New Cases filed or decided

Browse all files this Folder

In Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463 (October 7, 2011) the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that having probable cause to remove a child is not enough to do an emergency removal; there must also be exigent circumstances, otherwise the case must be brought to a judge for a pre-removal order. This is a constitutional due process ruling so should be good in every jurisdiction. This was done as a warning shot to agency workers who do removals first and then seek to have petitions filed after the fact--the 7th Circuit granted qualified immunity in the specific case because the law wasn't yet clearly established, but it declared that from now on the law is clear on this point. We were remanded to the federal trial court on the coerced safely plan claims and the withholding of the child after the State's Attorney refused to file a petition.

So a federal civil rights suit on a removal after return could be considered where there is no exigency.

Moorgat v. County of San Joaquin
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 8, 2010

This Moorgat v. County of San Joaquin case is THE TEMPLATE for Title 42 Section 1983 cases. Everything is there for writing a Complaint properly-

Section 1983

To prevail in a §1983 civil action against state actors for the deprivation of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, a plaintiff must show that

(1) acts by the defendants
(2) under color of state law
(3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities and
(4) caused him damage.

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.

Accordingly, the conduct complained of must have deprived the plaintiff of some right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Then the Constitutional RIghts violated becomes the claims

This case is definitely one that the paralegals and law students here need to file away for future use, because it pretty much IS everybody's case who CPS wrongly invades their family.

http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100908_0057332.ECA.htm/qx

In In re A.B., the Supreme Court of Washington held that a parent has a constitutional due process right not to have the State terminate his or her relationship with a natural child "absent a finding of current parental unfitness." In re A.B., 232 P.3d 1104, 1113 (Wash. 2010) ("The first question here is whether a parent has a due process right not to have the State terminate his or her relationship with a natural child in the absence of an express or implied finding that he or she, at the time of trial, is currently unfit to parent the child. According to the United States Supreme Court, this court, and our Court of Appeals, the answer is yes.").

In In re Alonza D., Jr. & Shaydon S., the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, "the record does not reflect through evidentiary support . . . how a continued parental relationship would have caused a detriment to the children, and the trial judge made no findings to that effect." In re Alonza D., Jr. & Shaydon S., A.2d 536, 551 (Md. Ct. App. 2010). Moreover, the Court said that, "[b]ecause the record [was] silent in this regard, and because parental rights are among those deemed fundamental, we cannot say that exceptional circumstances warranted the termination of Mr. D.'s parental rights." Id. at 551-552 (emphasis added). To come to this conclusion, the Court relied on the "majority view" of its "sister states," which said that:

Because of the presumption that natural parents are fit to raise their children and/or because natural parents have a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children, or both, there must first be a finding that the natural parents are unfit, or extraordinary circumstance detrimental to the welfare of the child must first be determined to exist, before the "best interests of the child" test may be applied when private third-parties dispute custody with natural parents. Id. at 547 (quoting McDermott v. Dougherty, 869 A.2d 751 (Md. Ct. App. 2005)).

New Caselaw August 2, 2010

ALYCE FABIAN-MILLER
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES

Today, the Washington Court of Appeals issued an excellent published opinion holding that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children does not apply to placements of children in foster care with their birth parents.

Here is a flavor of some of the great language in the opinion-

"[C]ourts, not administrative agencies or individual social workers, are the ultimate evaluators of a parent's ability to care for his child, and the ultimate decision-makers as to whether placement with a fit parent is in the child's best interests. Yet under regulation 3, when a fit parent is available but an ICPC home study is negative, all discretion is transferred to an administrative agency in the sister state. If the court determines the parent is fit, the ICPC may become an obstacle to the court's ability to act in the best interests of the child.

This case is an excellent example. A thoughtful and well-informed trial judge searched out the best interests of a child who, fortunately, has a fit parent anxious to offer him a home. DSHS has consistently assessed Verner to be a fit parent, and he steadfastly addressed the concerns of the Oklahoma social worker. By the time of the final study, the social worker's only complaint was that Verner's house had too few bedrooms. Washington has no such policy, and the court was satisfied with the proposed living arrangements. But DSHS insists the judge was bound to decide against the placement.

This is nonsense. The number of bedrooms a family enjoys is a direct consequence of its financial circumstances. Many children have been happily raised without bedrooms of their own. Other children have bedrooms while a parent sleeps on the sofa. It is the parenting relationship, not the square footage, that interests the court, because it is the parenting relationship that matters to the child (emphasis added)."

Congratulations to the attorneys who brought this challenge. I only hope that more advocates for children and parents will raise and litigate this issue and put an end to this troubling practice.

Washington State- In re Welfare of A.B. Filed June 10, 2010 In this case, a fit father had his rights terminated due to the reluctance of the court to remove the child from the relative placement. The Washington State Supreme Court found that the trial court had violated the fathers due process rights by failing to make an explicit finding of parental unfitness prior to considering the best interest of the child. There was also strong language warning trial courts not to confuse placement comparisons, which is evidence of the best interest of the child, with evidence related to current parental unfitness.

NY state appellate court rules that children can't be taken from parents just because house is messy
September 16,2009

Here's what we could find on the case- Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. In re IYANAH D. and Another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

See the Decision-

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS
A09-0080
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.L.J., Parent

Filed September 1, 2009
Affirmed in part and reversed in part

Johnson, Judge
Rice County District Court
File No. JV-08-3492

July 16, 2009

US District Court, Eastern District of California (Case 2:09-at-01115)

E.T., K.R., C.B., and G.S. et. al. v. GEORGE, VICKERY, MIZE

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
42 USC § 1983 and Pendant State Law Claims
CLASS ACTION

This case seeks a Dependency Court for Sacramento's Abused and Neglected children that comports with basic Due Process and the effective, adequate, and competent assistance of counsel for children of Sacramento County in dependency proceedings.

July 2, 2009

U.S. Supreme Court

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07-591, June 25, 2009) ___ U.S. ___ [2009 D.A.R. 9363]

New Ruling Breathes Life Into Crawford v. Washington and the Confrontation Clause
The effects of parents or non-parents to confront any data or testimony that will be used against them is even stronger now.  Child protection can no longer submit ANY medical document or testing into the court record without the said author of said document being present at the time of submission.

The reports can NOT stand on their own without being confronted by any party.  Failure to do so excludes the document and is inadmissible into the record.  The confrontation clause applies to all government officials, not just a selected few.  Crawford has been used and does apply to child protection cases as ruled by the courts.

For those not familiar with Crawford, Crawford in short means the State of Connecticut or DCF or any other state can't prosecute a parent or a non-parent in cases of domestic violence without the testimony of the alleged victim.  Hearsay statements from police, mandated reporters, doctors or DCF are no longer admissible in order to prosecute the case.  The accused has a constitutional right to confront the accuser under the Confrontation Clause.  In other words, the victim MUST testify or there is no case. 

http://familyrights.us/bin/caselaw/melendez-diaz_v_massachusetts.html

Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding, No. 08-479 Decided June 25, 2009

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-479

[Cite as In re D.V., 2009-Ohio-2924] 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY 

In the Matter of: D. V. 

Court of Appeals No. L-08-1228 
Trial Court No. JC06-159895 

DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: June 19, 2009

{¶ 6} I."THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE MAGISTRATE'S RULING THAT REASONABLE EFFORTS HAD BEEN MADE TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF THE MINOR CHILD FROM THE APPELLANT/FATHER."

Reasonable Efforts is the #1 item that CPS universally lies through their teeth about.  Performing Reasonable Efforts is a whole lot more than CPS putting a checkmark on a form!

State of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., No. 073858

In challenge to defendant-Department of Health and Human Services' determination that the state's failure in certain cases to comply with the "judicial determination of reasonable efforts" requirements set forth in 45 C.F.R. section 1356.21(b)2) rendered the state ineligible for federal reimbursement of foster care maintenance payments in those cases, dismissal of plaintiff's action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-state's contention that section 1356.21(b)(2) conflicted with the statute it implemented, 42 U.S.C. section 672(a)(1), was incorrect; 2) section 1356.21(b)(2) required a judicial determination of state compliance with the reasonable child placement efforts set forth in 42 U.S.C. section 671(a)(15) as amended by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, Pub. L. No. 105-89, section 101(a), 111 Stat. 2115, 2116-17; 3) the plain language of section 672(a)(1) signaled Congress's intent to incorporate all "reasonable efforts" discussed in section 671(a)(15) into section 672(a)(1); and 4) plaintiff-state's complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/073858p.pdf

Appeal from a district court judgment dismissing New York State’s Administrative Procedure Act challenge to defendants’ determination that the state’s failure in certain cases to comply with the “judicial determination of reasonable efforts” requirement set forth in 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(b)(2) rendered the state ineligible for federal reimbursement of foster care maintenance payments in those cases. New York’s contention that § 1356.21(b)(2) conflicts with the statute it implements, 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(1), is incorrect. Section 1356.21(b)(2) requires a judicial determination of state compliance with the reasonable child placement efforts set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) as amended by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 101(a), 111 Stat. 2115, 2116-17, and the plain language of § 672(a)(1) signals Congress’s intent to incorporate all “reasonable efforts” discussed in § 671(a)(15) into § 672(a)(1). Accordingly, New York’s complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

I think this is saying that New York sued DHHS for payments with-held because they merely didn't bother to pass the Reasonable Efforts test for receiving the Federal Funding.  New York lost.  They don't get the money.  49 states left to go.  Or that would be 56 left to go if you are Obama. NO STATE IS IN COMPLIANCE TO GET THE MONEY. There is not even the PRETENSE of 

"reasonable efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, and (B) to make it possible for the child to return to his home"-- 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (15)

Nor is there even the PRETENSE of-

"States shall give preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a child" --42 U.S.C. 671(a)(18)

CPS is the very definition of FRAUD.  They do not know what Constitutional Rights or Miranda Rights are, or even the LAWS they have to observe to GET THE MONEY.  It's high time they learn what FRAUD is and what a Capital Crime is for running their malfeasant, officious Color of Law scams and nasty calumnies for Character Assassinations.  CPS are terrorists in a jihad on families.  They are absolutely LAWLESS, pathological liars, and Sociopaths.  There's absolutely no reason to believe a word they say, and there's absolutely no reason they should be allowed to continue running about like diseased rats and cockroaches.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. ---The Declaration of Independence

State to pay $2.9 million in Nassau foster care abuse case
Three children sexually assaulted in a foster home a decade ago sued the Florida DCF.
By Paul Pinkham
Florida Times-Union
Story updated at 7:36 AM on Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009 

The agreement follows an appellate decision lawyers called unprecedented that gave the children the right to sue the Florida Department of Children and Families for placing them in a home where danger lurked. The settlement encompasses both state and federal claims filed against the department and its employees. 

I have searched the world over and cannot find the actual case.  If you find it, let me know

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - A Grant County man has been awarded $3 million for spending months in jail because of poor work by his public defender.

Felipe G. Vargas was awarded more than $3 million payable by his public defender by a U.S. District Court jury in Spokane after spending more than seven months in the Grant County Jail, falsely accused of child molestation.  FULL STORY

NEW DECISION
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-15791
D. C. Docket No. 05-00873 CV-J-33MCR

 ...Plaintiffs H.A.L., J.H.L., and S.L.L., minor children, filed through their parents and next friends a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendants Ed Foltz (“Foltz”), Deborah Jones (“Jones”), and Virginia Jordan (“Jordan”), employees with the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the childrens’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights to physical safety and to be free from an unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants, through deliberate indifference, failed to prevent child-on-child sexual abuse the children suffered while they were involuntarily in the custody of Florida’s foster-care system.

Defendants appeal on on interlocutory review the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint on the basis of Defendants’ qualified immunity. Based on the alleged facts, we conclude that Defendants knowingly subjected the children to a substantial risk of serious harm and exhibited deliberate indifference to the known risk: conduct already clearly established as unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.  See FULL DOCUMENT (pdf)

This describes CPS workers' normal activity anywhere in the westernized world.

August 21, 2008

Case Name: U.S. v. Craighead, District: 9 Cir , Case #: 07-1-135
Opinion Date: 8/21/2008 , DAR #: 13245
Case Holding:
Interrogations occurring inside the home are custodial, requiring Miranda advisements under the Fifth Amendment, if the circumstances turn it into one of a “police-dominated” atmosphere.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY v. MD
FAMILY LAW
In re P.C., No. G039898
In a family law matter, juvenile court order terminating defendant mother's parental rights to her daughter and son is reversed and remanded where poverty alone is not a sufficient ground to deprive a mother of parental rights to her children. Read more in TEXT. Read more in PDF

Were this to be applied nation-wide, perhaps 80% of the KIDNAPPING would stop.

This change addresses a recurring problem for parents–commonly mothers–of children said to have been abused: the fear that one will be considered an unfit parent unless one agrees that the child has been abused by one's spouse or domestic partner.

ESSB 6792 amended the RCW 13.34.065 shelter care hearing factors a court must take into consideration when deciding whether to remove a child from parental custody. 

The new provision reads:

"Uncertainty by a parent, guardian, legal custodian, relative, or other suitable person that the alleged abuser has in fact abused the child shall not, alone, be the basis upon which a child is removed from the care of a parent, guardian, or legal custodian under of this subsection, nor shall it be a basis, alone, to preclude placement with a relative under (b) of this subsection or with another suitable person under (d) of this subsection."  Full Story

CPS workers who threaten and lie are "engaging in the unauthorized practice of law".

Published Saturday    May 24, 2008
Court says state erred in family meddling
BY MARTHA STODDARD
OMAHA WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

...a jury found that Case abused her authority as a state employee by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

Trial evidence showed that she repeatedly told Richmond he could still visit his daughter if he willingly gave up his parental rights but that he risked losing visitation if a court terminated his rights.

Amanda C., by and through Gary Richmond, natural parent and next friend, appellee, v. Kelly Case, appellant.__N.W.2d__ Filed May 23, 2008. No. S-06-1097

Gary Richmond, previously sued appellant Case in the district court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Case engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by counseling him about the legal benefits and consequences of relinquishing his rights and ultimately persuading him to sign a relinquishment agreement, thereby depriving him of his substantive due process right of custody to his child. A jury found in his favor

Every parent gets a threat like that to coerce them to sign a "voluntary" service plan.

*New Case Decided March 26, 2008- Smith v. Williams-Ash*
Voluntary safety plans that aren't voluntary will shoot you in the foot

2-13-2008 Filing
 Stricklin VS Oklahoma 
Massive 42 U.S.C. 1983 Class Action filing

From: Connecticut DCF Watch  
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;  
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:26 PM 
Subject: HOT OFF THE PRESS: Here is the Federal Judge's Ruling on Coerced Cooperation against CPS/DCF. 

The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional. Today, We just got the copy of the ruling against DCF/CPS that they can NOT threaten or coerce you into cooperating with them no more than the police can threaten or coerce you into cooperating with them.  This ground breaking ruling is in the attachment as a pdf file. 

Pass this on to your attorney and anyone else who has been abused by DCF/CPS.  Below is the news release by the organization that argued the case. 

Judges also can not force parents to cooperate with DCF for that also violates parents rights to remain silent.  A judge can not force parents to cooperate with DCF, no more than they can force you to cooperate with the police.

http://familyrights.us/news/archive/2008/feb/loudermilk_v_arpaio_no_cv060636phx-ehc.htm

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BELTRAN V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Filed January 24, 2008

"Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. "

Lying, evil CPS workers stomping on Constitutional Rights, fabricating evidence, making false statements and filing false reports no longer have immunity.

Cal·um·ny  (kāl'əm-nē) pl. cal·um·nies
1- A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation.
2- The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.

These sociopathic monsters have been getting away with FEDERAL CRIMES and FRAUD for 30 years with immunity and impunity.  This has not been going on in some dark corner.  It is the standard method of operation, SYSTEMATIC and PANDEMIC.

When will there be restoration and compensation?

Filed 12/28/07; pub. order 1/25/08

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Antonio G., No. D051079
Orders denying maternal grandmother's request to have children placed with her are reversed and vacated in part where county agency and the juvenile court essentially ignored their duty under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 to properly consider grandmother's request to have her two dependent grandchildren placed with her. The agency did not reevaluate grandmother using the criteria set forth in section 361.3(a), and the juvenile court did not consider those criteria in assessing her as a placement option. Read more

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-16071
D.C. No. CV-02-01961-DFL
OPINION

Filed May 29, 2007

ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
The Rogers family brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the conduct of social worker Charlotta Royal in removing the Rogers children from their home without a warrant violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, although the Rogerses’ was as to liability only. The district court granted Royal’s motion on the basis of qualified immunity. Because we hold that it was clearly established that warrantless removal of children is permissible only in cases of exigency, and that it would have been apparent to a reasonable social worker that no exigency existed in this case, we reverse both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.

 Family Rights News across the Nation
© 2003 AFRA News

March 11, 2004 7:30pm PST
Updated March 13, 2004 12:56pm PST

AFRA Analysis: Hearsay evidence ruled Unconstitutional 

CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON (02-9410) 147 Wash. 2d 424, 54 P.3d 656, reversed and remanded.

..."In a forceful opinion, US District Judge James G. Carr wrote: “Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.  There is...no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.  ...Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority.”

The caseworkers in the Walsh case admitted they had never been taught anything about the Fourth Amendment or search warrants. 

The court further ruled that the police did not have probable cause to detain, frisk, and threaten to arrest Walsh, since he was not breaking any law but merely asserting his “fundamental right to be left alone.”

Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as "the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case." In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45, 54. Therefore, parents "must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows."

United States Supreme Court Parental Rights Caselaw at LIFTING THE VEIL