There’s a lively discussion going on at the Sacramento Bee’s most recent article in their CPS article archive. Look for the title: Court file details CPS ‘Vendetta’… published on April 20. The comment section is worth reading.

Thanks to Sam for emailing me the link!

Nadya Suleman must have a lot going for herself, and her many children. She’s managed to buy a home and hire an attorney, and appear on the Dr. Phil Show where she was offered free nursing care by an organization that calls themselves “Angels in Waiting”.

Unfortunately these “Angels” appear to have a problem - with calling CPS. So far there have been two calls. First their attorney, Gloria Allred, called CPS because Suleman didn’t immediately respond to the “Angels in Waiting” offer of free nursing service. According to the article, Octuplets mom fires four nurses helping for free, Allred threatened “that Suleman’s children could end up in foster care if she didn’t have proper help.”

You KNOW what I think of this lawyer!

But then after the nursing service began, one of the nurses apparently called CPS because in her opinion, there were too many people at the Suleman house. I doubt there’s any laws about how many people are allowed in a house with babies, but this nurse must think her subjective opinion is gold and that Nadya should not have company. How unreasonable can you get?

Congratulations to Nadya Suleman, who took decisive action to get rid of the rat and her fellow “Angels in Waiting”. Nadya looks like a lovely person and her babies are precious — you can see them on the Nadya Suleman Family Website. You can learn more about her on Wikipedia: Nadya Suleman. I admire and respect what this young woman has done in deciding to have children on her own, and in finding ways to make this financially possible. I especially admire that, rather than cowering in fear, she tossed out the bad apples who thought calling CPS was an option.

Just as any American, Nadya has the right to raise her children as she sees fit.

Back in 1989 when my infant daughter was taken out of the hospital by a CPS social worker, I was aware of at least one person in that department that had a criminal record. He had been convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the death of his wife while he was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and spent a few years in prison. When they let him out he was hired by the county as a welfare caseworker, then promoted to be a CPS social worker. But back in 1989 there wasn’t much said about social workers with criminal records.

Times have changed!

This week the Sacramento Bee published an exposé about CPS caseworkers and social workers with criminal records. The convictions and arrests (with some cases pending) include drug possession, spousal abuse, gang membership, assault with a deadly weapon, and drunk driving. One CPS employee in Sacramento County is a registered sex offender. Last August one family service worker was arrested for stealing gasoline.

Fine people to be deciding which families to decimate!

FIRE THEM ALL… that’s the best thing that could happen!!!

As much as I don’t like the depression, I’m thrilled when I hear of CPS caseworkers losing their jobs. I want families to be safe again.

The Sacramento Bee article: Dozens in CPS have criminal records by Marjie Lundstrom and Sam Stanton, published March 22, 2009.

…
Thanks to tommixx for posting this link in the FightCPS Message Board Forum, and to ‘cps victim’ who sent it to me in email.

California residents:

I received this in email this morning, and reviewed the letter. You may be able to help parents undergoing termination of parental rights hearings:

If you are a California resident, please email me at:
aleo966 at yahoo.com

A Petition for Review is being sent to the CA Supreme Court. This is part of a legal process and therefore they are required to read it. It is not an online petition. If they grant this review there could be new case law that will help anyone in dependency proceedings in California or anyone who enters it in the future.

You will be asked to sign a letter which I will email to you. You must provide your name and address below the signature. The letter will be mailed to the CA Supreme Court and 5 copies will go to: the Appeals court, the superior court, county counsel, and others.

This letter must be signed and mailed in the next 30 days or so. The sooner you respond to me the better. I cannot post this letter online because I don’t want just anyone to send it or rewrite it. That could cause more harm than good.

So please email me ASAP and I will forward you the letter.

Thanks,
aleo966 at yahoo.com

Received today from Greg Smart:

Hi everyone,

I want to find people who can join me in a peaceful demonstration in front of the Court of Appeals on Wed 2.25,09 at 7:45am - we need to be there before the judges get there.

I would even go so far as to ask you folks to demonstrate with me on Thurs, and Fri as well of that week to make our point clear.

Please inform others who would be interested.

I ask that anyone willing to do this, bring their own signs and confirm by emailing me back, as I need to know how many if any will show up. Email: cpsvictim@gmail.com

The address is 925 N. Spurgeon street, Santa Ana 92701,The courthouse looks like a big house, the street is easy to miss. When you goon Santa Ana Blvd. it is only about 0.7 miles (check mapquest), and if you hit Main street, you have gone too far. Turn right on Spurgeon and it is on the right hand side - looks like a house with a flag. The judges will have to see us because there is no other access to the bldg.

I suggest signs that refer to parental rights, such as:

“Parental rights termination in CA are unconstitutional”

“We will take this up to the US supreme court”

“let our children go”

“DCFS are crooked”

“Dependency proceedings are a joke”

“The Courts are affirming the kidnapping”

etc.

Thanks for you help.

–
Greg Smart
Co-Founder
No more Family InJustice
(858) 568-5576
cpsvictim@gmail.com

This was originally posted here.

By aleo966 at yahoo.com:

I would like to organize a rally similar to the one on Nov 25. I am in Los Angeles. We should target the Appeals courts.

Here are 2 locations I propose for a rally:
Ronald Reagan State Building
300 So. Spring St. 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013

and

925 N. Spurgeon Street
Santa Ana, California 92701-3724

I need to get feedback regarding who can attend during the month of January and which dates. We should try to rally there daily.

In 2003, most of Albertsons and Vons Employees demonstrated daily for months in front of their local stores and refused to go back to work. They were fighting for higher wages and their pension funds. They were only fighting over money, and not for their children’s lives, and yet they were willing to stand out for hours in the cold and give up their jobs until they got what they wanted. And they did!

I can’t imagine why the people who are complaining all over the internet and on this site are not out there with a sign in front of the court houses, the State Capitol or even the Judicial Council.

We should organize this to attract media attention and do it all over the country.

Anyone interested for Los Angeles and Orange County, please email me at aleo966@yahoo.com. Include the dates in JAN 2009 you can attend and whether LA or OC location and how many of you will be there.

You should make your own banners.
Suggestions are welcome.

I would like to have daily demonstrations from Jan 15 til at least Jan 31. Others should organize their own rallies around the same time.

Complaining on this site will get you nowhere, so pick yourself up and go out and do something!

This was posted as a comment on the site. I’m promoting it to the front page so that more of you will know about it. I’ve also requested more information. - ljm

There will be a march to protest CPS in Sacramento, California on November 25th, 2008.

Location: The Federal Building and the Mayor’s Office.

Time: It starts at 10:45am.

Organizer Susan Smith can be contacted at 415-863-6306 or 415-756-9589.

She plans speakers, banners, media, press, logo t-shirts, and more.

This is from activists who are planning a CPS/DPSS class action lawsuit against Riverside County and the State of California for kidnapping children without cause:

We are organizing a class action lawsuit against the State of California, and all parties involved in unlawfully detaining and holding our children against our will, and without cause. We have documented the deep, embedded corruption in the “social services” agencies in California, specifically in Riverside County, conspiring with hospitals, schools, pediatricians and the court system to take possession of our children, without cause. We have already filed three lawsuits, and are looking for other families who have also been annihilated by this Evil. For information about the class action lawsuit, email us with your facts and contact information to build a strong case against these Devils. IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE BEEN WRONGLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY CPS, EMAIL US AT fightcpscalifornia -at- gmail.com.

These are the reasons you should be part of this lawsuit:

· CPS manufactures multiple nonexistent/fictitious abuse case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.

· CPS concurrently processes these children from foster care to Adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of bonuses.

· CPS provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts (Judges, psychologists, visitation monitors, court mandated behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel, etc…), in order for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system they themselves perpetuate.

· CPS victimizes innocent families, and draws them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for this corrupt child commerce.

· CPS is utilized by family court officials and attorneys as an adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to “parental alienation syndrome,” where in truth, the CPS caseworkers are the ones initiating the alienation of these children from their own birth parents. Caseworkers are never allowed to testify in court under the cloak of “CPS Authority” due to possible misuse or conflict of interest related to right to privacy laws (Very convenient)

· CPS utilizes unlawful & coercive measures to persuade vulnerable parents to submit to statements of nonexistent abuse and false “Case Plans,” forcing desperate parents to “plea bargain” to a CPS fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care.

· CPS fabricates false allegations and most of their “investigations” to purposely mislead or misdirect a case.

· CPS intentionally fails to Criminally prosecute Parents accused of child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been committed. However, CPS continues to claim a crime has been committed, as THEY abuse/neglect our children.

· CPS knowingly abandons children into the foster care system, conscious that some individuals in these homes physically and/or sexually abuse those in their “protective” custody. CPS ignores crimes committed in foster care through failure to investigate.

· CPS fails to question these individuals for their abusive conduct, whereby, if it were a birth parent or not a foster care parent, these individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in criminal court.

· CPS misrepresents themselves in positive personas by omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly grandstanding,displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well being of children.

The Police should determine if children need protection from their own parents, since child abuse is a Criminal offense.

We dearly know, from our own personal case, the trauma and distress this thwarted government agency imposes (with no consequence) upon innocent families. In January 2008 the law office of Robert Powell won its appeal to the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case set a precedent by finding that CPS social workers are NOT entitled to absolute immunity for investigator conduct - particularly when they fabricate evidence, misrepresent evidence, and withhold exculpatory evidence. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS APPLIES TO YOUR FAMILY, email us at fightcpscalifornia -at- gmail.com. You can make a difference. Now is the time for action.

Note: This is intended for California residents only. Victims in other states can organize their own class action lawsuits.

Child Protective Services social worker, Yolanda Perez Fryson, 41, was arrested on Friday, October 30 on extortion charges. She has also been charged with possession of stolen property.

This CPS employee has been on administrative leave since last June. She decided that the way to make money was to phone a Placer County man to tell him he was being investigated for physical and sexual abuse. She told him that for a fee, she would make the charges go away.

God knows how many others she’s done this to. This particular man decided to inform Yuba County officials and the Placer County Sheriff’s Department. He then met Yolanda Perez Fryson to give her a $10,000 bribe. As soon as her victim gave her the money, she was arrested.

When detectives searched her home they found a badge she’d reported stolen in 2005, and charged her with possession of stolen property on top of the extortion charges.

That’s one more crooked CPS agent hung out to dry.

Who’s next?

Source: Yuba Co. Social Worker Arrested For Extortion published October 31, 2008 by CBS13.Com.

.
This is an important message from Charlie Wittman of Advocates For Children and Families:

All:

I am talking to an attorney who may be interested in filing a class action suit re: pre-jurisdictional psychological evaluations and cps ordered psychological evaluations. In CA it is illegal to do a psy eval before the court obtains jurisdiction and the psy evals are to be used only to determine services for the family.

In most all cases in which i have talked to parents in CA and nationwide, the psy evals have been used as a evil tool to say that parents are incapable of parenting due to a mental disorder and then they lose their children. In most cases, the psychologists are from a court appointed pool of psychologists who are totally influenced by social services and are by no means impartial or scientific. Even when the “psychologists???” do their evaluations after jurisdiction, their reports are rarely true as they are filled with lies from social workers.

I am looking for persons who have had pre-jurisdictional psy evals, psy evals and psy evals which have been used to take your children. I need your name, address, email and a very very brief description of what happened in your case. I will keep these confidential and when and if the class action moves forward, I will contact you. We are going to start in CA and then move nationwide in a federal court action.

Send to theacf - at - hotmail.com and make sure in the title you put “My Psy Eval Problem”. Thanks much and I hope this stops this illegal activity and saves our children.

Charlie Wittman, Director, Advocates for Children and Families, TheACF, on
BOD of AFRA, CCHR Board of Advisors, theacf - at - hotmail.com ,
PO Box 10, Los Gatos, CA 95031, 408 395 6999 ACF Hotline
Main ACF WWW site: http://www.theacf.org
CRIN: http://www.crin.org/organisations/viewOrg.asp?ID=1774
AFRA: http://familyrightsassociation.com/
CCHR: www.cchr.org

(Posted with permission from Mr. Wittman.)

This lawsuit dated May 31, 2007 is against the Los Angeles County Department of Social Services. It alleges fraud, violation of kinship care rights, and loss of family love and support. It was filed by a former foster child and adoptive child.

Thanks to the person who sent this via email.

…

LAW FIRM, APC
Attorneys for Plaintiff: ELIZABETH J. BRUCE AKA ELIZABETH J. ALLDRIDGE

ELIZABETH J. BRUCE AKA ELIZABETH J. ALLDRIDGE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,

Defendants,

CASE NO.

TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD

Plaintiff, ELIZABETH J. BRUCE, aka, ELIZABETH J. ALLDRIDGE, alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff, ELIZABETH J. BRUCE, aka, ELIZABETH J. ALLDRIDGE (Date of Birth: April 17, 1972) is currently a resident of Clark County, Nevada, who lawfully changed her last name on March 8, 2007, from Alldridge to Bruce as part of her divorce decree. At all times pertinent hereto Plaintiff was a dependent of the Juvenile Court, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code §300(b) (and all predecessor statutes) and related California Regulations, subject to the control and authority of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services and related divisions or departments, including but not limited to what was known as the Department of Adoptions (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant DPSS”), throughout all proceeds related to or stemming from Plaintiff’s foster care and adoption.

2. Defendant DPSS was at all times pertinent hereto a department of a public entity created and existing under the laws of the State of California, with authority over children such as plaintiff.

3. The true and complete names of DOES 1 through 20 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. At this time plaintiff does not have knowledge of all aspects of the claims set forth herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify each Doe defendant’s name and capacity when same have been ascertained.

4. At all times herein mentioned, each defendant was acting through authorized employees or other agents, and was the agent, authorized representative, employee, or otherwise acting on behalf of each of the remaining defendants. In doing the things hereinafter mentioned, each defendant was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, representation, and authority with the knowledge and consent of each remaining defendant.

5. The conduct of each defendant as alleged herein combined, cooperated, and contributed to the conduct of each other defendant such as to cause the herein described incidents, injuries, and events.

6. Plaintiff’s first suspension of any claim against Defendant DPSS occurred in late February 2006 or most likely in early March 2006 during a face to face meeting with Ms. Betty Anderson, a former aid of Assemblyperson Karen Bass, 47th Assembly District. Plaintiff sought Ms. Anderson’s assistance to acquire her Los Angeles County Department of Social Services records related to her foster care and eventual adoption. Plaintiff sought these records as part of her effort to find her biological mother (her biological father Donald Bruce died on February 26, 1974), and to acquire all available medical information related to both biological parents not only for herself, but more particularly for her children (her eldest son has suffered his entire life from Hydrocephalus.) During Plaintiff’s meeting with Ms. Betty Anderson, the Court records she was able to acquire from the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court concerning her adoption (all prior attempts to acquire DPSS social worker records were refused and/or denied) were discussed and reviewed. Ms. Betty Anderson pointed out to Plaintiff that it appeared the 1975 signature of her biological mother relinquishing all custody and control of Plaintiff when compared to signatures from Plaintiff’s biological mother’s criminal records appeared to be the signatures of different individuals. At this moment Plaintiff for the first time suspected that there may have been some violation of Defendant DPSS’s duties. Up until this meeting with Ms. Betty Anderson, Plaintiff was not looking for and had no suspicion or knowledge whatsoever of any type of a claim or injury related to any conduct of Defendant DPSS, as her motivation for acquiring records from Defendant DPSS was to find her mother and to find out all potential medical information she could.

7. On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff timely served by mail a Governmental Claim for Damages to Person or Property on Defendant DPSS pursuant to Government Code §911.2 (Exhibit A attached hereto). Defendant DPSS denied this claim in writing by mail on December 1, 2006. This suit is being filed within six (6) months of Defendant DPSS rejection of Plaintiff’s claim.

8. Plaintiff is the biological daughter of Brenda Joan Allen and Donald MacKenzie Bruce. In or about July 1973 Defendant DPSS initiated proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code §300 et seq. (or their predecessor statutes), and eventually acquired physical and legal custody of Plaintiff. Defendant DPSS was under a mandatory duty to acquire either a Court ruling of involuntary relinquishment of custody by Plaintiff’s biological mother or acquire the signature of Plaintiff’s biological mother on a “RELINQUISHMENT (Out of County)” County of Los Angeles Department of Adoptions form before placing Plaintiff up for adoption. Defendant DPSS acquired neither. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief Defendant DPSS falsified, forged, or otherwise misrepresented the signature of Plaintiff’s biological mother Brenda Joan Allen on August 26, 1975, on a “Relinquishment (Out of County)” form in violation of its mandatory duties order to expedite adoption.

9. On September 26, 1975, Plaintiff was placed in the home of Harold Augustus Barlow and Carole Leah Barlow, potential adoptive parents pursuant to a Notice of Adoption. This placement by Defendant DPSS and eventual adoption of Plaintiff by the same adopting parents was in further violation of Defendant DPSS’s mandatory duties in that she was first required to be placed with family members of Plaintiff, who had priority rights to physical and legal custody of Plaintiff over her eventual adoptive parents. Plaintiff’s family was ready, able and willing to assume all physical and legal custody of Plaintiff, to provide for her in all aspects and to provide her with a loving home. Said family members of Plaintiff included, but were not limited to, her paternal grandmother and grandfather who sent Defendant DPSS and others letters repeatedly offering and in all aspects indicating their willingness to take care of their granddaughter in a loving home.

10. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DPSS’s breach of the foregoing mandatory duties, Plaintiff was placed in foster care of Defendant DPSS and eventually given up for adoption to Harold Augustus Barlow and Carole Leah Barlow. Harold Augustus Barlow died before Plaintiff turned four (4) years of age, and throughout the remaining years of her minority Plaintiff was neglected, abused, and generally ignored by her only remaining foster mother Carole Leah Barlow. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant DPSS’s breach of the foregoing mandatory duties, Plaintiff suffered personal injury, the loss of care, comfort, love and society of her biological family, suffered severe emotional and personal distress, and continues to suffer personal injury and distress associated with the loss of so many years of family love and support in addition to continuing to suffer the consequences of her life as an unwanted adoptive child.

11. The damages sought herein are in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant DPSS, and DOES 1 through 20, as follows:

1. General damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court;

2. All medical, incidental expenses, and special damages according to proof;

3. Loss of earnings and earning capacity according to proof;

4. Costs of suit;

5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: May 31, 2007 LAW FIRM, APC

BY: ____________________________

Source: Rogers v. County of San Joaquin - Ninth Circuit Opinions

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-16071
D.C. No.CV-02-0196o1-DFL
OPINION

THOMAS ROGERS; NICOLE ROGERS,
an individual; STEVEN KAHNCOCK,
Guardian ad litem for minors
Thomas R. Rogers and Shelby
Rogers,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                 v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN;
CHARLOTTA ROYAL, individually
and in her official capacity as
social worker for the County of
San Joaquin Human Services
Agency; CITY OF LODI; DENNIS
LEWIS, individually and in his
capacity as police officer for the
City of Lodi,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
April 16, 2007—San Francisco, California
Filed May 29, 2007
Before: Warren J. Ferguson, Stephen Reinhardt, and
Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Reinhardt

COUNSEL
David J. Beauvais, Oakland, California, for the plaintiffsappellants.
Daniel C. Cederborg, Office of the County Counsel, County
of San Joaquin, Stockton, California, for the defendantsappellees.

OPINION

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.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 20, 2001, San Joaquin County Child Protective Services received a report of child neglect in the Rogers home. The caller stated that three-year-old Shelby Rogers (“Shelby”) and five-year-old Thomas Rogers, Jr. (“Tommy”) were not toilet-trained, were locked in their rooms at night and in a room at their parents’ business during the day, were not receiving medical or dental care, that Tommy had lost his teeth due to bottle rot, that Shelby was still being fed with a bottle, that their home was dirty and maggot-infested, and that there were unsecured guns in the home. The intake unit did not view this report as requiring an emergency response, but rather classified it as warranting a response within ten days.(1) Three days later, before any action had been taken to investigate the report, Child Protective Services received a second, similar report regarding the Rogers children and likewise classified it as requiring a ten-day response.

[Footnote 1: Royal testified that the criteria that separate an emergency response from a ten-day response case varies, but examples of emergency response situations would be physical abuse or sexual abuse when the perpetrator is in the home, or the absence of food from the home.]

On August 31, Royal, a social worker with Child Protective Services, visited the Rogers home, but, finding no one there, departed without leaving a message or a note. She returned a week later, on September 7 at 8:30 a.m. Observing that the family was home, Royal called for the assistance of Lodi Police and waited for the officers to arrive before making contact with the family. Officer Dennis Lewis and at least one other police officer responded.

The family was just getting up when Royal and the officers entered their home.(2) Royal claimed that following her entry she heard Shelby knocking and asking for her mother from inside a bedroom. The mother, Nicole Rogers (“Nicole”), claims, however, that Shelby was neither knocking nor calling for her.

[Footnote 2: The parties debate whether the Rogerses consented to the entry, but that issue is not before us on appeal. Thus, our decision does not apply to that question, to the extent that it may still be viable in the district court.]

Officer Lewis asked to see the whole family. Nicole went to Shelby’s bedroom and unfastened a latch-type lock to open the door. Shelby emerged from the room dressed in a diaper that, according to Royal, appeared to be soiled. Nicole then retrieved Tommy from his bedroom. Tommy emerged wearing pajamas and a pull-up diaper. Royal saw a thumb lock similar to those used in bathroom doors on the outside of Tommy’s bedroom door. Royal believed that both children had been locked in their bedrooms, but Nicole testified that Tommy’s bedroom door was not locked. The father, Thomas Rogers (“Thomas”), also got out of bed to talk with Royal and Officer Lewis.

Royal asked why the children had locks on their bedroom doors. Nicole testified that she told Royal that they had never locked Tommy’s door, that his room had a lock on the door when they moved into the house, and that they had simply never removed it. According to her testimony, she also stated that they locked Shelby in her room at night because otherwise she would roam the house and get into things while the rest of the family was sleeping. However, Royal testified that Nicole first stated that she locked the children in their rooms only when she showered, and that only after Royal pointed out that Nicole had not been showering when they arrived did she say that she locked Shelby in at night. Royal testified that she believed Nicole had tried to lie to her and that this concerned her. She said that she was also concerned about the children being locked in their bedrooms because it could result in injury due to lack of supervision or as a result of a fire, and could restrict their access to the bathroom. Royal told the Rogerses that they would have to remove the locks. Nicole testified that she agreed to do so, but Royal contended that the Rogerses did not respond to her statement. Royal asked why the children were still in diapers. The Rogerses testified that they replied that they were “working with” Tommy, and that while they put a pull-up diaper on him at night, he was “doing good during the day.” They said that Shelby was not yet toilet-trained. Royal testified, however, that Nicole told her that “she hadn’t had time” to toilet-train the children.

Royal and Officer Lewis inspected Tommy’s mouth. Tommy suffered from severe bottle rot. Several of his teeth were missing and his remaining teeth were yellow and showed signs of decay. His mother acknowledged during her deposition that Tommy’s mouth had looked “horrible.” Nicole told Royal that Tommy had never complained of pain. She said that a dentist had told her that Tommy needed surgery, and she had scheduled an appointment but cancelled it out of fear that Tommy would be harmed, after she and her husband saw a television program about a child dying while under general anaesthesia. Royal testified that she believed that this meant the Rogerses were unwilling to take Tommy to the dentist. Royal asked if the family had medical insurance. According to Nicole, she answered that they did not have medical insurance at the moment but that she was waiting for an application, at which point Royal asked for proof that she had ever had insurance and Nicole showed her old membership cards for Kaiser. Nicole testified that Royal then asked her if the cards were active and she replied that they were not. Royal, however, stated that Nicole first told her that they had medical insurance and then attempted to deceive her by showing her inactive cards when she asked for proof. This, according to Royal, caused her further to doubt Nicole’s honesty.

Royal observed that the children had multiple circular bruises on their legs. Nicole stated that the children were always falling down. Royal also observed that Shelby had a large scratch on the side of her face. Nicole and Thomas told Royal that Shelby sustained the scratch when she fell off a chair at their workplace. They explained that they worked in an auto shop in San Leandro and that they took the children with them to work every day. Royal testified that she did not think that the children were being physically abused. She was concerned, however, that, because the children were taken to their parents’ place of business every day, they were isolated and would not be seen by pre-school teachers or others who would be required to report suspected abuse. Royal also observed that Shelby had unkempt hair that appeared to be thin and missing in some areas and that both children were very pale. She believed that the thinning hair could indicate malnutrition and the pale skin could be due to a vitamin deficiency or lack of sunlight. She observed, however, that the refrigerator and kitchen cabinets were well stocked with food and that the bathroom had the necessary toiletries. She told the Rogerses that the children looked very pale and sickly, and that they could be suffering from a vitamin deficiency or from lack of sunlight. Nicole responded that their pale complexion and Shelby’s thin hair were due to the fact that their father has pale skin and fine hair.

The parties dispute the condition of the Rogers home. Royal and Officer Lewis stated that they observed piles of dirty dishes and an overflowing garbage receptacle in the kitchen, as well as piles of dirty clothing scattered about the kitchen, living room and bedrooms. Thomas testified, however, that the garbage receptacles were only partly full. He also testified that the reason for the piles of clothing was that the washer and dryer were broken. Royal stated that she observed that the children had dirty bedding and mattresses without frames. In Shelby’s room, she saw clothing that she believed was dirty scattered on the floor. The Rogerses do not dispute that the children did not have bedframes, but testified that the clothing and bedding were clean. Thomas also testified that Shelby’s clothes were on the floor because she had a habit of pulling them out of her dresser to play dress-up. In Tommy’s room, Royal observed a brown substance that she believed to be feces smeared on the wall and a substance that she thought was rat droppings on the floor. Officer Lewis observed what he thought was vomit in the bottom drawer of a night stand. Tommy told Royal that the substance on the wall was a smashed graham cracker. The Rogerses testified that the alleged rat droppings on the floor actually consisted of small grains of filling that came out of a broken hacky sack ball, and the purported vomit, like the smears on the wall, was the remains of broken graham crackers.

There were five guns in the Rogerses’ bedroom, four of which were unloaded and stored in the closet, and one of which was loaded and kept in the dresser next to the Rogerses’ bed. Thomas testified that ammunition for the guns remained in the closet in a childproof container. Nicole testified that the gun in the dresser had a trigger lock with a key, and the key was located in a jewelry box mounted on the wall. Royal stated that after her conversation with the Rogerses and her observations of the condition of the home, she believed that the Rogers children had been neglected for some time and that there was an imminent risk to their physical health and safety. Based on this opinion, Royal chose to remove them from their home immediately and place them in the custody of Child Protective Services.(3)

[Footnote 3: Royal and Officer Lewis dispute who made the decision to remove the children, with both claiming that the other did so. Royal concedes, however, that this factual dispute is not relevant to the outcome of this appeal because she was ultimately responsible for the decision and could have countermanded it if she had disagreed.]

Royal did not offer the Rogerses alternative accommodations, medical referrals for the children, or services from the agency whereby the children could remain at home. Royal also did not obtain a warrant. Royal called for a car seat and, when it arrived, transported the children to Lodi Memorial Hospital. She testified that Tommy complained of mouth pain while at the hospital. She also testified that an attending nurse stated that the children appeared to be malnourished and suffering from a vitamin deficiency. The doctor who saw the children stated in his evaluation that both were “alert” and “playful,” but had “poor hygiene.” The doctor wrote that Tommy had “many teeth missing” and that Shelby’s hair was “sparse, brittle.” The doctor also wrote that the purpose of the visit was “medical clearance prior to [Child Protective Services] placement” and classified the visit as routine rather than emergency. After the medical clearance the children were placed in a shelter. Tommy did not receive any dental care that day or at any time while in the County’s custody. The children were returned to their parents on September 20, 2001, after the Rogerses made changes to their home and lifestyle as required by Child Protective Services, obtained medical insurance, and arranged for Tommy to have oral surgery. As a result of their time in custody, according to their mother, the children became concerned about being separated from their parents. Nicole further testified that Tommy, in particular, “lost trust in people in general” because of the experience. The Rogerses appealed the grant of summary judgment to Royal as well as the denial of their own motion for partial summary judgment as to Royal.

JURISDICTION

The grant of summary judgment is a final order and thereby gives us jurisdiction over both the grant of summary judgment to Royal and the denial of partial summary judgment to the Rogerses. See Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Beazer Materials & Servs., Inc., 973 F.2d 688, 694 (9th Cir. 1992). We have declined to exercise our jurisdiction over denials of summary judgment when reviewing orders granting summary judgment where the record has not been fully developed. Id. at 694 n.2. Such is not the case here. Moreover, both sides agree that the denial of the Rogerses’ motion is properly before us on appeal.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

I. Constitutional violation:

[1] In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we must first decide whether “the [official’s] conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). “Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.” Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2000). “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies.” Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). Officials violate this right if they remove a child from the home absent “information at the time of the seizure that establishes ‘reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.’ ” Id. at 1106 (quoting Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138). The Fourth Amendment also protects children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 827 n.9 (9th Cir. 2003). Officials, including social workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108.

[2] Serious allegations of abuse that have been investigated and corroborated usually give rise to a “reasonable inference of imminent danger sufficient to justify taking children into temporary custody” if they might again be beaten or molested during the time it would take to get a warrant. Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1997). However, an official’s prior willingness to leave the children in their home militates against a finding of exigency, as does information that the abuse occurs only on certain dates or at certain times of day. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108; Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1140.

[3] Under this standard, the district court correctly concluded that Tommy’s bottle rot, the children’s malnourishment, and the disorderly conditions in the home did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. This is so whether the disputed factual questions are resolved in favor of appellants or defendants.

[4] At oral argument, Royal conceded that she could have obtained a warrant within hours. There is no indication in the record that so short a delay could have resulted in a significant worsening of the children’s physical conditions or an increase in the prospects of long-term harm. Royal testified that she thought, after seeing Tommy’s mouth, that he could have an abscess and that he almost certainly had an infection. However, she does not assert that she believed that his condition would worsen if she delayed taking him into custody in order to obtain a warrant. Tommy’s teeth may have hurt, but, if so, he had likely been experiencing such pain for a considerable period of time and the “pain” was not so serious that he ceased to be “playful” and “alert.” Under such circumstances, any pain Tommy may have experienced cannot justify a failure to obtain a warrant or the peremptory removal of the children from their parents’ custody. Similarly, Royal’s testimony, even viewed in the light most favorable to her, does not suggest that the malnourishment in this case was sufficiently serious to justify the children’s immediate removal as both were alert and active, and there was no indication of imminent danger. It is worth noting in this respect that when the children eventually reached the hospital, the doctor did not suggest any immediate treatment for Tommy’s bottle rot or Shelby’s malnutrition.(4)

[Footnote 4: Although only the information that Royal had at the time that she made the challenged decision is relevant to the qualified immunity inquiry, the doctor’s response is relevant to the question of how serious the children’s conditions would have appeared to the reasonable social worker. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989).]

[5] Nor do the other circumstances cited by Royal support a finding of exigency, even if her version of all the disputed facts is accepted as true, and even if all of the conditions observed by her are considered collectively. There was no imminent danger of serious bodily harm as a result of Shelby being locked in her room, as this occurred only at night. Cf. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108 (concluding that the sexual abuse alleged in that case occurred only at night, so there was time to get a warrant before the child would be in imminent danger). The allegations that the children were also locked up during the day at their parents’ workplace, even if true, do not support a finding of imminent risk of serious bodily harm. The chances of accidental injury or of a fire breaking out at the Rogerses’ workplace during the few hours that it would take Royal to obtain a warrant were very low. So remote a risk does not establish reasonable cause to believe that the children were in immediate danger.

[6] Similarly, the conditions of the home, even if as unsanitary as Royal asserts, fail to indicate any imminent risk of serious bodily harm. Like the bottle rot, the mess in the Rogers living quarters, to the extent that it may have existed, was a chronic, ongoing problem. The presence of disorderliness and a small amount of droppings, feces, and other matter may increase the risk of eventual illness, but there is no indication in the record of any particular risk that the Rogers children would become seriously ill during the few hours that it would take Royal to obtain a warrant. Likewise, it would have presented no risk to the children to delay the commencement of their toilet-training for a few hours while Royal followed the requisite legal procedures.

[7] Royal also relies on the family’s lack of medical insurance and daycare. These conditions present no imminent danger of harm, and Royal does not argue otherwise. Thus, they, too, provide no support for the warrantless removal. It would certainly be preferable for all children to have medical insurance and quality daycare; given the absence of universal provision of such services, however, reliance on factors so closely related to economic status as a justification for removal would border on the unconstitutional.

[8] Royal also argues that the cumulative effect of all of the problems in the Rogers household placed the children in imminent danger. However, her argument falls far short of the mark. Even viewing the factors cumulatively, we have no doubt that there was no imminent danger to either or both of the Rogers children.

[9] Our conclusion that no exigency existed here is also supported by the fact that the Child Protective Services delayed in investigating the case and in removing the children. See Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that a 14-day delay by social workers in entering the family home to investigate a report of abuse is evidence of lack of exigency). Here, the concerned officials classified the case as a ten-day response, indicating that they did not think that any exigency existed. In fact, Royal waited until eleven days after the first referral to visit the house for the first time, and an additional seven days, following the first aborted visit, before returning, for a total delay of eighteen days, four days longer than the delay in Calabretta. That neither Royal nor the other staff members thought that the allegations required immediate action militates against a finding of exigency. When Royal finally returned to the Rogers home, the evidence she observed may, at most, have supported the anonymous tips received by the Services; it is evident, however, that it provided no basis for concern regarding any additional cause of imminent injuries. Royal’s actions after seeing the children also tend to support the view that the circumstances were not exigent. Instead of taking prompt action to obtain medical care as we would have expected her to do if she believed that the children faced imminent danger of serious harm to their health, Royal spent close to two hours talking with the family before deciding to remove the children from the parental home. She further delayed in order to wait for someone to bring a car seat rather than calling for an ambulance or other emergency transport. Although Royal did take the children to the hospital when she finally decided to place them in custody, the visit was treated by hospital staff as a routine screening visit, not as an emergency call.

[10] In sum, whether we accept the version of the facts offered by the Rogerses or by Royal, there is no support at all in the record for the conclusion that the Rogers children were likely in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. Thus, we hold that, under any view of the facts, the Rogerses’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Royal removed the children without a warrant.

II. Reasonable Official:

[11] In order to assess Royal’s claim of qualified immunity, we must conduct a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? 2) Under that law, could a reasonable [official] have believed the conduct was lawful?” Ram, 118 F.3d at 1310 (quoting Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 978 (9th Cir. 1996)). The law was clearly established at the time of the events in this case that a child could not be removed from the home without prior judicial authorization absent evidence of “imminent danger of serious bodily injury and [unless] the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.” Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1106; Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138; Ram, 118 F.3d at 1310.

[12] Notwithstanding this clearly established law, the district court granted Royal qualified immunity, holding that the application of the law to medical neglect was not clearly established. However, it is not necessary that a case be on “all fours” with the facts of the instant case. A right is clearly established if “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Saucier, 533 US at 202 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). Prior to the events in question, we had repeatedly held that a family’s rights were violated if the children were removed absent an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. A reasonable social worker would need nothing more to understand that she may not remove a child from its home on the basis of a medical condition that does not present such a risk.

[13] The district court appeared to be concerned that social workers may have difficulty assessing the imminence of a threat from a particular malady. On that basis, it concluded that without a case specifically analyzing exigency in cases of bottle rot and malnutrition social workers would not be able to determine whether those conditions present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. Even if it might be difficult for a social worker without medical training to assess the imminence of the threat posed by some dangerous maladies, such is not the case here. One need not be a licenced physician to recognize that in the case of a child who is both alert and active neither bottle rot nor malnutrition is the type of condition that will lead to serious injury if not corrected within a matter of hours. A reasonable social worker could reach no other conclusion. Even Royal stated during her deposition that in her opinion bottle rot does not amount to exigency. Thus, because a reasonable social worker would have understood that the children faced no imminent risk of serious bodily harm, as required by clearly established law, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Royal and denying partial summary judgment to the Rogerses.

CONCLUSION

Child abuse and neglect are very serious problems. We applaud the efforts of social workers to address these matters and to protect the vulnerable victims of these crimes. “No one can doubt the importance of this goal.” Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978). However, the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution. Assuming Royal’s version of the facts, the Rogers children were in a sorry state and suffering from neglect of a type that could, if their parents’ conduct was not modified within a reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the Rogers children from their home without obtaining judicial authorization, Royal violated the Rogerses’ clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lack of exigency would have been apparent to any reasonable social worker. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Royal and in denying the Rogerses’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Royal.

We REVERSE the grant of summary judgment to Royal and we likewise REVERSE the denial of the Rogerses’ partial summary judgment motion with respect to her. We REMAND with instructions to grant partial summary judgment to the Rogerses and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
6330 ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

In Orange County a mother has been awarded 4.9 million dollars in a case against CPS caseworkers and the Department of Social Services.

The mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, who lives in Seal Beach, claimed that CPS workers took her two young daughters in February 2000, and ‘intentionally misinformed the court’. The children were 9 and 6 at the time.

The kids were place in Orangewood Children’s Home for a month, then in a foster home for two months. After that they were placed with their father for two years. The parents now have joint custody.

Caseworkers failed to inform the court that the children were emotionally distressed by being separated from their parents, and refused to place them with relatives, whose Kinship Care rights should have been honored.

Jurors in this case wanted to send a message to social workers by awarding such a large amount of money to the mother.

The Director of Social Services was surprised, saying that he cannot recall ever seeing such a large settlement award (4.9 million dollars) but stated also that the caseworkers named in the lawsuit will keep their jobs, and that he supports their decisions.

Source: LA Times

I would like to remind the CPS director of this case in 2000: 4 million settlement in LA for a brain damaged foster child - too many CPS drugs ruined this child for life!

Couple with 11 foster kids arrested
Teenagers allege sexual, physical abuse in home
Parents receiving over $100 grand a year to care for children, officials say

By Katherine Rosenberg
January 14, 2007

VICTORVILLE - A report of sexual molestation led to the discovery of a large foster family with an equally large government-supplied bankroll, raising suspicions with local law enforcement.

Eleven adopted and foster children were removed from a Skipper Lane address in Brentwood this week after two teenage girls reported being molested by a 23-year-old man living in the house, sheriff’s officials said.

The parents, Barbara Taylor and her unnamed husband were also arrested, as they are suspected to have physically abused the children and had knowledge of the sexual abuse taking place in the home, said Detective James Wiebeld of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Victorville station.

While detectives shook their heads over the crime, they were further surprised to find that the family has been receiving a reported $130,000 from various state agencies to care for the children.

Documents obtained from the Sheriff’s Department also show that the family was receiving a monthly Section 8 housing subsidy to help pay their rent.

Detectives suggest that neither Barbara Taylor nor her husband were working at the time of their arrest, another violation of the Child Protective Services agreement in order to take in foster children.

Case agents from Child Protective Services would not comment on the funding, citing privacy laws.

According to CPS’ Web site, “You must have some way to support your family. California State Regulations require that foster families must be able to meet all their family’s financial needs. … Foster Care cannot be used as income for this purpose.”

Wiebeld said that CPS agents told him that the family was getting as much as $1,500 a child per month, in which case the family would be receiving closer to $200,000 a year.

Karen Hill of Department of Children’s Services said that there is a monthly rate of pay that follows the children, not the adoptive or foster parents. And while she said the most a child could receive at the age of 18 is $597 a month, the CPS Web site adds that there is an additional specialized care increment that can go as high as $169 a month, as determined by the child’s social worker. At maximum, that would top out around $100,000 a year for the Taylor family.

“The money the foster parents get is paid to them just for the care of the kids. That’s all it’s supposed to be used for allowance, schooling, school supplies, medical care,” Hill said. “If we or somebody else believes that a family is abusing that, they can call the hotline and report it, then that’s a licensing issue.”

Sheriff’s Department officials said that they are unable to disclose the amount Barbara Taylor has been receiving from Section 8, but added that “the local housing authority… is a victim too.”

While officials suggest that this type of fraud is not entirely uncommon, all agree that the real victims in this case have been the abused children.

Tim Cole, 23, was arrested on suspicion of continuing sexual molestation of a child under the age 14, Wiebeld said.

Officials believe he began molesting a now 15-year-old when she was 13, and also began molesting a second 13-year-old one year ago. The first victim also witnessed the second victim’s abuse, Wiebeld said.

“Thirteen is the ripe age for this guy. He was 21 when he started molesting the first victim. When the second victim turned 13, he started molesting her,” Wiebeld said. “According to both girls independently, they told the mother a while back and she didn’t do anything about it. Both were also victims of or witnessed physical abuse of the other kids - being hit by belts, et cetera.”

Wiebeld said the man, who denies living at the home full time, is a relative of the Taylors. Cole calls the pair mom and dad, Wiebeld said, but he is some other type of family member, not their son.

Cole also said that he told Mr. Taylor about the molestation.

“For that reason, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor were also arrested for child endangerment - failure to provide a safe environment for children,” Wiebeld said.

All 11 children were taken into protective custody and subsequently placed into different foster homes within the local area, Wiebeld said.