In Midland, Michigan an adopted child attacked and killed Faith Baden’s son, Justin Baden, age 17, early in August, 2009. Justin and his younger siblings were removed from Faith Baden’s home by CPS and eventually adopted out to Jessica Pribbernow, a Michigan child-collector.

The newspaper reported that Pribbernow had custody of five boys adopted from foster care. The accused, known as Steven Jeffrey Pribbernow Jr., 15, is not the biological brother of the boys he is said to have attacked.

Two others boys, both sons of Faith Baden, were injured severely in the knife attack.

Faith left a number of news articles, emails, and comments on FightCPS yesterday. You can read them here and here.

Faith, my heartfelt sympathy to you on the loss of your son, and prayers for the healing of his younger brothers. We here at FightCPS do understand that your children should not have been separated from their loving parents.

Obviously the child collecting adopters were not capable of keeping the children safe. This is one more sign that the foster-adoption system in this country doesn’t work. I wonder if these children, in particular the one said to be the attacker, were on medications as “special needs” children. Many pharmaceutical medications given to foster and adoptive children are believed to have produced suicidal or homicidal tendencies. One of the emails posted stated that Jessica and her husband were unemployed and living off the adoption subsidy payments received for adopting the boys - a clear indicator that these were probably medicated children.

A fine way our country pretends to keep children safe.

You can look for this at The Library of Congress Website for more information. It was passed by the House on March 30 and now is being considered by the Senate.

Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HR 20 EH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

AN ACT

To provide for research on, and services for individuals with, postpartum depression and psychosis.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act’ or the `Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act–

(1) the term `postpartum condition’ means postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis; and

(2) the term `Secretary’ means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

TITLE I–RESEARCH ON POSTPARTUM CONDITIONS

SEC. 101. EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES.

(a) Continuation of Activities- The Secretary is encouraged to continue activities on postpartum conditions.

(b) Programs for Postpartum Conditions- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary is encouraged to continue research to expand the understanding of the causes of, and treatments for, postpartum conditions. Activities under such subsection shall include conducting and supporting the following:

(1) Basic research concerning the etiology and causes of the conditions.

(2) Epidemiological studies to address the frequency and natural history of the conditions and the differences among racial and ethnic groups with respect to the conditions.

(3) The development of improved screening and diagnostic techniques.

(4) Clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.

(5) Information and education programs for health care professionals and the public, which may include a coordinated national campaign to increase the awareness and knowledge of postpartum conditions. Activities under such a national campaign may–

(A) include public service announcements through television, radio, and other means; and

(B) focus on–

(i) raising awareness about screening;

(ii) educating new mothers and their families about postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment; and

(iii) ensuring that such education includes complete information concerning postpartum conditions, including its symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources.

SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF RELATIVE MENTAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FOR WOMEN OF RESOLVING A PREGNANCY.

(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health may conduct a nationally representative longitudinal study (during the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2018) of the relative mental health consequences for women of resolving a pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and having an abortion. This study may assess the incidence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the immediate and long-term mental health consequences (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.

(b) Report- Beginning not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter for the duration of the study, such Director may prepare and submit to the Congress reports on the findings of the study.

TITLE II–DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM CONDITIONS

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM.

Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 330G the following:

`SEC. 330G-1. SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH A POSTPARTUM CONDITION AND THEIR FAMILIES.

`(a) In General- The Secretary may make grants to eligible entities for projects for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective and cost-efficient systems for the delivery of essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition and their families.

`(b) Certain Activities- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects funded under subsection (a) provide education and services with respect to the diagnosis and management of postpartum conditions. The Secretary may allow such projects to include the following:

`(1) Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions, and delivering or enhancing support services for their families.

`(2) Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well-being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.

`(3) Improving the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services (including transportation services, attendant care, homemaker services, day or respite care, and providing counseling on financial assistance and insurance) for individuals with a postpartum condition and support services for their families.

`(4) Providing education to new mothers and, as appropriate, their families about postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment. Such education may include–

`(A) providing complete information on postpartum conditions, symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources; and

`(B) in the case of a grantee that is a State, hospital, or birthing facility–

`(i) providing education to new mothers and fathers, and other family members as appropriate, concerning postpartum conditions before new mothers leave the health facility; and

`(ii) ensuring that training programs regarding such education are carried out at the health facility.

`(c) Integration With Other Programs- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary may integrate the grant program under this section with other grant programs carried out by the Secretary, including the program under section 330.

`(d) Certain Requirements- A grant may be made under this section only if the applicant involved makes the following agreements:

`(1) Not more than 5 percent of the grant will be used for administration, accounting, reporting, and program oversight functions.

`(2) The grant will be used to supplement and not supplant funds from other sources related to the treatment of postpartum conditions.

`(3) The applicant will abide by any limitations deemed appropriate by the Secretary on any charges to individuals receiving services pursuant to the grant. As deemed appropriate by the Secretary, such limitations on charges may vary based on the financial circumstances of the individual receiving services.

`(4) The grant will not be expended to make payment for services authorized under subsection (a) to the extent that payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made, with respect to such services–

`(A) under any State compensation program, under an insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health benefits program; or

`(B) by an entity that provides health services on a prepaid basis.

`(5) The applicant will, at each site at which the applicant provides services funded under subsection (a), post a conspicuous notice informing individuals who receive the services of any Federal policies that apply to the applicant with respect to the imposition of charges on such individuals.

`(6) For each grant period, the applicant will submit to the Secretary a report that describes how grant funds were used during such period.

`(e) Technical Assistance- The Secretary may provide technical assistance to entities seeking a grant under this section in order to assist such entities in complying with the requirements of this section.

`(f) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) The term `eligible entity’ means a public or nonprofit private entity, which may include a State or local government; a public or nonprofit private recipient of a grant under section 330H (relating to the Healthy Start Initiative), public-private partnership, hospital, community-based organization, hospice, ambulatory care facility, community health center, migrant health center, public housing primary care center, or homeless health center; or any other appropriate public or nonprofit private entity.

`(2) The term `postpartum condition’ means postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis.’.

TITLE III–GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

To carry out this Act and the amendment made by section 201, there are authorized to be appropriated, in addition to such other sums as may be available for such purpose–

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and

(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

SEC. 302. REPORT BY THE SECRETARY.

(a) Study- The Secretary shall conduct a study on the benefits of screening for postpartum conditions.

(b) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the study required by subsection (a) and submit a report to the Congress on the results of such study.

SEC. 303. LIMITATION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or the amendment made by section 201, the Secretary may not utilize amounts made available under this Act or such amendment to carry out activities or programs that are duplicative of activities or programs that are already being carried out through the Department of Health and Human Services.

Passed the House of Representatives March 30, 2009.

C. Patience Summers spoke with District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra of Willacy County, Texas. He indicated that he is willing to prosecute corrupt CPS judges. She found that most CPS judges in her area have a conflict of interest. They are sitting on the boards of directors of foster and adoption agencies. This could influence them to terminate parental rights so that their agencies will have more children to adopt out.

Patience requests that all victims of CPS, past and present, in the state of Texas, contact her as soon as possible. Her phone number: (909) 567-2067.

There will be a rally at the Willacy County Courthouse on December 1, 2008. Participants are urged to bring along their families and friends to show the growing unrest in the American populous with regards to judicial corruption.

BE THERE ON DECEMBER 1, 2008

Willacy County Courthouse
190 North Third Street
Raymondville , TX 78580

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.

Announcement From Washington Extended Families:

A national class action lawsuit will commence after September 10th should the adoption incentive be renewed (S 3038). All damaged persons can participate to include extended family, parents and former foster/adopt children. You do not have to be a party to any case to participate. There will be a request for damages. Interested parties should have a vested interest in the children removed and be able to prove a substantial relationship.

Also of extreme interest, is obtaining names/phone/location of CPS workers who are falsifying or have falsified documents in court and who have lied in a court setting. They can sue for government entrapment. The goal is to have case workers sue in all 50 states.

Send the case worker a note that states the following:

Dear ,

It has been brought to my attention that you may have falsified documents with dependency actions. If you have not acted dishonestly in the past and are now pressured by the state to remove and adopt out children in an unethical manner, you are entitled to damages.

It is of paramount concern to our nation that these actions be stopped. If you are interested at any time of participating in a class action lawsuit in your state, please write to washingtonstateextendedfamilies@live.com.

Sincerely,
Jan D. Smith

August 21, 2008

Attention: Distinguished Members of Congress

Notice of legal intent with regards to S 3038

The People herewith declare that the renewal of the Adoption Incentives S 3038 called The Improved Adoption Incentives and Guardianship Support Act does violate the law under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. In addition, funds distributed to the states entrap state workers causing illegal acts not normally performed by said individuals prior to hire.

The People through discovery have found:

1. The imbalance of funding is creating corruption

2. Pathology has filtered through all manner of government and related agencies

3. Judicial decisions violate the public trust

4. Laws are created and passed that give parens patriae unlimited power not provided by the Constitution

5. The paradigm shift that accompanied a monopoly/monopsony strategy of funding extracted from dwindling Social Security is devastating families across America

6. Children’s lives are at stake and are being killed 6-1 over parents per 100, 000

7. That the states are not following guidelines placing with relatives but are screening them out using different criteria with foster families

8. That pockets of tyranny are going unchecked without recourse

9. Congress is not responsive to The People

10. That The People also have compelling interest as an implied term

The People are declaring a public health crisis as a result of these findings and also:

In addition, The People find the Parens Patriae to be more than a doctrine but a specialized position created by the government for the government that violates Article 1 Sec 9, 10: No title of nobility or honour shall be granted by the United States. The title extends to the courts, Children’s Administration and public education violating Amendment 14 depriving persons of life, liberty and property without due process. The position applies as a collective.

The People are ordering a cease and desist of the renewal of S 3038. Should action continue to commence, a nationwide class action lawsuit opposing Parens Patriae and the theft of Social Security to provide the continuing tyranny will be executed.

Signed,
Jan D. Smith
Registered Lobbyist
Washington State Extended Families
washingtonstateextendedfamilies@live.com

This week I received email with links to a series of news articles written by Barbara Hollingsworth about CPS injustice. She’s looking for cases in and around Washington DC, to profile them in future news articles.

Here are her article links:

Victims claim CPS officials guilty of ‘ruthless behavior - examples of CPS injustice from around the USA.

Is it child protection or legal kidnapping? - how CPS works, and how innocent parents can be accused of wrongdoing.

Bureaucrats running down the clock against parents - this is about ASFA, the Orwellian law passed in 1996 that allows CPS to terminate parental rights after keeping a child in foster care for only 15 months. This has encouraged the CPS tactic of delaying reunifications until the time limit is reached so they can adopt out children even if the parents are adequate and have done everything required. This law also gives states bonus money for each child adopted out.

ASFA = “The Adoptions and Safe Families Act” - ostensibly written to keep children from having to live in long term foster care, by encouraging adoptions. In practice it has encouraged states to rip apart young families to get the babies because they are most easily adopted out. Older “hard to adopt” children are featured on meat-market type websites where people can look through to see if they want any featured children. The states get thousands of dollars for each adoption, from the federal treasury. “Child collectors”… aka Adopters… get thousands of dollars in adoption subsidy payments. Social workers get jobs since they are the front-line in taking children from their families. It is a win-win situation for everyone except parents and children who are used, abused, and traumatized for life by this pathetic rush for money by greedy systemites.

Brenda Sullivan has been sentenced to twenty years in prison for caging a seventeen-year-old adopted child.

I became aware of this when I saw the headline, ” Mom who caged teen son gets 20 years behind bars”.

I thought - ‘What kind of mom would do that?’ - and knew that this person was most likely NOT the real mother. I suspected it was a foster parent or adopter. And I was right.

It irritates me when the news agencies use headlines that indicate a foster parent or adopter was a real mother or father. But I often know by looking at the headlines when the abusers are actually child collectors who took children out of the child welfare system - to get adoption subsidy payments.

This woman also had 13-year-old twin boys. They said they had also been in cages.

Some “mom”.

Newsflash: Foster parents and adopters do not have the genetic affinity for the children they claim to parent. Some may do an adequate job, but there’s no true love like the love of a real parent for his or her natural children.

Source: Mom who caged teen son gets 20 years behind bars, an AP article published at CNN.Com.

…
Written by Linda Martin for Fight CPS.

I know many of you don’t use drugs and this post doesn’t apply to you. This article is an appeal to people who think they can use drugs and be parents at the same time.

You never know how CPS agents will handle drug use. Sometimes they ignore it. Usually they’ll remove a child from the home even for suspected drug use. Sometimes drug-addicted parents can go through rehabilitation and get their children back. Sometimes they go through rehabilitation and still don’t get their children back. I find that the only consistent thing about CPS cases is that they are inconsistent.

If you are a parent and think it is okay to use drugs, even “just marijuana” - please consider this. Suppose that God is looking down on us and compassionately thinks marijuana use is okay. Suppose He put the plant here to be enjoyed, and in His sight you are not doing a bad thing.

However all around you there are people who think marijuana use is not okay. They are trained to report your drug use to CPS, and CPS agents are trained to consider your drug use as a form of child neglect. They think that if you’re using drugs of any kind, even just marijuana, you are not able to concentrate on watching your children. They think you spend your money on drugs rather than on your children. So you are on their list of people to take children away from.

In this scenario, it doesn’t matter what God thinks of you if the CPS worker is here on earth to take children away, and chooses yours.

I’m not saying that I think God approves of drugs. I’m just saying that if you think it is okay, then that’s your decision, for yourself. But once you have children to take care of, you’re responsible for them and if you know that CPS agents are looking for drug users to take children away from, you’re risking your children’s well-being and your own, because being in a CPS case is one of the most devastating things you can go through in life.

…

Another type of drug use is that of CPS victim parents who are terribly depressed, confused, traumatized, lost without their children, and miserable. The temptation to turn to drugs during the course of a CPS case is very common. I know of way too many parents who could have had their children back, but instead went out and smoked marijuana during the course of the case… and somehow their CPS agent social workers found out and told the judge. Those children were adopted out to strangers.

Please don’t let this happen to you! If you’re a CPS victim parent, don’t give in to the temptation to use drugs no matter how miserable and depressed you are. This is the worst time ever to start using drugs of any kind, including cigarettes. Don’t do anything the CPS agents can use against you. It simply isn’t worth it.

…

While I’m on the subject of drugs - let me tell you how I feel about CPS cases where the parents have lost their children due to drug use. First of all, I feel that drug use while parenting is foolhardy given the current laws in which children are taken away for that reason. But when a parent for some reason doesn’t realize that and doesn’t quit for the well-being of their children, if their children are taken, I do feel some sympathy for them. I want all parents to quit using drugs so they can keep their children. I want parents with children in CPS custody to rehabilitate themselves. I want families to be reunited.

No matter what, I believe it is wrong to adopt out the children of the living. I feel better about legal guardianships than I do about adoptions. I believe it is wrong to tell children to call someone else “Mom” or “Dad”… to tell them they have new “parents”. I believe that children have one set of parents and to tell them someone else took their place is like telling them it is okay to lie about who their real parents are.

…

If you’re a parent, don’t use drugs unless a doctor prescribes them. If your doctor prescribes medical marijuana, find out if CPS workers in your state take children from medical marijuana users before deciding to use it. If you’re not a parent, I have nothing to say about whether you’re using drugs or not. Everyone makes their own decisions and I’m a “live and let live” kind of person. But when you have children at home - your first responsibility is to them. Doing something that could get them taken away from you by CPS is not a good idea.

I have owned this site for more than seven years. Before that I did what I could as an anti-CPS activist for ten years, including writing scathing articles about CPS that were published in newspapers. I’ve been publicly known as an activist in this field for about 18 years now, and even though I’ve had my own children living in my home all that time, they were never removed from my custody again.

I want to tell you why.

The main reason why my children were never removed from my home again is that I lived an impeccably straight and upright kind of existence. I lived for my children. I didn’t use drugs, didn’t drink to excess, didn’t do anything that could be construed as abusive. The other reason why my children were never removed from my home was that I was extremely lucky. As most of you know, if a CPS agent really wants to take your child, they can make things up, twist the truth to make you look wicked, or any number of tricks. I was disturbed that a local CPS agent came to my door several times during the last seven years, but despite his apparent interest in me due to my outspoken opinions and this website, he never had a reason to detain my children.

All I am asking, with this article, is to PLEASE not give CPS workers any reasons to take or keep your children. Drugs, whether good or bad, are a reason, so please turn away from the drug using lifestyle if that is how you’ve been living. Cure yourself with that wonderful, amazing will-power deep within you. It is right there in your heart, right next to your love for your children. Cure yourself and be free, and know that you’re doing the right thing for yourself and for your kids.

…
Written by Linda Martin for Fight CPS.

Note from the Fight CPS webmaster: This is a very important report written by a Senator in Georgia. Please read the entire report, download the PDF, print it to give to your lawyers, caseworkers, local newspaper editors, state and federal senators and congressmen, CASA workers in your area, and whoever else you believe might benefit from reading the truth about CPS from the viewpoint of a Senator. Though this Senator is from Georgia, her report is about all state child protective services agencies. Thank-you, Senator Schaefer, for investigating and writing this report! - ljm

Click here to download an original copy of Senator Schaefer’s report in pdf format

From the legislative desk of Senator Nancy Schaefer 50th District of Georgia

November 16, 2007

THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

BY: Nancy Schaefer
Senator, 50th District

My introduction into child protective service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.

The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parent’s children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with the caseworker.

In the courtroom, the juvenile judge, acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them. After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in “adult entertainment”. His girlfriend worked as an “escort” and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.

Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmother’s door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.

The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved back to the southeast, and the foster parents began driving to the father’s residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.

To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are in my opinion permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has not recovered.

Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I have worked with other desperate parents and children across the state because they have no rights and no one with whom to turn. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers, social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who “pick up” the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all over the sta te of Georgia.

In this report, I am focusing on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.

The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Service (DFCS) in Georgia and other titles in other states, has become a “protected empire” built on taking children and separating families. This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection. This report is concerned with the children and parents caught up in “legal kidnapping,” ineffective policies, and DFCS who do does not remove a child or children when a child is enduring torment and abuse. (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B)

In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did not know where their children were and had not seen them in years. I had witnessed the “Gestapo” at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off of school uses, and out of homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the DFCS department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. In another county children were not removed when they were enduring the worst possible abuse. Due to being exposed, several employees in a particular DFCS office were fired. However, they have now been rehired either in neighboring counties or in the same county again. According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the same practices that they had before the light was shown on their deeds. Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.

I have come to the conclusion:

· that poor parents often times are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;

· that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are always to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;

· that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children;

· that caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored;

· that the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;

· that Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that social workers are the glue that holds “the system” together that funds the court, the child’s attorney, and the multiple other jobs including DFCS’s attorney.

· that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sell and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;

· that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. When a child in foster care is placed with a new family then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved;

· that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together;

· that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;

· that the “Policy Manuel” is considered “the last word” for DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;

· that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today all children are not always safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care and the head of a Foster Parents Association in my District was recently arrested because of child molestation;

· that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them.

· fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;

· that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not bring out that a foster parent is there only to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many Foster Parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system;

· that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims,
parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the
system’s services.

· that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia trying to get custody of their grandchildren. DFCS claims relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.

· that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.

· That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.

FINAL REMARKS

On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and troubled children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and sometimes beaten down individuals. We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become adult centered to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be with or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for a director of DFCS.

I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so. Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It’s time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy” Proverbs 31:8-9

Please continue to read:

Recommendations
Exhibit A
Exhibit B

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Call for an independent audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) to expose corruption and fraud.

2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage.

3. End the financial incentives that separate families.

4. Grant to parents their rights in writing.

5. Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives.

6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before removing a child from his or her parents.

7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that “except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.”)

8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence.

Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia

EXHIBIT A

December 5, 2006
Jeremy’s Story

( Some names withheld due to future hearings)
As told to Senator Nancy Schaefer by Sandra (XXXX), a foster parent of Jeremy for 2 ½ years.

My husband and I received Jeremy when he was 2 weeks old and we have been the only parents he has really ever known. He lived with us for 27 months. (XXXX) is the grandfather of Jeremy, and he is known for molesting his own children, for molesting Jeremy and has been court ordered not to be around Jeremy. (XXXX) is the mother of Jeremy, who has been diagnosed to be mentally ill, and also is known to have molested Jeremy. (XXXX) and Jeremy’s uncle is a registered sex offender and (XXXX) is the biological father, who is a drug addict and alcoholic and who continues to be in and out of jail. Having just described Jeremy’s world, all of these adults are not to be any part of Jeremy’s life, yet for years DFCS has known that they are. DFCS had to test (XXXX) (the grandfather) and his son (XXXX) (the uncle) and (XXXX) to determine the real father. (XXXX) is the biological father although any of them might have been. In court, it appeared from the case study, that everyone involved knew that this little boy had been molested by family members, even by his own mother, (XXXX). In court, (XXX), the mother of Jeremy, admitted to having had sex with (XXXX) (the grandfather) and (XXXX) (her own brother) that morning. Judge (XXXX) and DFCS gave Jeremy to his grandmother that same day. (XXXX), the grandmother, is over 300 lbs., is unable to drive, and is unable to take care of Jeremy due to physical problems. She also has been in a mental hospital several times due to her behavior. Even though it was ordered by the court that the grandfather (XXXX), the uncle (XXXX) (a convicted sex offender), (XXXX) his mother who molested him and (XXXX) his biological father, a convicted drug addict, were not to have anything to do with the child, they all continue to come and go as they please at (XXXX address), where Jeremy has been “sentenced to live” for years. This residence has no bathroom and little heat. The front door and the windows are boarded. (See pictures) This home should have been condemned years ago. I have been in this home. No child should ever have to live like this or with such people. Jeremy was taken from us at age 2 ½ years after (XXXX) obtained attorney (XXXX), who was the same attorney who represented him in a large settlement from an auto accident. I am told, that attorney (XXXX), as grandfather’s attorney, is known to have repeatedly gotten (XXXX) off of several criminal charges in White County. This is a matter of record and is known by many in White County. I have copies of some records. (XXXX grandfather), through (XXXX attorney’s) work, got (XXXX), the grandmother of Jeremy, legal custody of Jeremy. (XXXX grandfather) who cannot read or write also got his daughter (XXXX) and son (XXXX) diagnosed by government agencies as mentally ill. (XXXX grandfather), through legal channels, has taken upon himself all control of the family and is able to take possession of any government funding coming to these people.

It was during this time that Jeremy was to have a six-month transitional period between (XXXX grandmother) and my family as we were to give him up. The court ordered agreement was to have been 4 days at our house and 3 days at (XXXX grandmother). DFCS stopped the visits within 2 weeks. The reason given by DFCS was the child was too traumatized going back and forth. In truth, Jeremy begged us and screamed never to be taken back to (XXXX his grandmother) house, which we have on video. We, as a family, have seen Jeremy in stores time to time with (XXXX grandmother) and the very people he is not to be around. At each meeting Jeremy continues to run to us wherever he sees us and it is clear he is suffering. This child is in a desperate situation and this is why I am writing, and begging you Senator Schaefer, to do something in this child’s behalf. Jeremy can clearly describe in detail his sexual molestation by every member of this family and this sexual abuse continues to this day.

When Jeremy was 5 years of age I took him to Dr. (XXXX) of Habersham County who did indeed agree that Jeremy’s rectum was black and blue and the physical damage to the child was clearly a case of sexual molestation.

Early in Jeremy’s life, when he was in such bad physical condition, we took him to Egleston Children Hospital where at two months of age therapy was to begin three times a week. DFCS decided that the (XXXX grandparent family) should participate in his therapy. However, the therapist complained over and over that the (XXXX grandparent family) would not even wash their hands and would cause Jeremy to cry during these sessions. (XXXX the grandmother), after receiving custody no longer allowed the therapy because it was an inconvenience. The therapist reported that this would be a terrible thing to do to this child. Therapy was stopped and it was detrimental to the health of Jeremy. During (XXXX grandmother) custody, (XXXX uncle) has shot Jeremy with a BB gun and there is a report at (XXXX) County Sheriff’s office. There are several amber alerts at Cornelia Wal-Mart, Commerce Wal-Mart, and a 911 report from (XXXX) County Sheriff’s Department when Jeremy was lost. (XXXX grandmother), to teach Jeremy a lesson, took thorn bush limbs and beat the bottoms of his feet. Jeremy’s feet got infected and his feet had to be lanced by Dr. (XXXX). Then Judy called me to pick him up after about 4 days to take back him to the doctor because of intense pain. I took Jeremy to Dr. (XXXX) in Gainesville. Dr. (XXXX) said surgery was needed immediately and a cast was added. After returning home, (XXXX), his grandfather and (XXXX), his uncle, took him into the hog lot and allowed him to walk in the filth.

Jeremy’s feet became so infected for a 2nd time that he was again taken back to Dr. (XXXX) and the hospital. No one in the hospital could believe this child’s living conditions. Jeremy is threatened to keep quiet and not say anything to anyone. I have videos, reports, arrest records and almost anything you might need to help Jeremy. Please call my husband, Wendell, or me at any time.

Sandra and (XXXX) husband (XXXX)

EXHIBIT B

Failure of DFCS to remove six desperate children

A brief report regarding six children that Habersham County DFCS director failed to remove as disclosed to Senator Nancy Schaefer by Sheriff Deray Fincher of Habersham County.

Sheriff Deray Fincher, Chief of Police Don Ford and Chief Investigator Lt. Greg Bowen Chief called me to meet with them immediately, which I did on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Sheriff Fincher, after contacting the Director of Habersham County DFCS several times to remove six children from being horribly abused, finally had to get a court order to remove the children himself with the help of two police officers.

The children, four boys and two girls, were not just being abused; they were being tortured by a monster father.

The six children and a live in girl friend were terrified of this man, the abuser. The children never slept in a bed, but always on the floor. The place where they lived was unfit for human habitation.

The father on one occasion hit one of the boys across his head with a bat and cut the boy’s head open. The father then proceeded to hold the boy down and sew up the child’s head with a needle and red thread. However, even with beatings and burnings, this is only a fraction of what the father did to these children and to the live-in girlfriend.

Sheriff Fincher has pictures of the abuse and condition of one of the boys and at the writing of this report, he has the father in jail in Habersham County.

It should be noted that when the DFCS director found out that Sheriff Fincher was going to remove the children, she called the father and warned him to flee.

This is not the only time this DFCS director failed to remove a child when she needed to do so. (See Exhibit A)

The egregious acts and abhorrent behavior of officials who are supposed to protect children can no longer be tolerated.

Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia

(originally posted 12/5/07 at FightCPS.Com)

An eighteen year old girl was abandoned in a St. Petersburg, Florida grocery store on July 4, about two hundred miles from her home. She said she’d been living with Judith Leekin for thirteen years, adopted from New York foster care.

According to an article at CNN.Com, Leekin, 62, falsely claimed that the girl had run away a year earlier. She tried to conceal eight other children and young adults, but police returned to her home and found out they had been hiding, on Leekin’s orders. The victims, ages 15 to 27, are suspected to all be adopted from New York child welfare agencies.

Leekin is unemployed. She lived off the adoption subsidy payments she got for those children - well enough that she owned two homes and several cars. A photo of one of her homes can be seen at the CNN website (see link below).

What we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg. People have been adopting foster children they don’t love for years. What they want is the money associated with those children.

According to the article people who adopt special needs children can get up to $55 per day. That’s about $1650 per month per special needs child. With nine special needs children she could be receiving up to $14,850 per month, or $178,200 per year. Not bad for sitting home taking care of the kids. Of course these extravagant benefits aren’t available to the poor parents these children were originally taken from.

The CNN article stated,

“The adopted children said they had never seen a doctor or a dentist and had not been allowed to attend school or even leave the house.

‘These people have not received any formal education in the time they’ve been with her,’ Bartal said. ‘At times when they were restricted with handcuffs or zip ties, during the night, they soiled themselves because they weren’t permitted to go to the bathroom.’

“They were fed only noodles, and ‘they would have eventually starved to death,’ Bartal said.”

Leekin is now where she belongs - in big trouble with the law. She was arrested and jailed on 11 charges, including aggravated elder and child abuse.

Source: Police: Kids were adopted for profit, abused by the Associated Press, published on CNN.Com on July 30, 2007.

I really don’t like to read stories like this.

Last Friday a couple felt compelled to leave a hospital in Michigan with their newborn infant because CPS social workers in Saginaw asked Lucas County CPS social workers to interview them.

If I remember right, CPS in Michigan is called FIA - the Family Independence Agency - or have they changed their name again?

My feelings are always so divided when I read about things like this. I scanned the article for clues to what led this couple to make this life-changing decision.

The results so far: The couple and baby are on the run. CPS now has legal custody of the baby according to a Toledo police sergeant, William Wauford, though before they left CPS had tried to get a court order and failed. And there are warrants out for the arrest of Fredrick and Margaret Badenhoop.

Why my feelings are divided:

I never advise parents to run with their children because I know, over the years, that in most cases where this happened, the parents were apprehended and the children ended up in foster homes anyhow. Plus I have a policy of never advising a parent to do something illegal, or something that would get them in worse trouble with the law. I believe that staying firm and fighting CPS in a court of law is a better choice. But this may be one of those cases where it wouldn’t have worked to do so. At the end of the article it says, “Child Protective Services had taken at least one other child from Margaret Badenhoop.”

According to a law passed in 1996, the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA), if anyone has had their rights to another child terminated, CPS can take future babies without benefits of any kind of service plan or visitations. This can lead to incredibly cruel and heartrending scenes in hospitals where CPS worker have walked in and pulled infants from the arms of loving mothers, for no reason except that another child was already taken.

I swear I cannot help but hate social workers who allow themselves to be the agents of such cruelty. Why on earth would anyone want the bad karma associated with someone who would do such a deed?

I don’t know what the issues are with the Badenhoops, or what their motivation was, but I do know that their problems are severe and they need all the prayers we can give them and their child.

I really, really don’t like it when things like this happen. My heart hurts so much for the people involved.

Source: Parents take their baby, flee hospital, face charges by Lania Coleman for The Saginaw News published on July 23, 2007.

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: ____________________________