On September 20, 2016, a hearing took place in the separate juvenile court of douglas county to decide 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
The mother was not informed of this hearing by proper service, because the worker, Jill Johnson, submitted a sworn report 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 had been 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 way it should always have been required(yet only occurred correctly once) this order was shown to mother. The mother also was informed 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. *2**3*
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 the IDI on the child has two different logos, two different addresses, different information contained in each, and obviously different signatures on them yet admitted to court as Exhibit 11, one document. One of these has many 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 before removal in which time a significant change in circumstance had occurred which made removal unnecessary. Nebraska statute states that the original allegations are required to 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 ask for 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 Simonsen) 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 child in school claiming she could not find 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 made by the father who hopes to receive full custody of the child providing and obvious motifs. 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 clear in the last removal proceeding 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 unitl 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 before the 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 before 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 she was fired. At which time the mother requested her case file to represent herself and was denied many times by counsel.
Chelsie Turner 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 earlier 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 wish 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 visit stopped, causing an unnecessary fear of something that was never an issue before.
1. Nicholson 203 F supp 2d 153, 171, 175, 179, 181, 186, 188, 191 edny 2002
Unconstitutional to remove child based solely on witnessing parent being abused (Family policy act)
NCG #58 @109 Courts shall insist on agency attempting to prove neglect on the part of the mother(victim) Must also allege efforts mother made to protect children , the way in which those efforts failed, and the reasons why
NCG #59 @109 Should only remove child if proven by clear and convincing evidence that parent is unable to protect child even with state help
2. CHILD PROTECTION ACT 1993- Revoke po due to significant change in situation or circumstances Child Protection and Safety Act 28-719
3. required to give access to records of case and required not to show name of caller in any documents
4.28-728 3(d)(viii) Interview of child between ages 3-18 who witnessed violence must be recorded
5. Conspiracy to RIghts 1985- Ex parte cannot be based upon lies
6. First, the reasoning goes, parents are naturally more inclined and, thus, presumptively more motivated, to do well by their children than non-parents. Thus, Locke regarded a parent’s natural emotions as the principal motivating force for parents to act in the best interests of their children. Thus, as a general presumption, parents are considered to be more likely to do what is
best for their own children than are any other individuals. Under this reasoning, parents are
predetermined to see to it that the needs of their children are met and, all things being equal, are
more likely than others to do best for their children. natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.
7. A rehabilitation plan is a court-ordered plan, judicially fashioned and judicially determined. The court may not delegate this authority to evaluators, counselors, social workers, child protection workers, or probation officers. In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349, 481 N.W.2d 905 (1992
8.Under subsection (6) of this section, “reasonable efforts, under the direction of the court” means
efforts in relation to a court-ordered plan for parental rehabilitation, not an extrajudicial agreement
between a parent and an administrative agency. In re Interest of A.H., 237 Neb. 797, 467 N.W.2d 682
9. In re J.S & C, 324 A 2d 90 Supra 129, NJ Supreme, @489
Parents right to care and companionship of his or her children is guaranteed under the 1st, 9th, 14th amendments of the U.S. constitution
10. Meyer v Nebraska 262 us 390 43 S. ct 625 (1923)
Parents rights recognized as being “essential” to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man”
Carson v Elrod 411 F. Supp 645, 649 D.C. E.D. VA(1976)
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by law than that of parent and child
Brokaw v Mercer County
Child has a right to live with its parents
JB v Washington County
Forced separation is a serious infringement upon the right of both parent and child
Thomason v. Scan Volunteer
Vital importance, curbing over zealous suspicion and intervention on part of official
Troxel V Granville
The state may not interfere when a fit parent is available
Nicholson v Williams- Domestic abuse witnessed by a child in no way shape or form constitutes neglect
Alberman v Booth 21 Howard 506 (1859)
no judicial process whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside its jurisdiction and judges orders are not voidable but void and have no legal force or effect
Simmons v US 390 us 377 (1968)
Stating claim and exercising rights cannot be made into a crime
Basso v U.P.L 495 F 2d 906 Brook v Yawkey 200 F 2d 633
Under federal law, us supreme court states if court is without authority its judgement and orders are regarded as nullities. they are not voidable but void and form no bar to recovery even before reversal in opposition to them
Elliot v Pearsol 1 pet. 328, 340 26 us 328, 340 (1828)
they constitute no justification and all person concerned with executing such judgement or sentences are considered as trespassers of the law and will be punished as such
Schier v Rhodes 416 us 232, 945 ct 1683,1687 (1974)
when judge doesn’t follow the law he becomes trespasser and loses subject matter jurisdiction and orders are not voidable but void with no legal force or effect
Miller v us 230 F 2d 486, 490, 42
No sanction or penalty imposed upon those due to exercising their constitutional rights
Nicholson 203 F supp 2d 153, 171, 175, 179, 181, 186, 188, 191 edny 2002
Unconstitutional to remove child based solely on witnessing parent being abused (Family policy act)
Joshua M et al 251 Neb 614 558 N.W. 2d 548In re Detention of Black (August 24, 2015). Civil commitment reversed because defendant was denied his constitutional right to be present during a critical stage of trial
State v. Madsen (March 25, 2010). Defendant’s convictions reversed because he was denied the right to represent himself in violation of the state and federal constitutions
the Welfare of C.S. (January 21, 2010). Termination of parental rights reversed where State did offer to give biological mother with any of the services it provided the foster-mother to discuss child’s special needs.
In re the Dependency of Tyler L. (June 11, 2009). Dependency court erred in suspending mother’s visitation with children, because no concrete risk of harm was shown.
In re the Dependency of M.S.D. (May 12, 2008). Dependency reversed because mother’s decision to be in relationship with man who had 10-year-old criminal conviction did not constitute abuse or neglect. Court holds that “while continuing contact with the man in question may not be ideal, it is not within the province of the state to make significant decisions about the custody of children merely because it could make a ‘better’ decision.”
In re the Interest of S.G. (August 30, 2007). Termination of parental rights reversed where trial court found there were no specific parental deficiencies evidenced but terminated father’s rights anyway “on the off-chance that he may have a problem unknown to the state.”
In re the Dependency of T.L.G. (January 16, 2007). Juvenile court’s suspension of parental visitation with dependent children improper where not based on a showing of risk to their children’s health, safety, or welfare, but rather as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders or services
Sieffert v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs. (In re G.A.R.), 137 Wn. App. 1, 150 P.3d 643 (2007). Termination of mother’s parental rights was reversed where mother was not present at hearing; trial court admitted several exhibits that were adverse to mother without her counsel objecting; and court could only speculate as to strengths in mother’s case that might have been revealed by competent counsel.
State v. Johnston, 156 Wn.2d 355, 127 P.3d 707 (2006). The court ruled that RCW § 9.61.160, consistent with the First Amendment, must be construed to prohibit only to true threats. A “true threat” is a statement wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of another person. Conviction reversed where instruction to jury defined “threat” too broadly.
State v. Vermillion, 112 Wn. App. 844, 51 P.3d 188 (2002). Trial court erred in denying defendant’s requests to represent himself on the untenable ground that he lacked the necessary skill and judgment to secure himself a fair trial; defendant’s request was timely, unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent.
State v. Ancira, 107 Wn. App. 650, 27 P.3d 1246 (2001). Order prohibiting contact between defendant and his minor children was stricken because it violated his fundamental right to parent
State v. Barker, 75 Wn. App. 236, 881 P.2d 1051 (1994). Conviction reversed because defendant was denied his constitutional right to represent himself at trial.
The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that fit parents act in their
children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or
compelling interest for the State to inject itself into
the private realm of the family to further
question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions about their children. Reno v. Flores,
507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is
v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Consequently, Connecticut or any state can not use the “best interest of the child” standard to substitute its judgment for a fit parent and parroting that term is “legally insufficient”to use in the court toforce parents to follow some arbitrary standard, case plan or horse and pony show. The State cannot usurp a fit parent’s decision making related to parental spending for their children, i.e. child support without either a demonstration the parent is unfit or there is proven harm to the child. In other words, the state and Child Protective Services can not impose a standard of living dealing with the rearing of children. When they violate this fundamental right, they would be intruding on the family’s life
and liberty interest. The 1st Amendment bars such
action because the rearing of children and the best interest of children is often based on ones
religious beliefs, i.e. the separation of church and state. By the state imposing any standard of
living or the rearing of children, they are putting forth a religious standard by their actions i.e.
how you act, what to feed the child, how to dress the child, whether or not to home school and so
on. The courts and the state lack jurisdiction on what goes on in the
home even if they do not agree with the choices made by parents. It’s none of the state’s business on how you are to raise your children. They can not falsely
accuse parents of abuse or neglect just because they disagree with the method or the standard in which they live.
Unless CPS can provide the proof of parental unfitness, the state and the Juvenile Courts can’t make on behalf of the parents or for the child unless the parent is adjudicated unfit. And as long as there is one fit parent, CPS can not interfere or remove a single child.
CASE status determination- The finding that a child abuse or neglect allegation has enough evidence as defined by state statute (28-710)
a) Court substantiated- district or county or separate juvenile court has entered judgement of guilty on criminal complaint, indictment, or adjudication of jurisdiction on a juvenile petition under 43-247 (3)(a) and the adjudication relates or pertains to the same subject matter as the report of abuse or neglect (report was alleging drug use, adjudication was engaging in domestic violence)
b) Court Pending- a criminal complaint, indictment or info or a juvenile petition under 43-247(3)(a) has been filed and allegations of complaint relate to the same subject matter as the report
c) Agency substantiated- More likely than not that child abuse or neglect has occurred and court adjudication does not occur
d) Unable to locate
(reference statutory 28-720)