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
1428 West Street
Redding, CA 96001
530.244.0988
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!

California residents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
aleo966 at yahoo.com

Received today from Greg Smart:

Hi everyone,

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

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

Please inform others who would be interested.

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

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

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

“Parental rights termination in CA are unconstitutional”

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

“let our children go”

“DCFS are crooked”

“Dependency proceedings are a joke”

“The Courts are affirming the kidnapping”

etc.

Thanks for you help.

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

The UN Treaty on Children’s Rights seems to be designed to destroy parental rights. According to Michael Farris, chairman/lawyer of HSLDA, the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Obama administration may seal our fate by accepting this treaty, giving more rights to children than to parents. When all parental decisions are subject to being reviewed by the state, we may be prevented from homeschooling, training our children in our religion of choice, or discipline. I can already imagine kids (especially teenagers) using this treaty to complain about being grounded or otherwise disciplined.

HSLDA is a Christian homeschooling organization. Though I’ve never been a Christian, HSLDA won a place in my heart for pursuing limitations on CPS investigators’ actions, forcing them to honor our 4th Amendment rights. HSLDA also recommends and pursues independent homeschooling rights which are vital to the well-being of the homeschooling movement, because independent homeschooling allows children to learn in freedom rather than be molded into conformity by state government school laws. Conformity destroys initiative, innovation, and imagination.

This treaty has already been accepted by every country in the UN except the United States and Somalia.

Michael Farris is also the president of ParentalRights.Org, where an article lists Twenty Things You Need To Know about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC or simply, CRC.)

Source: The New World Disorder: United Nations’ threat: No more parental rights; Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object, by Chelsea Schilling, published on February 5, 2009 by World Net Daily.

On Friday, December 19, Arkansas legislators listened to the grievances of grandparents seeking visitation with children whose parents lost parental rights in TPR hearings. State employees attended the meeting to inform relatives they can file a petition requesting visitation.

The article doesn’t explain how this is done; it sounds like they were advised to take the matter back to court. I hope this works and would like to hear from any relative that has gone to court for visitation of a child after TPR - especially if the petition was granted!

Source: Grandparents Seek Visitation with Grandkids by Pete Thompson, published with VIDEO on December 19, 2008, at the KARK 4 News website.
…

I’d like to thank Marina, one of the moderators on our message board forum, for posting about this article in the “In The News” section of the message board. She’s done a wonderful job, keeping us informed about CPS news and much more. I found this article on the message board earlier today. Thank you so much, Marina!

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 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.

Allison Newman’s mother wanted to recover from an addiction to crack cocaine, so she asked an acquaintance to watch her six month old baby temporarily. When Michigan social workers got into the act, the baby ended up in the home of Carol Poole, 42, a barren woman living in an expensive upscale home, who wanted children. She has now been convicted of murdering Allison when she was only two.

Allison’s grandfather, Kenneth Newman said:

• “She cracked that baby’s skull open, dressed her and put her to bed to die.”
• “People (child welfare workers) turned their heads because these people lived out in Canton and had a few dollars in the bank.”
• “There was evidence that Allison started being abused seven or eight weeks before her death. When Ann (the girl’s mother) went into rehab, the date to sever parental rights got postponed and Carol Poole realized she wasn’t going to get to adopt Allison. We think that’s when everything went bad.”

(Source: Doug Guthrie of The Detroit News - see link below.)

Carol Poole has now been convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 to 30 years in prison. She also got 10 to 15 years for child abuse.

Quoting from Guthrie’s article:

“During her trial, two workers at the Childtime Learning Center day care in Plymouth said they noticed scratches and bruises on Allison long before her death. They reported the findings to their supervisor, who was charged but not convicted of failing to comply with state law by reporting the injuries.”

During 2005 and 2006 three children died in Michigan foster and adoptive homes: Allison Newman, Issac Lethbridge, and Ricky Holland.

Source: Foster mother gets 20-35 years in prison for girl’s death - by Doug Guthrie, written for The Detroit News, published February 27, 2008.

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)