About the "Service Plan"

It's a TRAP!
"Better shun the bait than struggle in the snare."
-John Dryden (1631-1700) English Poet

The "Service" or "Safety Plan" is being "offered" to you
and they want you to "volunteer".

Your "volunteering"(42 U.S.C. 672(a)(2)(A)(i)
CANCELS your Constitutional Rights


Also see- Reasonable Efforts
Where's the Services?

Are the People Who Participate in Safety Plans Suitable to Do So?
© 2003 Action for Child Protection, Inc


Be aware that refusing to sign THEIR CONTRACT will likely cause CPS to offer you severe, sickening threats,
and they may follow through trying to make the WORST happen to you.  It is called Terrorism.

YOU are the only one who can decide  
whether to stand up like you live in 

Lay down like a Taliban woman 
and let them beat on you until they are happy 

Only you can decide whether to fight CPS to the bitter end-- Or comply

If you won't FIGHT, no matter the cost,
The outcome of your case is a crap shoot,
no matter what YOU decide to do.

The only thing we can state with any confidence is:

Voluntarily surrendering your Constitutional Rights
by signing a Service Plan that THEY WROTE
and casting Blind Faith in a CPS agent, their contractors,
and the unconstitutional court of NO Due Process
is quite an un-American thing to do. 

The United States of America was born of a WAR against this sort of TYRANNY,
and it is now dying in TYRANNY. 

We cannot in any way guarantee:
That any of this is going to work out well for you.
No matter how much you learn or how hard you fight.
Nor if you do nothing but surrender, comply
and HOPE for everything to be OK.

We all wish it wasn't so.  Happy Yankee Doodle.

Unless you helped create it* and CAN COMPLY with it's terms-

A Service Plan is an ADHESION CONTRACT*, to which conditions they WILL EXPECT YOU to perform.
And not likely ANYTHING WHATSOEVER CPS is to perform, other than Legal Abuse and threats of TPR.

Make THEM get a Court Order.  Until a "Judge" WRITES AN ORDER to comply, CPS can take a flying flop at a rolling donut.

They will definitely tell the "judge" that you are "uncooperative", but there's NOTHING in the Constitution that demands you to "cooperate".  These monsters have to be constantly reminded that this is not the USSR or Nazi Germany of years long gone by.


"...because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance." US. v. Minker, 350 US 179, 187

In US. vs. Johnson, 76 F.Supp. 538, 540 (1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that-
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto.  It is a FIGHTING clause.  It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT.  It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor.  It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person."
McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. "The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."  

And by the way, you are supposed to be able to PARTICIPATE in creating the "Service" or "Safety" Plan, not just accept the standard one "off the shelf" that has you taking "Anger Management", "Alcohol" or "Drug" Classes or whatever, AT YOUR EXPENSE and often conflicting time schedules, even though they NEVER alleged you had these "problems".

*Developing Case Plans

From Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers. 2003
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (DHHS), Washington, DC. DePanfilis, D., Salus, M. K.

Involving the Family

Families who believe that their feelings and concerns are heard are more likely to engage in the case-planning process. Therefore, decisions regarding outcomes, goals, and tasks should be a collaborative process between the caseworker, family, family network, and other providers. Caseworkers should help the family maintain a realistic perspective on what can be accomplished and how long it will take to do so. Involving the family accomplishes the following:

  • Enhances the essential helping relationship because the family's feelings and concerns have been heard, respected, and considered;
  • Facilitates the family's investment in and commitment to the outcomes, goals, and tasks;
  • Empowers parents or caregivers to take the necessary action to change the behaviors and conditions that contribute to the risk of maltreatment;
  • Ensures that the agency and the family are working toward the same end.

Search Children's Bureau website for more about "case planning" 


A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.

An example of an adhesion contract is a standardized contract form that offers goods or services to consumers on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to the form contract.

There is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about adhesion contracts. In fact, most businesses would never conclude their volume of transactions if it were necessary to negotiate all the terms of every Consumer Credit contract. Insurance contracts and residential leases are other kinds of adhesion contracts. This does not mean, however, that all adhesion contracts are valid. Many adhesion contracts are Unconscionable*; they are so unfair to the weaker party that a court will refuse to enforce them. An example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan installments promptly that are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court can find that there is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not accepted the terms of the contract -West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer. (See: contract) The People's Law Dictionary Copyright 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Encyclopedia

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it. (But we aren't in a Constitutional court of Due Process in Family Court  Also see Volksgerichtshof

When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.

In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace.

Contractual provisions that indicate gross one-sidedness in favor of the seller include provisions that limit damages against the seller, limit the rights of the purchaser to seek court relief against the seller, or disclaim a warranty. State and federal consumer protection and consumer credit laws were enacted to prevent many of these unconscionable contract provisions from being included in sales contracts.

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such contracts.

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of fraud and deceit, where the deliberate misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. Whenever someone takes unconscionable advantage of another person, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.

No standardized criteria exist for measuring whether an action is unconscionable. A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search of drugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples." The Court relied on these general historical and moral traditions as the basis for ruling unconstitutional an unconscionable act.

See: Rochin v. California


~Where's the "Services"?~
Click on the line above to see about the Services they claim they are providing but ARE NOT