecting an answer from them all while sitting in a chair in the meeting room with no violence occurring. She also states that if Mother chooses to record any of the meetings that the same thing will happen, so Mother has not attended due to the counter productiveness it would cause.

Pictures of Court Documents sent in emails has been edited by an unknown person, but quite noticeably so. With one paragraph repeating the same two sentences three times in a row. Another photo of the different signatures on the IDI was changed to be the same signature on both, only the mother kept copies of the same pictures hidden and has a picture of both to show the difference and the comparison between the two.

The GAL contradicts herself in the reason the child would not be able to be returned to her parents safely. The reasons range from not enough time spent on visits with father, to lack of suitable “independent” housing, and going so far as to tell the father he risks losing his rights too if he associates with the mother due to not understanding the risk posed by allowing the mother to be a part of their lives, which clearly shows the lack of intention of the state and the court to ever return the child back to her mother from the very beginning. As does the fact that she was rarely invited to a team meeting, never allowed to speak to child on the phone, never allowed to have copies or even be informed of the therapy sessions with the child. She has been left out, alienated, practically erased from this childs life maliciously. Before the visits were stopped Kiyah expressed her desire to live with her mother and when the visits were ended she then became “afraid” of the mother kidnapping her. A cause of this fear could be the fact the grandmother put a tracker on the child at that same time the visits were stopped, causing an unnecessary fear of something that was never an issue prior.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s