Revised April, 2010.

Here are some of my recommendations. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice — so consider the source. Get an attorney if at all possible, and discuss these things with him/her. Your attorney will understand local procedures better than I possibly could.

Stay Calm

As you deal with the interview remember to be polite. Child protective services workers have copped an attitude and gone after hostile and terrified parents, thinking they must have something to hide. Treat the social services caseworkers respectfully, but don’t give them any information, or leads to more information.

They may need to see your children in order to close the case, and they will probably want to talk to both parents. Don’t be afraid. Do whatever needs to be done in order to get the case closed.

The less said, the better. Child protective services social workers usually show up at your door with little to no evidence. If they are acting on an anonymous tip, they have NOTHING. They cannot get a court order on an anonymous tip. The only thing they can use against you is information you give them.

Record and Document Everything

Check your state recording laws. Print out a copy of your state’s law, and put it in a file folder entitled “Child Welfare Agents” near your front door. Have a tape recorder and blank tape or video campera handy in the house at all times. If a child protective services social worker shows up at your door, be prepared to tape the interview. You can, at that time, show them that you have a copy of the law. Don’t be coerced not to tape — this is your legal right if your state law says it is. Video tape is better than audio tape, if you can afford to do that instead.

Furthermore, you must document everything that happens in writing! Take notes. An English activist recommends you write down every word and insist that the worker must wait until the words are properly recorded. You have the right.

Keep a spiral-bound notebook on hand and use it to document every contact with child protective services or child protective services appointed “service providers”. Don’t back down on this! Prepare in advance, and stand firm against CPS agents! After each contact, write a letter (some recommend having such a letter notarized) detailing what occurred, and request that the social worker confirm or deny the facts as you understand them within ten days of receipt of your letter. If no letter disputing the facts is received, then your statement of facts will be automatically confirmed. This form of documentation can later be used as evidence in your favor in juvenile court. See: Your Case Notebook – Is It Up To Date?

Don’t Invite The CPS Worker Inside

You are under no obligation to let a child protective services social worker into your house. Under the basic law of our land, the United States Constitution, Amendment Four, you have the right to privacy in your home. No government agent of any type is allowed to enter your home without your permission. We know of many cases where entry was coerced by statements such as “let me in or I’ll take your kids”. Do not give in! Do not give up your Constitutional Rights! Stand firm on this! If your rights are not honored, you can sue them later, but it is so much better to force them to honor your rights now. Check out Forced Entry Lawsuit.

The only exception would be if the child protective services agent shows up with a law enforcement officer bearing a search warrant. Usually that doesn’t happen — and I will tell you why. The child protective services agent is there at your door to gather evidence. Usually he doesn’t have enough real evidence to detain your child right away and there is not enough “probable cause” to obtain a search warrant. Typically, he will be just working on a phoned-in tip from someone who wants to retaliate against you for something. If you talk a lot, your words will be twisted in such a way as to be used against you in court. Also if you allow this person into your home, he will most likely find something there to complain about and use against you in court. A sink with 8 dishes needing washing can show up in his report as “a sink full of dirty dishes and a filthy kitchen” which of course would serve to make you look bad to a judge. Therefore, just don’t let these people into your home. You have no idea what an issue a child protective services social worker can make out of a pile of laundry sitting next to your washing machine!

If the complaint the child protective services social worker is there to investigate is that your house is dirty, you can go inside, take a few digital photos, and then go back outside to show her the house is just fine. Or, you can tell her that without a court order there will be no entry into your private home thanks to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. If she’s working with only an anonymous tip, she will not be able to get a court order. If instead, she has credible evidence, she may be able to get one.

Say As Little As Possible

Of course, when you first see child protective services social workers on your doorstep, you want these people to go away and close their case. This will make you want to tell them things to clarify that you are not a danger to your children. Be careful what you say. As any activist will tell you, anything you say can be twisted and used against you!

For example, I thought it was good that my spouse and I were already involved in therapy and a 12-Step group for adult children of alcoholics. However this statement was used against me. It was used as evidence that I had problems and needed “services”. The fact that I was already taking care of my own needs and didn’t need a court order to do these things didn’t help.

Another thing you really shouldn’t tell CPS agents is whether you were once in state custody. When you tell them you were a foster child, first of all they know there’s a file out there with your name in it from which they can pull documents to use as “evidence” against you. In my case, most of the paperwork in our thick file was pulled from my spouse’s very thick state custody file. They claimed they had evidence that he was violent from the time he was in kindergarten and they were prepared to use that juvenile file against us, even though he had never harmed our child. Second, if you tell them you were a foster child, it marks you as a victim and makes them think you can be victimized more. Former foster children have their children detained at a rate much higher than most, so just be on the safe side and don’t mention that fact if it pertains to you. It really is none of their business. You should not open your mouth to help them make a case against you.

It is also not wise to tell them something like, “I am not an abuser – I should know what that is – I was abused as a child.” What this says to them is that you were abused therefore you are likely to be an abuser. Believe me, no matter what terrible situation you went through as a child, it is better not to mention that to a social worker. They will not feel so sorry for you that they will just go away. No, it doesn’t work that way. They are looking for bad things to say about you to pad their caseworker report when they present it to a judge.

Yet another thing you shouldn’t say is whether your child was detained in the past. A history of child protective services interference in your family tells a caseworker you are on their hit list. If you have ever had a child taken from you by Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) move to another state or better yet, out of the country, and keep it a secret! There is a 1996 law (ASFA – the Adoptions and Safe Families Act) that gives the child protective services agents the right to take away all future children if you ever had a TPR in the past. If this law is used against you, there will be no reunification plan, no “reasonable efforts” to keep your family together, and most likely no visitation.

Another thing to beware of: they may ask you for referrals to people to help prove your fitness to parent. For example, I was asked for my ex-husband’s phone number. Thinking he would give me a good referral, I complied. As it turned out, he was told that making a statement against me would help him keep custody of our children. The most damaging “evidence” they got against me were false statements signed by this ex-husband and his girlfriend, who had only met me briefly once and had never been in my home! This woman had the gall to make a twelve page false statement typed on legal paper regarding my parenting abilities! She called it an “affidavit” but did not sign it under penalty of perjury, and for good reason! Therefore I advise that you NOT give them “leads” to your friends, family, ex-spouses, therapists, doctors, etc. They are just looking for “evidence” against you and they are experts at coercing this sort of evidence from people who know you. Make them find their own evidence — don’t help them find or make contacts!

So, if CPS agents are at your door, stand firm and say as little as you possibly can! If you feel they are making a case against you anyhow, get an attorney to help you through an interview in your attorney’s office.

Don’t Trust CPS Social Workers

In other words, know the enemy. Know who child protective services workers are. I used to work with child protective services workers in the Dept. of Public Social Services, Visalia, California, so I think I’m in a position to tell you what these government agents are like, though I’ve never been one. (I was a welfare eligibility worker.) The typical child protective services social worker is there for one reason: to have a job to pay his/her bills. This worker cannot afford to lose the job, so s/he will do whatever the supervisor says in order to maintain employment.

Now, if this child protective services social worker is put into a unit assigned to go investigate referrals and to make decisions regarding detainment of children, then naturally this person would be suspect if s/he never detained a kid! In order to maintain employment, this child protective services social worker will have to take a certain number of children into custody… therefore when they are at your home, they are thinking to themselves, “what can I find out about this family to build a case aimed at taking their kid?” They must have a case to take into court, and they are there, looking for evidence.

Even if they seem nice and harmless, remember, this is how child protective services makes money. To keep their jobs, they must take away children from their families. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They come to your door saying, “I’m just here to help.” The next thing you know, your children are in state custody and you are in court trying to prove your innocence. Remember, even if you like the person, behind every pleasant personality is a need to keep the child protective services social worker job. Behind every seemingly nice caseworker there is a more experienced child protective services supervisor who may tell your caseworker to “find something” to use to detain your child. You would not believe some of the idiotic allegations I have seen in caseworker reports… but if they can get a judge to rubber stamp their side of the story, they can get away with keeping your children in state custody. Don’t trust these people!

Service Plans

You need to understand that child protective services funding is closely tied in with “service providers”. It is likely that the social worker will offer some kind of deal, saying you can keep your kid if you agree to “services” like psychological testing, drug testing, therapy, etc. What this offer really means is that they don’t have enough evidence to take your child into their custody, but if you will just go to their “service providers” they may get the “evidence” they need through these “service provider” reports.

Say, for example, you are accused of drug use. They want you to go to a drug testing service to prove your innocence. You say, “Okay, I’m not a drug user, I’ll go”. But then you find yourself facing false-positive results … or if you miss an appointment, you are told that will count as a positive drug test. Your life is being severely interfered with because you have to go to scheduled appointments, miss work, make special child care arrangements, etc. Believe me, all this is not a “service” to you, no matter what they call it! It is only a way for child protective services social workers to try to get “evidence” against you so they can take your children away.

What I recommend based on what I’d do in similar circumstances: Do NOT sign their plans. Do NOT admit to anything. Force them to PROVE their cases in court, in a FULL TRIAL. Don’t accept just a hearing where you are coerced to sign guilty to the charges. They will try every trick in the book to get you to agree to their sick “service plans”. Stand firm and just say “no” when they ask you to sign your legal rights away.

Just Say “NO” To Private Interviews With Your Child

The CPS agents will want to talk to your child alone. Just say “NO”. Tell the agents that your child has the right to have an attorney present, and that if he insists on an interview then you and the attorney will be present and the interview will be recorded, preferably on videotape. Of course, if your child is attending a public school, you probably won’t get a chance to say “no”. What would happen is that the social worker would go to the school and, behind your back, get permission to talk with your children from the school employees. You can tell the school ahead of time (in writing) that you don’t permit such interviews, or anything other than basic education activities, however you cannot trust school employees to go by your wishes. It might help to ask your attorney to write a letter to the school forbidding interviews with CPS workers. Keep in mind that the public schools are one of the major sources of CPS referrals. I have heard that caseworkers complain that public school employees actually want more child detentions than CPS agents do!

My advice is not to trust the schools, and to homeschool if possible. I am a big homeschooling advocate because I believe it is best for kids, and one of these days I will write a page about that too… but in the meantime, just keep in mind that it is hard to say “no” to interviews if your child’s school will say “yes”.

Already the government puts child protective services social workers into public schools to look for target children. Eventually this may be the case in every public school. I think this is a good place for me to mention that I support the separation of school and state. Please check it out.

Be sure your children know that they have the right to say, “I don’t want to be interviewed without my parents and an attorney and a tape recorder present.” Child protective services social workers will not tell your child that s/he has the right to say that. If there is still time, you must be the one to train your child how to deal with government agents. Be sure your child knows the consequences of child protective services interviews. If anyone is detained, it is the child. If they say the wrong thing, they can be taken into custody and removed, possibly permanently, from parents, siblings, friends, their home town, their pets, and everything else they hold dear in life! They will be traumatized by that separation, and probably put on harmful adult psychotropic drugs to deal with the separation. See: Drugging Foster Children.

If they complain too much about being incarcerated in state custody homes, they may be put into mental hospitals, or placed in restraints, which are known to be deadly. “Teach your children well,” as the old song goes. We live in perilous times. We owe it to our children to help them learn to deal with government agents that may harm them. Remember, children are eight to ten times more at risk of abuse in foster and group homes, so we are not over-reacting in teaching our children these self-protective measures.

Advance Preparation

I’ve suggested that you keep the following things on hand: a tape recorder, blank tape, video camera, spiral-bound notebook, and a file folder marked “Child Welfare Agents”. If you have time to prepare for a visit before it happens, you are very lucky. Most people don’t take the threat of government interference in their lives seriously — until after it happens to them.

To prepare, I suggest the following items be printed out from the internet and placed in your folder: your state and federal laws regarding child welfare services; court cases that insure your rights; the Bill of Rights, newspaper articles and statistics showing that children are not safe in state custody homes. Be prepared to show these things to the social worker that comes to your door, and question them about the wisdom of taking children into state custody where they are eight to ten times more at risk of abuse.

If they want to take your kids, question them about the “reasonable efforts” requirement to keep families together, and about what “pre-placement preventative services” they are offering. If they want your child, ask about what “imminent danger” exists. Let them know that you know the laws!

For example, if they claim something happened on Monday to your child but they show up on Friday afternoon to pick your child up, you should be telling these social workers that obviously no “imminent danger” exists or they would have acted on the report right away! If you don’t stand firm and point out their mistakes, they will walk all over you and violate their own laws in many different ways. Yes, your child still might be detained, but if you show them you know their laws and can speak their lingo, they will think twice before choosing you as a new client.

In addition to the paperwork detailed above, keep on hand in this “Child Welfare Agents” file your pediatrician’s doctor reports showing that your child is healthy. Every time your child sees a physician, request in writing that the full report be sent to you. You should not give these reports to a CPS agent, but you can let him know you have evidence showing that you are a good parent, not an abuser. Flash the papers before his/her face, don’t hand them over to be read… these are your own valuable documents and you don’t need to share or tell the worker who the child’s doctor is. Let the worker find evidence on his/her own. Don’t help a CPS agent try to build a case against you.

The point of having this folder is to let the social worker know that you know the laws and you are prepared to defend yourself! You are not going to share your “evidence” with a social worker. They have no right to it unless the case goes to court, and then you share it with your attorney only – or if you’re representing yourself, you can enter items like pediatrician reports into the court records as evidence.

Coercion

Be prepared to face coercion, even from your own court appointed attorney. Just like many others, I too was told by my county attorney that I could take my child home that day if I would just sign guilty to the charges, and I was so desperate to get my baby, I signed. Thousands of us have done that. Believe me, it is better to say “No – I want a full trial – you must prove your charges!” If you give in to the coercion, you will be jumping through their “service plan” hoops for months to come. If you go through with a trial, there’s a possibility you will win your freedom from this government interference in your family’s life.

If you go through a trial, and your child is adjudged a state ward, and you are court-ordered to complete a “service plan” or “reunification plan,” then of course you should do your best to complete every part of it before the next court hearing. This plan will most likely include psychological testing and counseling — that is a standard waste of taxpayer money. If the social workers want to court order you to anything that does not apply to your case, you should insist that your attorney fight this requirement in court. For example, if they want you to go to drug testing despite the fact that you are not a drug user and they have no evidence that you might be, then fight it! After the court hearing, if social workers try to force you into “services” that are not in the court-ordered plan you can refuse to cooperate. You are only required to do things that the judge has ordered. You should document all such illegal requests for additional services that haven’t been required by a judge. You can request a state administrative hearing from the state social services department to discuss these requests with an Administrative Law Judge.

Likewise you may find that child protective services social workers are trying to delay setting up services that are court ordered. You must document your repeated requests for such services and the excuses the child protective services social workers give for delaying the start of such services. Child protective services agents have been known to delay services so that your case will last longer. If your child is in state custody for 15 months, your parental rights can be terminated on that basis alone. Your goal will be to get your child returned at the next court hearing, so don’t allow delays!

Here’s the link to an article I wrote about child welfare investigations and your rights:
Investigations v. Rights

What Others Recommend

• Ten Tips When the Social Worker is at Your Door – from a former law enforcement agent in Ohio. Great information!
• I Need Help Fighting CPS Now – good advice at the site of the American Family Rights Association.
• Taking Over Your Case – defending yourself Sui Juris in juvenile court… great article with practical advice.
• Your Constitutional Rights: Use Them Or Lose Them – learn more about your Constitutional Rights before its too late!
• Responding to a Visit from Children’s Protective Services – by Linda J. Conrad, an attorney who works with the HomeSchool Association of California.
• If You’re the Subject of a DCYF Investigation – attorney Paula Werme’s advice on what to do when a child welfare investigation begins.
• Parents victimized by children’s protective services – good notes on cases built on unconstitutional religious prejudices.
• What To Do If DSS Comes to Your Door – suggestions from a Massachusetts attorney, Gregory A. Hession.
• Dont’s and Do’s When Falsely Accused – this was written by a friend of mine back in 1995.
• Save Your Children – click on “When they knock” for some good information.
• Answering the CPS (Child Protective Services) Questions – suggestions from a Virginia homeschooling site.

Please join, especially if you’d like to keep in touch with others who are writing letters to send her statement to legislators:

The Senator Nancy Schaefer Memorial Information Project

…

Tracie Palmer left this message on our page for attorney requests. I felt it was too long for that page but is important enough that everyone here should see it. Please note that at the end she states she is looking for an attorney for her child.

This is an excellent In Pro Per Complaint against the county and social workers. All of you who are facing injustice from county agencies may want to start writing something similar. – ljm

Tracie Palmer
In Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SHASTA
oo0oo

TRACIE PALMER, an individual, and
LUCIA D. PALMIERI, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, TRACIE PALMER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

SHASTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES DIVISION,
MICHAEL SCHWEITZER, individually, and as an employee of Children and Family Services,
HOLLY HETZEL, individually, and as an employee of Children and Family Services,
GAYLE MITCHELL, individually, and as an employee of Children and Family Services,
DEBRA ANDERSON, individually, and as an employee of Children and Family Services,
TINA MARTINEZ, individually and as an employee of Children and Family Services,
RANDEE MAEDA, individually, and as an employee of Children and Family Services,
and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 166491

SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiffs Tracie Palmer (herein after referred to as “Plaintiff Palmer”) and Lucia D. Palmieri (herein after referred to as “Plaintiff Palmieri”) allege as follows:
1. This is a civil action seeking damages against Defendants for the commission of acts, under color of state law, that deprived Plaintiff Palmer and Plaintiff Palmieri of rights secured to them by law and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. Damages are also sought against Defendants for the commission of tortious acts in breach of California State law.
2. Plaintiffs are mother (Palmer) and daughter (Plaintiff Palmieri) and at all relevant times resided in Shasta County, California.
3. Defendant Shasta County Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services Division (CFS) is a governmental agency within and part of Shasta County, California.
4. Defendant Michael Schweitzer was at all relevant times, including September 15, 2006, an employee of CFS. He is sued by Plaintiffs in both his individual and official capacities.
5. Defendant Holly Hetzel was at all relevant times, including September 15, 2006, an employee of CFS. She is sued by Plaintiffs in both her individual and official capacities.
6. Defendant Gayle Mitchell was at all relevant times, including September 15, 2006, an employee of CFS. She is sued by Plaintiffs in both her individual and official capacities.
7. Defendant Debra Anderson was at all relevant times, including September 15, 2006, an employee of CFS. She is sued by Plaintiffs in both her individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Tina Martinez was at all relevant times, including September 15, 2006, an employee of CFS. She is sued by Plaintiffs in both her individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Randee Maeda was at all relevant times, including September 15, 2006, an employee of CFS. She is sued by Plaintiffs in both her individual and official capacities.
10. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants sued as Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these defendants when ascertained, together with additional charging allegations as necessary. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the fictitiously named defendants is legally responsible in some manner for the occurrences or actions relevant to those occurrences alleged and for Plaintiffs’ resulting damages.
11. At all times pertinent hereto, each of the defendants was the agent or employee of each of the remaining defendants and has ratified and/or approved the acts of the remaining defendants.
12. At all times material to this complaint, each defendant acted or purported to act under color of the law, customs, and usages of Shasta County and California.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
13. Plaintiffs lived in the home at 6044 Emerald Lane in Redding, California from October 2000 until May 2002 and then again from August 2003 until September 15, 2006. Plaintiff Palmer made her living as a freelance PC technician out of the garage/shop and paid a share of rent and other household bills in those months.
14. The home was owned by Marcella Shatnawi (herein after referred to as “Shatnawi”), Plaintiffs’ sister/aunt, and the three lived there with their mother/grandmother, Earleen Smith.
15. On September 7, 2006, Earleen Smith died in the home. It was then-five-year-old Plaintiff Palmieri who discovered her grandmother in her room.
16. A neighbor took Plaintiff Palmieri in for the week to minimize any further upheaval to her while Plaintiff Palmer and Shatnawi were handling the necessary plans and arrangements.
17. On September 15, 2006 at or about 7:00 a.m. Redding Police Officers Harry Bishop, Luke Blehm, and Officer Bryan arrived at the home, stating they had received an “anonymous report” of noxious odors consistent with methamphetamine manufacturing coming from the home.
18. Plaintiff Palmieri was not at home at the time, or even in residence. When police arrived at the residence, the child was at school.
19. Upon making entry to the home, the officers claimed discovery of Ziploc baggies and paraphernalia, “with drug residue”.
20. Police also claimed to discover, among thousands of computer parts and electronic components in the shop/garage and the dozens they checked out, a used computer allegedly stolen from the Shasta County Sheriff’s office.
21. The officers then contacted Defendant Holly Hetzel and suggested an assessment and investigation by CFS at the residence.
22. Police confiscated all items that they found objectionable as evidence. The officers concluded that Shatnawi was not involved in or responsible for the seized property. Neither department reported concerns regarding the home itself.
23. Shatnawi (Plaintiff Palmieri’s ostensible non-offending caretaker) was also willing, able, and requesting immediate care of Plaintiff Palmieri at that time.
24. The child was instead summarily and simultaneously detained by CFS social workers – seized from elementary school during her school day. It is possible that some of the specific identities of social workers on the scene are as yet unknown to Plaintiffs, but they would be named herein or included in Does 1-25.
25. No one at the scene gave Plaintiff Palmer any information – or access to information – regarding rights or procedures in the juvenile court.
26. Defendant social workers and Does 1-25 made no contact whatsoever with Plaintiff Palmer from September 15, until Wednesday, September 20, 2006 nor was she given any direction, information, or access to information regarding the matter from anyone.
27. Notice of the Detention Hearing and a copy of the petition were served on Plaintiff Palmer by Defendant Mitchell on September 20, 2006.
28. The Detention Hearing commenced moments later and the only evidence heard was offered by Defendant social workers, County Counsel, and Does 1-25. The court ordered Plaintiff Palmieri further detained in the custody of the court.
29. Plaintiffs’ first visit was on October 5, 2006 and they began regular, monitored visitation at the LINCS offices, which housed most of CFS’ social workers (and did at all relevant times).
30. Plaintiff Palmer authorized all county agencies to share case information, gave CFS all family history information, received the initial case plan, and in mid-December 2006, Plaintiff Palmer submitted a change of address to CFS – duly filed with the courts.
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
31. Defendants summarily seized Plaintiff Palmieri from her school, home, and family without a warrant, just or probable cause and in the absence of exigent circumstances (in violation of WIC §300.2, §306(a)(2)) – not because they had to, but because they could.
32. The child was not properly and lawfully released from custody when initial dependency petition was not timely filed (pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §313), or when the Detention Hearing was not timely held (pursuant to WIC §315).
33. Defendants Mitchell, Maeda, CFS, and Does 1-25 barred all entitled contact between Plaintiffs (pursuant to WIC §308(a)), with no claim of detriment to the child, thereby denying Plaintiff Palmer’s fundamental liberty interest in soothing and reassuring her child and depriving the five year old of her mother’s essential, elemental, recuperative comfort.
34. Defendants CFS, social workers, and Does 1-25 put Plaintiff Palmieri at untenable, unnecessary risk when and as they detained her in the foster care of strangers. This was in no way mitigated by the eight placements the child was subjected to in just twelve months.
35. The initial petition and Detention Report, filed by Defendant workers and Does 1-25, and co-signed by Defendant Maeda, were made up almost entirely of conclusory statements having no basis in fact and wholly fabricated charges and allegations.
36. These fabrications included, but were not limited to, allegations and assertions that:
a. On September 15, 2006, Plaintiff Palmer was being “arrested for Child Endangerment”,
b. Plaintiff Palmer “was unable to make an appropriate plan for the care of the child prior to her incarceration”,
c. Plaintiff Palmer had left her daughter “with no provision for support”,
d. “The home contained drugs” and that objectionable and illegal items were “found in the home”,
e. On September 15, 2006, Plaintiff Palmer had “substance abuse” and “anger control problem” that “put the child at risk of harm”,
f. Plaintiff Palmer had a CFS “history of…physical abuse [of the child] and [posed] substantial risk [to the child] ”,
g. CFS provided “reasonable services”, albeit in the distant past, but Plaintiff Palmer had failed to benefit from them, and,
h. On September 15, 2006, “there were no services that could have prevented” Plaintiff Palmieri’s immediate seizure.
Each and every one of these statements was false, and known to be false, at the time they were made and/or verified by Defendants.
37. Defendants and each of them intentionally withheld and/or concealed exculpatory evidence from the Juvenile Court that would not support their actions or claims, and would likely confirm the viability of Plaintiff Palmieri’s immediate release to a responsible family member. These included, but were not limited to, the following:
a. Neither RPD nor CFS expressed concern about the residence and it was searched and cleared by several agents of both departments,
b. At the time of her removal, Plaintiff Palmieri’s physical condition and emotional health were hearty and robust; Defendants concurred, seeing no need for medical consultation,
c. In spite of Defendants’ claims of risks and dangers that Plaintiff Palmer posed to the child, there was never a specific instance of abuse or neglect claimed by CFS anywhere at any time,
d. Plaintiff Palmieri told Defendants that she had suffered no physical or emotional abuse or neglect prior to her removal, nor was Plaintiff Palmer accused of any specific abuse.
e. The initial interview of Plaintiff Palmieri by CFS workers (pursuant to WIC §328) was exculpatory yet suppressed,
f. By virtue of the September 15 ‘inspections’ by RPD and CFS, Shatnawi (and her home) had already been all but qualified as a responsible relative placement, an ostensibly nonoffending caretaker who was willing, able, and requesting interim custody of Plaintiff Palmieri,
g. There were several additional alternatives available for the child’s interim care,
h. Defendant Mitchell did not relay Plaintiff Palmer’s voluntary pledge to the court (made before the Detention Hearing commenced) that she would vacate the residence so that the child could remain.
Each and every one of these mitigating, exculpatory facts was material, and known to be material, when and as they were concealed and withheld from the court by Defendants.
38. Defendants failed to proceed in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions Code by:
a. Refusing to conduct any real investigation into the situation on September 15, 2006,
b. Negating possible scenarios that could facilitate maintaining Plaintiff Palmieri safely in her own home (pursuant to §306(b), §309(a) and §309(d)(1)),
c. Refusing to engage reasonable efforts and services to maintain Plaintiff Palmieri in her home (pursuant to §306(b), §309(a) and §309(d)(1)),
d. Failing to inform Plaintiff Palmer of anything related to the case, including the child’s status or how she was faring, their rights, or the impending court hearings and procedures (pursuant to WIC §307.4(a) & §307.4(a)(1)),
39. Defendants blocked any and all meaningful access by Plaintiffs to the juvenile court, with and through the above and the following, but not limited to:
a. Summarily seizing the child, unlawfully limiting the time Plaintiff Palmer had to discover her options before the initial hearing,
b. Verifying the above referenced falsehoods on the initial petition and submitting them as fact in their pre-detention report to the court,
c. Withholding information vital and entitled to Plaintiff Palmer and the Juvenile Court,
d. Not timely filing petition (pursuant to §311(a)), giving Plaintiff Palmer almost no time or information to educate herself regarding dependency proceedings,
e. Not timely serving notice of the Detention Hearing with the required copy of the petition (pursuant to WIC §290.2,),
f. Not timely holding Detention Hearing (pursuant to WIC §315),
g. Preventing Plaintiff Palmer being heard in any meaningful way at the Detention Hearing by not disclosing and otherwise denying Plaintiff Palmer’s right to subpoena, confront and cross-examine all relevant witnesses.
h. Plaintiff Palmer was not made aware of her rights, or that she had any (pursuant to WIC §307.4(a), §311(b), §319(a), §341).
40. Each of these actions – taken individually – was unlawful, unconstitutional, and unnecessarily punitive on their own.
41. However, their actions – taken as a series of steps in an overall plan – demonstrated a considered punitive strategy toward Plaintiffs – that proved more damaging in anthology than the sum of Defendants’ cumulative acts. Defendants and each of them executed this conduct in diametric opposition to their own mission statement, the Legislative intent of the WIC, and the well established constitutional rights and liberty interests of Plaintiffs.
42. Collectively, the facts corroborate Plaintiffs’ claim of intentional, planned, and routine objectives to debase Plaintiff Palmer, maintain Plaintiffs’ separation, and prolong the dependency of the child. Further, considered in total, reconciling Defendants’ handling of this family with Plaintiff Palmieri’s health, welfare or best interests cannot be done within reason or non-fiction.
43. Defendants’ complex deceptions and heavy-handed, malevolent manipulations made CFS social workers the only contributors of evidence and argument at the Detention Hearing. Thus, Defendants and each of them were completely unopposed by the unprepared, uninformed, and vulnerable parent of their own deliberate design.
44. Defendants and each of them enjoyed and relied on a presumptive integrity conferred by the very court on which they perpetrated this fraud. Predictably, Defendants Mitchell, Maeda, and Does 1-25 succeeded in securing a court order for the child’s continued detention on September 20, 2006. Plaintiffs claim the court order was the intended result of CFS’ well-orchestrated, deftly choreographed, and oft-rehearsed tactical steps.
45. In late December 2006, Plaintiff Palmer discussed filing a request for change of court order with Defendant Mitchell and that she would be relieving her counsel to do so.
46. On or about January 3, 2007, the probation officer assigned to assess Plaintiff Palmer (for work release in lieu of jail) phoned Mitchell for Plaintiff’s contact information. Defendant Mitchell responded that she had “no idea where” to find her.
47. This fabrication resulted – directly – in the probation officer’s misguided recommendation that Plaintiff Palmer’s sentencing be continued and her “custody status be reviewed”. It was – directly causing her unjust and unnecessary remand on January 24, 2007. Plaintiff Palmer was then forced to appear on her petition, in juvenile court on February 20, 2007, wearing an orange jumpsuit and shackles, in custody.
48. Defendant Anderson and Does 1-25 arbitrarily “invalidated” credible drug treatment and mental health assessments conducted by providers of CFS’ choosing, forcing Plaintiff Palmer’s submission to both arduous processes a second time. Moreover, Defendant Anderson insisted on specific individual assessors for these repeated “assessments” in an attempt to manipulate, influence, and control their results – rendering the sessions “treatment intakes”.
49. The required mental health assessment was then “upgraded” to a full psychiatric evaluation, even where no “red flags” or warnings were raised by the original and qualified assessor.
50. In the case of the drug treatment assessment, Defendant’s chosen counselor was actually located in, and working out of, the CFS office.
51. In the case of the mental health assessment, Defendant’s chosen counselor was unduly influenced by the enhanced and highly prejudicial “referral” crafted by Defendant Anderson and Does 1-25.
52. Defendant Anderson and Does 1-25 stalled these and other provider referrals and services to insinuate Plaintiff Palmer’s inaction and limited progress toward family reunification. Defendant Anderson took full advantage of this engineered advantage in her subsequent review reports to the court. This also delayed and arrested any development of professional, respected advocates for Plaintiffs, keeping the only opinions and evidence offered in and to the court that of CFS workers.
53. Using these and other tactics and misrepresentations, Defendant Anderson and Does 1-25 persuaded the court, at several junctures, to retain Plaintiff Palmieri as a dependent out-of-home, separated from her mother and denying Plaintiffs any contact that Defendant Anderson could not regulate or monitor directly for an additional 8 months (through September, 2007).
54. Defendant Anderson and Does 1-25 “interviewed” Plaintiff Palmieri (just back in Shatnawi’s custody). In it, she asked the child if she ever “considered going to church without your Aunt [Shatnawi]”.
55. Defendant Anderson and Does 1-25 reported to the court – in part – that the 6-year-old’s face was “observed to be without emotion” and she “had a moment of confusion or fear”. Plaintiff Palmieri was acutely traumatized by Defendant’s self-serving, insensitive, monstrous mode of inquiry as she tried to contemplate being alone again – and almost immediately after her return.
56. Defendant then reports that Plaintiffs could not be granted an extra weekly visit at another church since Plaintiff Palmieri had “chosen” her “religious preference”, Plaintiff Palmer had no right to “change” it , and Defendant could not in good conscience “force” her to go with her mother.
57. As a direct result of Defendants’ punitive, disparaging, unlawful, and unrelenting campaign against them, Plaintiffs were needlessly and maliciously separated for approximately 14 months.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Violation of Plaintiffs’ Federal Civil Rights against All Defendants)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, and 31-57 of Introductory Allegations as if fully set forth herein.
59. At all relevant times herein, Defendants purported their unfettered prerogative – conferred on them by the court – to remove Plaintiff Palmieri from her school, home and family and that it was entirely within the Department’s discretion to proceed at will. Plaintiff Palmer was told to comply with each and every demand made of her or her parental rights would be in great peril in the coming months.
60. Defendants and each of them violated the federal constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs by:
a. Summarily seizing the child from her home, parent, and family care without a warrant, just or probable cause, and absent exigent circumstances, in violation of several sections of the California Welfare & Institutions Code,
b. Crafting a counterfeit allegation presented to the court on the initial verified petition (WIC 300(g)) in a successful and concerted effort to obtain a tainted judicial order separating mother from daughter,
c. Denying Plaintiffs any physical or conversational contact, where there was no claim of Plaintiff Palmer’s detriment to the child (pursuant to WIC §309(a)),
d. Withholding exculpatory evidence that may well have changed not only the Detention Hearing findings, orders, and outcomes, but those of every subsequent hearing (pursuant to WIC §315), and confirmed the suitability of leaving Plaintiff Palmieri in her home and immediately reuniting mother and daughter,
e. Not timely releasing the child or filing the initial petition (pursuant to WIC §313),
f. Not timely serving Plaintiffs notice of the initial hearing (pursuant to WIC §290.2),
g. Not timely releasing the child or holding the Detention Hearing (pursuant to WIC §315),
h. Blocking all meaningful access of Plaintiffs to the Juvenile Court by withholding mandatory disclosures from Plaintiff Palmer (pursuant to WIC §307.4 and regarding §300, et seq.),
i. Refusing any investigation whatsoever into Plaintiff Palmer’s claims or proof of innocence, even when presented the opportunity to do so at very nominal cost to the County, and
j. Conducting a defective and one-sided investigation into the facts concerning the suitability of Plaintiff Palmieri’s home or immediately reuniting mother and daughter, and ignoring clear and obvious indications that this was appropriate and necessary for Plaintiff Palmieri’s health and well being.
61. These official policies, customs, practices and/or directives of Defendant CFS are causally and affirmatively linked to the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and were used, relied upon, and carried out by defendant social workers who in turn targeted Plaintiffs through their iniquitous and malevolent conduct without fear of sanction or reprisal.
62. These policies, customs, practices and/or directives of Defendant CFS are causally and affirmatively linked to the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and yet remain standard and routinely relied upon by Defendants even where they are not formally or publically enacted.
63. This conduct was a major cause of the lengthy separation of mother and daughter, causing physical, emotional and economic injuries to Plaintiffs, in amounts to be proven at trial, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
64. Throughout, Defendants’ conduct was malicious and oppressive and was intended to cause injury if not carried out with deliberate indifference to and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and well-being, justifying an award of punitive damages as to individual defendants.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Violation of Plaintiffs’ State Civil Rights against All Defendants)
(Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)
65. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, and 59-64 of First Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
66. These specific acts by Defendants violated Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of California and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.
67. Plaintiffs were harmed by the conduct of Defendants, as enumerated above, and that conduct was a major factor in causing physical, emotional and economic injuries to Plaintiffs, in amounts to be proved at trial and justifying punitive damages as to individual defendants.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Brought By Both Plaintiffs for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against All Defendants)
68. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, and 59-64 of First Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
69. Defendants used their positions of authority to damage the interests of Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions in removing and detaining Plaintiff Palmieri were outrageous by any standard of decency, yet they acted even in the knowledge that their conduct would likely result in serious damage to one or both Plaintiffs, and with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ well-being. The foreseeable susceptibility of a small child and a single mother forcibly separated without reason had no effect and Defendants did not relent in their sustained campaign of attack on Plaintiffs, even when they knew it to be unwarranted.
70. Mother and child suffered shock, fear, indignity, terror and apprehension due directly to actions taken by Defendants. Plaintiffs were left elementally vulnerable and further frightened, humiliated, and terrorized by their ongoing conduct.
71. Defendant CFS breached a duty of due care owed to Plaintiffs by failing to provide adequate guidance, oversight, supervision and training to their social workers.
72. Defendant CFS breached a duty of due care owed to Plaintiffs by failing to implement or enforce any policy that would preclude and prevent the unlawful removal of children from their homes by social workers in their employ.
73. The actions of the Defendants described above were intentional and carried out with deliberate indifference to and callous disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, well being, and best interests.
74. The acts and/or omissions of each Defendant promoted the protracted separation of mother and child and constituted a major factor in causing Plaintiffs’ physical, emotional and economic injuries. The emotionally charged environment rendered Plaintiffs especially susceptible to damages caused by Defendants’ targeted attacks. By ambushing Plaintiffs, brandishing their positions, and exploiting the induced vulnerabilities of Plaintiffs, Defendants maximized that damage, justifying punitive damages against individual defendants, in amounts to be proved at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Brought By Both Plaintiffs for Negligence)
(Against All Defendants)
75. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, 59-64 of First Cause of Action, and 71-72 of Third Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
76. Defendants CFS, Martinez, Schweitzer, Hetzel, Mitchell, Maeda and their supervisors and Does 1-25 breached a duty of due care owed to plaintiffs by failing to provide adequate guidance, oversight and supervision to Defendant social workers. Defendant social workers’ actions harmed plaintiffs by summarily removing Plaintiff Palmieri from her home, parent and family without a warrant and absent exigent circumstances, in violation of California Welfare and Institutes Codes §300, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309 et. seq.
77. Defendants and each of them were aware of the foreseeable perils their willful misconduct subjected Plaintiffs to and the injuries to Plaintiffs as they accumulated. However, Defendants did nothing to mitigate either the risks or the resulting injuries to Plaintiffs.
78. Every action by Defendants and each of them has compounded and accumulated, developing an overall punitive philosophy and approach in their dealings with Plaintiffs.
79. To the extent that the actions of Defendants and each of them described above were not deliberate or intentional, they were done with gross negligence and deliberate indifference to and callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and well being.
80. Defendant Anderson failed and refused to retrieve Plaintiff Palmieri’s belongings from the foster homes that housed Plaintiff Palmieri, where Plaintiff Palmer could not request or compel their production, upon Plaintiff Palmieri’s return to her mother.
81. The acts and/or omissions of each Defendant constituted a major factor in causing Plaintiffs’ physical, emotional and economic injuries, including justified punitive damages against individual defendants, in amounts to be proved at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For False Imprisonment of Plaintiff Palmieri)
(Against Defendants CFS, Mitchell, Maeda, Schweitzer, Hetzel, and Does 1-25)
82. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, 59-64 of First Cause of Action, as if fully set forth herein.
83. Defendants CFS, Michael Schweitzer, Holly Hetzel, Gayle Mitchell, Tina Martinez, Randee Maeda, and Does 1-25 intentionally removed or sanctioned the imminent confinement and removal of Plaintiff Palmieri from her home and family, without warrant and absent exigency, in violation of California Welfare and Institutes Codes §300, 305, 306, 307,308, 309 et. seq., Further, Defendants improperly investigated, detained and maintained Plaintiff Palmieri outside her home.
84. In the absence of a timely filed petition, or a timely held hearing, Plaintiff Palmieri’s detention was not lawfully authorized at the time of the seizure, nor was it consensual.
85. The moment the mandated timeframe to release Plaintiff Palmieri or file the initial petition had expired, Defendants and each of them effectively seized her again and again without lawful authorization.
86. The moment the mandated timeframe to release Plaintiff Palmieri or hold the initial hearing had expired, Defendants and each of them effectively seized her yet again and again without lawful authorization.
87. These acts were authorized, condoned, directed, and/or ratified by Defendant CFS and Does 1-25.
88. Plaintiffs suffered significant physical and emotional damages as a result.
89. The acts and/or omissions of each Defendant constituted a major factor in causing Plaintiffs physical, emotional and economic injuries, including punitive damages against individual defendants, in amounts to be proved at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For False Imprisonment of Plaintiff Palmer)
(Against Defendants CFS, Mitchell, Maeda, and Does 1-25)
90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, 59-64 of First Cause of Action, as if fully set forth herein.
91. Defendant Mitchell and Does 1-25 were contacted by a Shasta County probation officer assigned to assess Plaintiff Palmer for probation and report back to the court. Mitchell responded by telling probation she had “no idea” where to find Plaintiff Palmer – in the full knowledge that the officer would then recommend continuing the sentencing hearing until Plaintiff Palmer could be assessed, and remanding her in the interim.
92. Defendant Mitchell and Does 1-25 directly and intentionally caused Plaintiff Palmer’s unjust and unnecessary remand on January 24, 2007. This was outside the scope of Defendant Mitchell’s employment, was not a quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial or discretionary function, and did nothing to advance the dependency case.
93. It is believed by Plaintiffs that this action may have been sanctioned and/or ratified by Defendants Maeda and/or Does 1-25.
94. Plaintiffs suffered significant physical and emotional damages as a result.
95. The acts and omissions of the Defendants constituted a major factor in causing Plaintiffs physical, emotional and economic injuries, including punitive damages against individual defendants, in amounts to be proved at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Fraud and Deceit of Plaintiff Palmer)
(Against Defendants CFS, Mitchell, Maeda, Schweitzer, and Does 1-25)
96. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, 59-64 of First Cause of Action, as if fully set forth herein.
97. Defendants and each of them concealed the following material facts from Plaintiff Palmer, although it was their duty to disclose same, to wit:
a. Plaintiff Palmer had the right to see to Plaintiff Palmieri’s alternate care prior to her incarceration,
b. Information advising Plaintiff Palmer of her rights and court procedures (pursuant to WIC §307.4),
c. Plaintiffs’ right to contact within 5 hours of their separation, where there was no claim of detriment to the child (pursuant to WIC §308(a)),
d. The actual petition, until just moments before the Detention Hearing, where it was required to be provided with timely notice of hearing 24 hours before said hearing’s commencement (pursuant to WIC §290.2).
e. All rights conferred by the WIC to parents at the Detention Hearing, including, but not limited to, the right to subpoena, confront, and cross examine all relevant witnesses.
98. These material facts were intentionally withheld to ensure that Plaintiff Palmer would not assert or exercise any of her rights at or before the Detention Hearing. Thus, Defendants and each of them defrauded the Plaintiff and the court, securing a tainted court order unopposed in any way by Plaintiff Palmer.
99. Plaintiff Palmer was unaware of any of these rights, that she in fact had any, or how to exercise them at the Detention Hearing. Based on her actions throughout the dependency, it can be said that Plaintiff Palmer would certainly have acted and reacted much differently, had she been aware of all the material facts concealed by Defendants and the impact dependency would likely have on Plaintiffs.
100. But for the concealment of these facts, and Plaintiff Palmer’s ignorant inaction, the outcome of the Detention Hearing would likely have been much different, even sparing Plaintiffs the protracted, needless separation altogether, had she been allowed to exercise the relevant rights guaranteed by law.
101. As a result, Plaintiff Palmer was prejudiced in legal and public forums, forced to overcome erroneous credibility issues in the eyes of the court and the community. This fraud and deceit directly caused irreparable pain and suffering to both Plaintiffs and laid the very foundation for Plaintiffs’ separation under false pretense.
102. Plaintiffs were unwittingly and unwillingly drawn into a contractual relationship with Defendants the moment Plaintiff Palmieri was detained by social workers.
103. Defendants and each of them were subsequently granted broad discretion and control over Plaintiffs’ very lives. The Case Plan, upon its delivery to Plaintiff Palmer, was characterized as the “only way to get [Plaintiff Palmieri] home”. The alternative to Plaintiff Palmer’s satisfying all terms and conditions, approved and ratified by Defendants and each of them, was permanent loss of her parental rights and, in fact, her child.
104. Plaintiffs believe that the Petition, Case Plan and Welfare & Institutions Code constitute an implied contract (conceived, implemented and filed at the will of the Department) between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Offered no real alternatives, Plaintiff Palmer was compelled to comply with an illegal contract, given the gravity of consequences had she not done so.
105. With the court’s binding findings and orders, all parties were then bound by this implied contract, each with rights, rewards, and responsibilities laid out in the Case Plan and the WIC.
106. Plaintiff Palmer’s ‘reward’ for subjectively satisfying these same terms and conditions was the promised return of her daughter and Defendants’ relenting in the pursuit to terminate her parental rights.
107. Had Plaintiff Palmer not performed all conditions to the subjective satisfaction of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff Palmieri would not have been returned to her and Plaintiff Palmer’s parental rights might well have been terminated by the court at Defendants’ recommendation.
108. Defendants and each of them imposed an illegal contract on Plaintiffs by violating the Welfare and Institutions Code, §§290.2, 300.2, 306(a)(2), 306(b)(3), 307.4, 308(a), 309(a), 309(d)(1), 313(a), 315, 328, 332, 360, 361(a), 361( c), 361( c)(5), 361.1, et seq. when and as they took custody of Plaintiff Palmieri.
109. Because Plaintiffs were forced into this contract as a result of fraud and false pretense, Plaintiffs believe that said contract is null and void from its inception and but for the deceit and bad faith shown by Defendants, Plaintiffs would not have been subjected to the extensive burdens of the contract.
110. The acts and omissions of the Defendants and each of them constituted a major factor in causing Plaintiffs physical, emotional and economic injuries, in amounts, including emotional distress and punitive damages against individual defendants, to be proved at trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(By Plaintiffs For Abuse of Process – Against all Defendants)
111. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 12, 13-30 of Facts Common to All Causes of Action, 31-57 of Introductory Allegations, 59-64 of First Cause of Action, as if fully set forth herein.
112. The stated Legislative intent of the Welfare and Institutions Code is to “to preserve and strengthen a child’s family ties whenever possible, removing the child from the custody of his or her parents only when necessary for his or her welfare”. (§16000) “The Legislature hereby declares its intent to encourage the continuity of the family unit” (§16500) and “to use the strengths of families and communities to serve the needs of children who are alleged to be abused or neglected, as described in Section 300, to reduce the necessity for removing these children from their home, [and] to encourage speedy reunification of families when it can be safely accomplished.” (§16500.1)
113. Dependency proceedings are to be initiated only if required to secure the safety and well-being of the child and are strictly for “the protection of the child, not the punishment of the parent”.
114. Defendants misused the court process with the following non-communicative acts:
a. Filing a Dependency Petition in Juvenile Court, in the name of Plaintiff Palmieri, that Defendants knew was false, misleading, and unnecessary;
b. Not advising Plaintiff Palmer of any of her rights or relevant court procedures. Instead, used and maintained her ignorance to ensure that no objections would be raised, no rights would be asserted, and no statement would be demanded of those who removed Plaintiff Palmieri from her home prior to the court authorizing the detention;
c. Withholding exculpatory evidence from the court as enumerated above,
d. Disallowing contact between Plaintiffs as mandated (WIC §308(a));
e. Refusing to assist or allow Plaintiff Palmer to prove her claims of non-culpability, stalling long enough that the proof was lost forever;
f. Not advising Plaintiff Palmer of her rights pertaining to the proceedings;
g. Not timely serving notice of Detention Hearing;
h. Not timely filing the petition;
i. Not timely holding the initial hearing.
115. The Defendants and each of them intended to induce a tainted court order further detaining Plaintiff Palmieri in foster care, and they misused the court’s authority and process to accomplish that objective.
116. In requiring a “suitable home” and “legal” and “steady” income on the Case Plan, Defendants and each of them violated the letter and spirit of the WIC and abused the dependency process.
117. Further, Defendants and each of them promoted and fostered the very circumstances the WIC charges them with helping to ameliorate. The letter and spirit of the WIC mandates that Defendants and each of them actively assist Plaintiffs in overcoming obstacles to family maintenance and reunification – including poverty and homelessness “wherever possible”.
118. In diametric opposition to the Legislature’s intent and the WIC’s mandate, Defendants and each of them promoted, amplified, and influenced circumstances that could then be portrayed to the court as “non-compliance” and unacceptably “minimal progress” toward Case Plan fulfillment.
119. Given the vast purview of social workers, their supervisors, and CFS, the following would be general knowledge throughout the system:
a. By keeping the child detained, the mother is rendered ineligible to receive emergency cash aid from the state (where income was a requirement of the Case Plan),
b. By effectively blocking the only possible emergency income to Plaintiffs, Defendants extended the duration of Plaintiff Palmer’s new homelessness (where getting and keeping a “suitable” home was required by the Case Plan),
c. By fostering and relying on Plaintiff Palmer’s homelessness, Defendants could justify keeping the child detained (where mother posed no actual danger or detriment to her child) due to unfulfilled requirements of the Case Plan.
d. Defendants propagated this cycle of barriers again and again, for as long as they could.
120. All along there were viable options and far less inherently traumatic alternatives to detention and foster care available to CFS. Those options, however, were not then made available to Plaintiffs – nor would Defendants and each of them even disclose their existence.
121. Defendants and each of them did not attempt to preserve and strengthen Plaintiffs’ family ties or encourage Plaintiffs as a family unit at any time during Plaintiff Palmieri’s dependency. From the instant they summarily seized Plaintiff Palmieri, Defendants and each of them implemented a strategy to keep Plaintiff Palmer ignorant of any and all knowledge as to the rights of her family and the relevant court procedures. Ergo, Defendants and each of them used the process for purposes other than those intended and to propagate the unjust separation of mother and daughter.
122. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them acted willfully with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs and for an improper and immoral motive amounting to malice in that the afore-referenced tortuous and criminal conduct was intentionally committed by Defendants and was knowingly oppressive, malicious and wanton with the intended purpose to cause harm to Plaintiffs herein.
123. The acts and omissions of the Defendants and each of them constituted a major factor in causing Plaintiffs physical, emotional and economic injuries, in amounts to be proved at trial, including punitive damages against individual defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for judgment against each and all of the Defendants for the following:
1. Special and general damages according to proof;
2. Punitive damages according to proof;
3. Declaratory relief as appropriate and according to proof;
4. Attorneys’ or other professional fees incurred during suit;
5. Costs of suit;
6. An order voiding the Petition from its inception;
7. An apology from Defendants; and
8. Such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate.

_________________________________________
Tracie Palmer, for herself and as
Guardian ad Litem for Lucia D. Palmieri

**Now I just need an attorney to rep my daughter – they can dismiss because of lack of counsel – HELP!