An astute judge, Melba Marsh of the Common Pleas Court in Hamilton County, Ohio, discovered her orders were not being followed by CPS social workers. Last month she wrote a letter to three county commissioners about it. She wanted a child to live with relatives and to have supervised visits with parents, but her orders were ignored for more than four months.

Because of this incident, CPS social worker Angela Harrison was found negligent and fired. She lost a $35,900/yr. job. Her supervisor, Michael Battle, retired from his job which brought him $57,137 annually.

What To Do If Your CPS Social Worker Neglects To Follow Court Orders

In my years of running the Fight CPS website I’ve heard from many people who say their social workers were not following court orders. A common scenario is that a judge orders a list of services - such as counseling, psychological testing, and parenting classes. Many CPS social workers drag their feet in getting these services started. Then, when they go back to court after six months they can say, “The parent has not complied with services.” Though technically it is the caseworker’s fault for not getting services started, the parents are blamed for not having had enough services to earn the right to have their children home again.

If your caseworker is playing this game, be sure to keep good records of all contacts with the CPS social worker, write letters requesting that the services be started immediately, and phone the social worker every couple of days until you get what you need. By keeping good phone records and copies of your letters you may be able to use this documentation in court to show your judge that it is your caseworker’s error, not yours. Remember, good documentation is essential to fighting a CPS case in court.

If need be, you can file an Administrative Hearing Request with your state department of social services, telling them that your CPS social worker isn’t providing services ordered by the judge. You have the right to this “Fair Hearing” process any time you’re dealing with an agency in the USA. If you request a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge from the state offices will go to your county to meet with you and CPS employees to review the case and make a decision about your complaints. I have done this several times as a representative for parents, and found it to be an effective way to get a case back on track when the caseworkers are doing their own thing and making families suffer because of it.

The Importance of Child Protection

According to an article about the Ohio CPS social worker firing, posted at Enquirer.Com, a Hamilton County administrator, Patrick Thompson, said, “It is imperative we send a message that this county will not stand for neglect of duty and that child protection is of the utmost importance to our Job and Family Services Department.”

I too believe child protection is of the utmost importance. And I believe one thing we need to protect our children from is institutional child abuse perpetrated by the child welfare industry. Children forced into a life of suffering in foster homes when they yearn for their parents, grandparents, and siblings; children forced to take drugs to control their tantrums and traumatization brought on by the legal destruction of their families; children forced into mental hospitals because foster care providers can’t handle them; children abused in foster homes; - this is the kind of institutional child abuse that Fight CPS is concerned about.

In most cases, children are better off at home where they are loved and cared about. Leave foster homes for those few children with no relatives who can care for them, who have been severely physically abused. Every other case of family destruction is abusive.

Source: Caseworker, boss out of jobs; Actions follow judge’s criticism by Kimball Perry for the Enquirer.

I received this a few days ago from a mother on MySpace. She gave me her permission to publish this here:

“I am from Tuscolsa County, Michigan and I have been fighting CPS my whole life and I am only 23 years old. CPS got involved with my family when I was about 5 years old.

“CPS has harassed us for years and in 2003 I became a proud mother of a new baby boy. Of course CPS tracked me down again and took my son on May 19, 2004. CPS came to my home at 7:30 AM and ripped my son right out of my arms.

“I fought them so hard they placed me under arrest until they left my home, then the police officer said he was very sorry and that he never wanted to handle this kind of issue and he let me go, but he told me he was sorry and that he was only doing his job.

“Anyway, I was court ordered to follow the case plans to get my son back. I did everything I was told but I had a caseworker that didn’t like me because I would not play her game, so she worked against me and made up lies about how my son was scared of me, and how I was causing him to become sick. However that’s not true.

“My rights were then terminated December 5, 2005, just before Christmas. How sad. I later appealed my rights before the Michigan Appellant Courts and they agreed to follow the termination, so my rights are terminated, and I still keep fighting and will never give up hope, ’cause that is all I have. I love my son and I miss him so much. He’s my life!!!!!!!!”

Thank you, Lisa, for sharing your story with us.

I hope that Lisa’s son will be returned to her loving arms, and that someone who knows him will see this here and know that he is a wanted, loved child whose mother did everything she could to keep him.

One of the biggest crimes of child welfare is that federal funding starts when children are ripped out of their homes and placed in foster homes. Counties want that federal funding - apparently enough to destroy childhoods. Far from being child protection agencies, they run child exploitation agencies - a cash cow for financially ailing counties.

When a simple fix would work, why destroy the entire family?

I’m always reminded of a family that posted their caseworker report to the alt.support.child-protective-services newsgroup a few years back. Four children were ripped from their parents and placed in foster homes for a year, maybe more, because the parents needed to buy a new fan and a child safety gate for their indoor stairway. These items would have cost less than one hundred dollars, but social workers devastated that family and placed the children in foster homes costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

LEGISLATORS: How can you let this happen? I mention one isolated case, yet this needless family destruction is happening to thousands of families. Millions of dollars are being wasted in this country on foster care and so-called child welfare “services”.

Connecticut has come up with a partial solution - to provide what they call “flex funds” which social workers can apply for to help families with various needs such as rental payments and transportation.

More of this type of social work is needed.

SOCIAL WORKERS: Focus on helping families by providing what they need. Tearing families apart over trivial needs is cruel and inhumane, and will scar the children forever. It is not child protection to traumatize them needlessly. Be reasonable!

Source: Study: Problems Follow Foster Care - MIT Professor Says Those Taken From Families Are At Risk For Lives Of Crime, Unemployment, Teen Pregnancies By Charles Proctor for the Courant, published July 29, 2007.

From Lisa’s blog at MySpace:

“NOW HIRING!
The Children’s Protection Services is now hiring.
In order to qualify for employment you must …”

…go to BellasMom’s blog at MySpace to see the rest. Please leave her a message letting her know you saw it on FightCPS.Com

Thanks to Lisa and Kathy for sending this to me.

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: ____________________________

Rarely have I read anything so poignant and moving as the day-by-day account a loving mother is writing of the TPR trial she’s enduring. See: TPR Trial Blog. You may have to be logged into MySpace to read this. Get an account if you don’t have one already. This is really worth reading.

If that link doesn’t work for you, try this one: TPR Trial Blog.

For those who don’t know, TPR means “Termination of Parental Rights”.

I ask that this weekend everyone who reads this who is inspired to do so, please say a prayer for this family to be reunited, send positive energies, pray for the judge to make the right decision, and so on . . . because next Monday the trial continues.

This mother, who is a nurse, deserves our support and love and good wishes. Please keep praying that she’s able to bring her children home.

And to the mother: thanks for posting to Fight CPS and for giving us the link to your blog.

Sean’s mother, his most loving advocate, created a MySpace page for him: Foster Care ABUSE~Political PRISONER ! HOSTAGE CPS

Now do CPS workers want to suppress evidence by trying to force her her to take down Sean’s MySpace page?

According to a June 28, 2007 message she sent to her friend’s list at MySpace, CPS workers are mad as fire because they found out about the MySpace page on which Sean’s mother recounts details about her experiences with CPS.

Why?

One look at these photographs will tell the story.

Sean is being bruised in foster care!

This is what Sean’s mother saw during her visit with him:

[Photos used by permission.]

Sean’s mother says:

my case is all about POLITICS . Not even close to ABUSE. the abuse now is what they have done to SEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 Foster Homes and they tried to HIDE MY BABY !!!!.. and his BRUISES!!!

For more information, see Sean’s MySpace: Foster Care ABUSE~Political PRISONER ! HOSTAGE CPS

Spokane City Councilman Bob Apple launched an outspoken attack on a CPS social worker he claimed submitted false court documents in a child welfare case involving a former employee and campaign volunteer, Daniel Morgan. The City Councilman stated that CPS kidnapped a 2-year-old child, and that the assistant attorney general should be jailed.

From the article:

“It’s a sham… If this is how the court system operates, then it’s broken.” - Bob Apple

Of course CPS said that the charges were “ridiculous” because they go to court and state that the child is “at risk of imminent harm”.

In this case the ex-husband of Morgan’s wife has made accusations against Morgan in a custody dispute.

From the article:

Since 2002, the state agency has received a “number of referrals related to parental neglect of the children and alleged physical abuse of the children by Mr. Morgan,” according to the court documents. A state spokeswoman said she could not disclose how many of the complaints were made by Allen…..The Morgans said Allen has used the referrals “as payback” and to gain custody of the two children he had with Robin Morgan.

Now, this next part hits home with me:

“Unfortunately, in this field, when the custody of children is involved, everyone involved is willing to lie,” said Dave Wood, a lobbyist for Washington Families United, a nonprofit group seeking reforms to the child-welfare system. “You don’t know what the truth is. Something has to change.”

I find that so true - that too many people are willing to lie to get custody. That includes social workers, ex-spouses, girlfriends of ex-spouses, etc. And I plead with each one of you that if you’re in this situation, stay with the truth. Lies lead only to confusion. If you tell the truth, at least when it is all over, you still have your integrity.

City Councilman Bob Apple will advocate for any citizen that contacts him. Perhaps you might want to print out this article and take it to your city councilman (or woman) to see if that person is willing to go to bat for you. I’ve contacted my county supervisor several times, including for an issue involving CPS, and every time she’s been a great help and everything turned out perfectly.

Source: Apple puts spotlight on CPS by Benjamin Shors for the Spokane Spokesman Review, published June 23, 2007

Katie Wernecke, 14, was taken from her family by CPS two years ago, not because she was being abused or neglected, but because CPS agents and doctors didn’t agree with her parents’ decisions regarding her cancer treatment. At the age of 12 Katie, a resident of Agua Dulce, Texas, had Hodgkin’s disease. Her parents sought an alternative treatment for her. That right was denied to them.

CPS took Katie Wernecke from her family and forced her to undergo court ordered medical treatments. A judge allowed her to go home in November 2005, and though the family is grateful to have been reunited they believe their Constitutional Rights were violated. The lawsuit, filed by a Frisco, Texas attorney, is based on violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. CPS child detentions are considered a seizure. The Fourteenth Amendment protects property and legal rights, and ensures that citizens have due process rights.

Many people have sued CPS in Federal Courts based on the violation of these Constitutional Rights.

Source: Wernecke family suing Nueces County, CPS by Erin Cargile of KRIS-TV.

***

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The WCF Courier reported:

Marie Mahler, 39, of Cedar Falls, filed three reports between Aug. 27, 2004, and Oct. 7, 2004, used in a juvenile court case that she “knew or reasonably should have known were false” and that the reports would be used by a judge to make a decision in the case, according to court records obtained by the Courier.

Mahler repeatedly included misrepresentations of conversations, events and relationships of the people involved with the case, according to court records.

Court records say she claimed that Jesup police officers were called to the mother’s home for a drug investigation in August 2004. Records indicate an officer was called to the home not for drugs, but to prevent an altercation between two siblings. No signs of drugs were found.

Mahler, who has been a Buchanan County social worker since 1998, pleaded ‘not guilty’.

Roger Munns, a spokesman for her employer, the Iowa Department of Human Services, said “This is really quite unusual.”

Yes, we know that caseworkers lie in court documents and get away with it, and that having one criminally charged is unusual. However we hope that this will become common practice to stop lying CPS social workers everywhere.

***

Would you like to see your caseworker charged criminally for lying about you? If so, keep this in mind:

While the offenses occurred in 2004, Bernau said Mahler is exempt from Iowa’s statute of limitations law because she is still a state employee. In most felony cases, charges have to be filed within three years of the offense. However, that three-year period begins for state employees only after they are no longer working for the state.

Perjury is a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

(This is per Iowa state law. Your state laws may be different - do the research.)

Source: Social worker charged with perjury, by Josh Nelson, Courier Staff Writer, June 12, 2007

***

If you have ever had a caseworker lie about you in a court document, please leave a comment to this post, and tell us about it.

I’ve seen way too many lies in social worker reports to the courts.

It’s time for this criminal practice to result in prison sentences. Every perjury conviction will be a victory!