As part of my outreach - my effort to help CPS victims find this site - I’ve joined a number of social media sites using either my own name, or the name of FightCPS.

I hope you’ll help me in supporting these efforts.

Do you have a MySpace profile? Fight CPS At MySpace wants you as a friend.	This is a blog promotion site. I’d very much appreciate your votes in getting FightCPS listed on the front page there so more people can find out about our issues with Child Protective Services false allegations.
Technorati is a site for finding blog postings that are on a topic you want to read about. If everyone who came here registered at Technorati and added this site to their favorites list, this blog might reach the top-100 list, and become an issue many thousands of Americans would notice.	Is anyone else here using Twitter? If so, feel free to follow me there: Linda at Twitter. This is my personal Twitter account and you’ll see I’m interested in numerous topics, not just fighting CPS - but that’s something I’m always willing to write about. If you want to get to know me better and find out where my head is REALLY at, this is the place.
Check out the Fight CPS Squidoo Lens for information about the history and goals of Fight CPS. You can make a Squidoo Lens web page to tell people about your CPS case and information. It is very easy to sign up and create a page, plus you may earn some money by doing it.	Fight CPS is on Hover Spot

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

Thanks to the person who sent this via email.

…

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

ELIZABETH J. BRUCE AKA ELIZABETH J. ALLDRIDGE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

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

Defendants,

CASE NO.

TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Costs of suit;

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

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

DATED: May 31, 2007 LAW FIRM, APC

BY: ____________________________

Jack and Casey He were going through hard times years ago when they gave their baby girl, Anna Mae, to temporary foster parents. When they tried to get their child back, Jerry and Louise Baker refused to let go. Now Anna Mae is eight years old and the foster parents are still filing court papers, trying to keep her. It is people like this who give foster parenting a bad name. This case has been ongoing for six years, since the Bakers filed a motion in 2001 to try to terminate the He’s parental rights.

In January the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that Anna Mae should be returned to her parents “in an expeditious manner” but Jack and Casey He are still waiting because the Bakers, with the help of their attorney, Larry Parish, made a federal court filing on June 12 asking that the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling be overturned. If the federal court doesn’t intervene, Anna Mae should be reunited with her family late in July.

Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper Jr. filed papers on June 18 criticizing the Bakers and Larry Parish for “a number of extreme and horrifying hypotheticals” included in the federal filing. For example, Parish wrote that the Tennessee Supreme Court was “amputating [the child’s] legs” and that Jack and Casey He were “strangers” who “have become monsters in her world”.

The only reason Jack and Casey He weren’t visiting Anna Mae is that Jerry and Louise Baker got a lower court judge to ban them from seeing her back in 2001. Is this is what the Bakers twist around to call ‘abandonment’? And if Anna Mae He now thinks of her rightful parents as “monsters” that most likely has been instilled in her by her foster parents. I believe this is called brainwashing.

The Bakers believe Anna’s rights are being violated. What about her right to live with the parents God gave her? What about her right not to have her mind poisoned by foster parents who hate her parents enough to fight with Jack and Casey He in court about custody of their daughter?

Source: Supreme Court Decision Stands for Anna Mae He by Teri Whitcraft, ABC News Law & Justice Unit, published June 26, 2007.

See also: the Jack and Casey He page at FamilyRights.Us where there’s an ongoing collection of articles about the He Family since 2001.

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

From the article:

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

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

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

From the article:

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

Now, this next part hits home with me:

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

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

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

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

This week I had guests on this website that are not sympathetic to our cause. John and Brooke, who post from Texas, seem to think they are God’s gift to Unfortunate Children … in other words, they are self-righteous foster parents. See the messages they contributed to this site at Texas: “The System Is Maxed”.

Normally I have no problem with having foster parents posting here at Fight CPS. Some foster parents are loving, kind, and truly on the side of parents who want to regain custody of their children. I appreciate that they care enough to come here and give advice to suffering parents and other natural family members.

John and Brooke did not fit that description. They apparently were here to insult and annoy the suffering people who this site was created to help. Some of their comments were inappropriate and unkind, and some of those are being held in the moderation queue because they are not appropriate for this site.

At first I didn’t know they were related though it was clear that John was backing up Brooke and railing against me, including a few rude comments along the way. I’d had enough of him when John finally declared, “I am not at all simpathetic [sic] to the people who complain about removal because I don’t know if they are truthful, I know that these parents will lie or tell only part of the story to gain simpathy [sic] from anyone that will listen.”

The people who come to this site - those for whom this site is intended - do not need to be insulted by being called liars.

In retrospect it is humorous to see that John is so unfamiliar with the concept of sympathy that he cannot even spell it right.

Because of John’s rude statement, I put his future comments on moderation by putting his Texas IP number in the comment moderation box in my blog administration panel.

I was surprised when I woke up the next day and found a comment from Brooke in my moderation queue! It was then that I noticed that Brooke and John were using the same IP number!

That day John finally admitted to being a foster parent receiving money from the state. It was as I’d suspected - he has his hands in the pockets of the system and so naturally is blind to anything that might be wrong with what he’s doing. He wrote, “I couldn’t really care less about the money I am financially secure without it.”

Does that qualify him to leave comments on this system where there are hundreds of suffering parents and family members seeking help every day, insulting everyone by calling them liars? I think not, and won’t tolerate it. So I decided that John and Brooke will not have any further comments published.

Brooke posted one more time - and I have not published it - her final comment remains in the moderation queue because it is an insult to another suffering parent who is trying to recover from heroin addiction. Like most people here, I’ve never tried heroin and never will, but I do not believe it is right to spew hatred and recriminations at people who are trying to recover from an addiction, as Brooke did in her final comment.

I honestly cannot understand why Brooke and John were so intent on posting here. They have no respect for the people who come to this site for help, and don’t have a clue as to why I started and maintain this site. They have their foster home money and some Unfortunate Children… and yes, I’m concerned about the children in their care. If this is how they respond to suffering people, those children may be receiving similar maltreatment at the hands of these self-righteous people.

The point of this story is in the title to the post. People who come to this site should be aware it is my intention to build suffering people up, not tear them down. Tearing them down is what CPS does. I’ve known for nearly twenty years that what CPS does is find people who are going through a rough spot in life, then the caseworkers kick them while they’re down, figuratively speaking, by destroying their families.

Here at Fight CPS we must do the opposite. When suffering people come here, we must give them hope, strengthen them, build them up, love them, care for them, understand them (we are all God’s children) . . . and give them tools to use to express themselves in court so that CPS workers aren’t the only ones going in with legal paperwork, prepared for court.

John and Brooke, be gone. We don’t need anyone telling people they have problems. Everyone who gets involved with CPS is aware already they’ve got a problem and/or made mistakes. They don’t need you stuffing your recriminations down their throats. God help the children you’re warehousing for the state.

…

* I know the exact city their IP number comes from but am concealing that information, for now.

Two Texas toddlers have been placed in a fosterincarceration home for smoking pot. Their mother stands accused of falling asleep on the job. While asleep, two teenagers shared their stash with the toddlers, so the mom is not allowed to take care of her own kids.

If this is the only reason CPS is keeping those babies from their mother, it is a travesty. Why not just tell her the teenagers abused her kids, and warn her to keep the kids safe from the immature pot smoking teens? Why rip the babies from their mother?

Of course, I don’t know the people involved. All I know is what was written in a very short article, linked below. Most parents would respond positively toward a stiff warning; no need to tear the family apart and traumatize the kids. The mother didn’t give them the pot. Why blame her? Probably at least 90% of parents rely on teen babysitters at some time or another. So she chose the wrong one. What kind of crime is that?

Source: Pot-smoking toddlers placed in foster care