Hello Everyone!
OK, I am going to guess that most of you know enough of our story
from other group postings that I can go forth with the new without
making this a VERY VERY long post instead of just a very long post(if
you need more info, let me know)!
We received a call from our daughter this morning to update us on the
situation with our grandkids.  It seems that she received a call from
the CASA volunteer last night (she must have a very guilty concious
to even make the call) to let her know that the kids have been placed
in a foster-adopt home that is very far from our home town.  Well,
needless to say, our daughter became extremely upset!  She called her
court appointed attorney several times today before getting him to
answer and all he would do is verify that indeed they were placed in
a foster adopt home and that yes it was far from our county.  He
stated he knew this and yet he had not informed our daughter of this
very vital fact.  He also told her that they would have a hard time
getting a TPR as she finished her treatment plan which has already
been established in court.  He also informed of another fact she did
not know.  When they returned the kids to her instead of us in late
July, they gave her back LEGAL and physical custody.  He also told
her that when they pulled the kids two weeks ago that they obviously
had lied to her because they most likely would be going for the TPR
on grounds of abandonment.  Well, yes she did go to Denver, but at
the court hearing to dismiss, which changed to going for a change of
venue (which the DSS caseworker did not show up to) the judge told
our daughter that she would grant a change of venue once she had
established herself in Denver - good job, sufficient income,
appropriate housing, etc.  Another hearing was scheduled for the next
Monday (almost two weeks ago) so that the DSS caseworker could be
present.  Well, on Wednesday when they came to pick up the kids they
told our daughter not to tell the kids that she was going to get
everything set up and that they could come back to her when she had
finished doing what the 'judge ladies' had said because that might
not happen.  Our daughter didn't know what to make of that, but the
kids were taken into 'temporary' foster care from what she believed
and she was off to Denver.  Well, on Friday two weeks ago tomorrow,
the DSS caseworker called her shortly before the shelter hearing to
let her know about the hearing.  Obviously she could not make it down
in time to attend the hearing.  This is obviously how they will get
her on the abandonment issue!  Well, later that afternoon just before
business close, the DSS caseworker called and asked her to
voluntarily sign off her rights to the kids.  She basically told them
to shove it, that they were her children, and that she was going to
fight for them.  The caseworker proceeded to tell her that they would
be filing for termination of the children and that she had already
found a home that would adopt all four of them.  Her attorney
inofrmed her that he doesnt know what to do!  Can you believe that?
I told her she should seriously think about firing him and requesting
another attorney.  I also told her to ask that the GAL be changed as
she had not returned anyones call for months and in fact another GAL
stood in for her at the hearing to dismiss that was re-scheduled but
which also never took place.  Very confusing, I know, but that is
what DSS is trying to do.  Our daughter was not even supposed to tell
us taht the kids had gone into foster care again - she was just
supposed to go to Denver, get herself set up, and keep us out of it.
Well, that is because (according to my psych eval) I am a control
freak with a very high IQ (not bragging, just stating facts) and they
knew I would not rest until I got this whole thing reversed.
Now, here is where I/we need help.  Please correct me if I am wrong,
but they cannot go for termination until the children have been in
the legal custody of the state for 15 out of 22 months.  At this
point, the case has been open for 12 1/2 months, and Sarah, according
to her attorney, had physical and legal custody for 2 out of the 12
1/2 months almost to the day.  When the kids were with us for those 7
1/2 months at the beginning of the case we did not have legal
custody.  We are believing that they placed them in the foster/adopt
home at this point so they can establish a bond with the kids until
they have that 15 months under their belt.  That would be about 4 1/2
months from now.
It is obvious to anyone and everyone at this point that these people
are doing whatever they can to discredit us and our daughter, as we
all have established extreme bonds with these children.  They have my
felony record against me, although they knew about it before they
were placed with us and DSS had paid me to do their childcare from
the day they were born and granted me a kinship caregiver daycare
license regardless of my record.  They also have my husbands past
drug abuse problem - he has been clean and sober for over 3 years
(since before Jacob was born), and also have his mental health issues
on their side again, even though they knew about all these things
before they were placed with us and while they argued at the initial
shelter hearing against placement with us, the judge granted us
kinship custody.  They also have a letter from my husbands mental
health caregivers - both psychiatrist and therapist - saying that he
is not a danger to himself or others and that he is following his
treatment plan and is on his meds and has not had another incident
since his meds were regulated.
With all of this information at your disposal, we need to know what
to do at this point.  We are considering filing a motion to retun the
kids to our custody with a huge amount of attachments that will show
the childrens' bond with us, that Jacob was with us since birth up
until they were all removed from our home on May 16th of this year,
and in fact was not in our daughter's home when they did the initial
investigation of D&N in September of 2005.  He had never been in her
care or custody and we believe that he, at the very least, should be
returned to us based on these facts.  No formal paperwork was ever
done, so I guess they have that on their side.  We also can get
letters from teachers, therapists for the children, tax records
showing we filed with them as dependants, receipts showing we have
purchased their needed items (clothing, diapers, pull-ups, furniture,
food, etc.) for their entire lives, letters from family and friends
stating that they were never in danger while in our care, certificate
of completion from a class I took on dealing with children with
mental health issues like ADHD, RAD, ODD, etc., that Sarah had signed
a paper giving us custody of the three boys for the year previous to
them being taken by DSS, and so much more.
We know what they have been up to since they took the kids from us
last May, we know what they are up to now, and we need to know how to
specifically fight this so that we can bring our children back home
where they belong.  We have a bond with them that cannot be broken,
but don't want to wait 12-15 years to see that again.
We are in Colorado and at this point, we need to know how to reverse
what they are doing.  We will do whatever we need to do at this point
to save our precious babies.  They have flown under the radar - which
is what they are so good at - want to line their pockets with more
money in getting all four adopted, give another family the adoption
subsidy that we should at this very time be getting (although I
really don't care about that), and to take us down because they can!
We have nothing to lose at this point, but we also do not have any
money for an attorney.  They broke us in that they knew we would
supply whatever the kids needed and waited until we had sold
everything, had lost our home (partly due to the fact that it
flooded, our landlord didn't make her house payments, and the house
is in foreclosure).  A month ago we were taking them to school and
daycare every day because they said they would pull them from the
home if we didn't.  And yet they didn't want us to have any time
alone with the kids - Sarah had to be present for us to visit with
them and we were not allowed to take them anywhere, except of course
to school and daycare and back home.
If anyone has the time to point us in the direction we need to go at
this point, help us to get started, and offer support along the way,
we would be eternally grateful.
What these people are doing is an absolute sin against all that is
holy within a family.  We are a tight knit family, and despite our
hurtful, sinful pasts, we are good Christians who only want what is
in God's Plan for our grandchildren and for our children as well.  We
believe that God wants us to continue to fight because He keeps
placing new information in front of us with which to fight.  Please,
these children need us, they have an unbreakable bond with us,
especially our Jacob.  We know that they are hurting desperately as
they have not even gotten past the last time they were in foster care
and need us to help them become the sweet little angels that they
were once - not the scared, angry, emotionally stunted angels they
have become.  I know DSS and the GAL blame these issues on us, but
they were making real progress when they were with us and these did
not come up until they were placed in foster care and I have
therapists to vouch for this.
If there is anyone who can help us to fight this enourmas, incredibly
important fight that is truly vital to anyone with children because
this happens everyday somewhere, we will do anything for your
assistance.  I know many of you have your own desperate fights to
fight and somehow we must all do what we have to for our own
families, but someone once told me to let the controlling nature go
and to ask for help when I need it.  Well, I am asking and can only
hope and pray that God will place this letter with the right precious
soul to assist us in our journey back to our precious grandchildren.
May God be with each of you in your struggles and in your blessings.
May He continue to Bless each of us and to put faith in the hearts of
all of our babies that they will KNOW that we are all fighting
for "THE BEST INTRESTS OF THE CHILD"!
God Bless,
Leona & Ron
Pueblo, CO
719 406-4261
jusnanale28@...
jusnanale28@...

I have a 16 year old in foster care..How much does the state get per
child??? Are they all done with her when she turns 18?? or if she goes
to college she remains a foster child?? How can they give guardianship
and fostercare services at the same time ??? Do I have any rights as
far as vaccinations and baptism goes,,,or is it the fancy word for
TPR..I really need some help here as I havent gotten a heads up on the
probate court hearing yet and I cannot afford an atty..although the
DCYF will be walking the foster parents ie/relatives thru the whole
proccess.....PS I was charged with neglect..it was trumped up and I am
innocent...but my daughter wants money and my family has plenty..is
there anyone that can help me??? its a long story and it is the most
unjust thing that has ever happened to me ..I am realing with pain and
anguish..she has been totally brainwashed.I am on disability .Please
tell me if you can if I have any rights once they get what they
want...I am in serious hurt here..THANX

Screening by any other name...

Your fax or call is needed NOW to the members of the Senate Appropriations
Committee to vote NO on AB 2881. This measure requires any state-supported
preschool to complete a "desired results developmental profile" on every
child enrolled. The profile is a 7-page check-off survey that includes
behavior, emotions and attitudes as well as motor skills, language, etc.

[The profile is from the California Education Department's website--they
have one of these for every age group from birth up. The website address is
http://www.cde.ca.gov. You can find them by searching the site for
"developmental profile." Note, that these are under ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES,
which means that the preschools are expected to have children meet these
"desired results developmental profile" standards.]

State preschools in California already use this profile as part of their
contract with the State Department of Education in order to get funding.
Contracting procedures can be changed, but this bill, AB 2881, would put it
into the law.

The profiling is done without parents' information or consent. This is a
violation of parental rights, and can easily lead to the labeling and
drugging of preschool children with psychotropic drugs to make them fit the
"desired" pattern. The parent is simply coaxed or made worried about "bad
consequences of untreated mental illness" or just threatened outright if
they balk.


Clearly state in your letter that you want the Senator to VOTE NO on AB
2881. Keep it short, and take up only ONE of the topics below in your own
words. TALK ABOUT MONEY. Address your letter "Dear Senator Member" or "Dear
Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee." Please fax only during
business hours, as sometimes faxes coming in overnight are tossed in the
trash. You can send letters by mail to Senator __________, State Capitol,
Sacramento, CA 95814. BE SURE TO SEND A HARD COPY OF YOUR LETTER BY MAIL TO
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, STATE CAPITOL, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814.

Please separately send me a sample copy of your letter to
cassandra1444@... or fax it to 323-667-0115.

Suggested topics:

1) "Developmental profiling" can so easily be twisted to psychiatric
"labeling and drugging." This is already rampant in our schools. It has no
place in preschools. No funding for this "reorganization" of preschools!
2) No "profiling" of any child should be done without the parents' informed
consent. This is already the standard for grade schools. Requiring profiling
makes preschoolers a target for the money-motivated psychiatric industry.
3) Today "help." Tomorrow "mandatory standards." Profiling has no useful
place in handling 3-year olds except to enforce conformity and hoodwink
parents into thinking there is something inherently "wrong" with their
child. No funding for making these law.

Love,

Cassandra

Senate Appropriations Committee Members:
Senator Kevin Murray (Chair)phone 916-651-4026; fax 916-445-8899
Senator Samuel Aanestad (Vice-Chair)phone 916-651-4004; fax 916-445-7750
Senator Richard Alarcon phone 916-651-4020; fax 916-324-6645
Senator Elaine Alquist, phone 916-651-4013; fax 916-324-0283
Senator Roy Ashburn, phone 916-651-4018; fax 916-322-3304
Senator Jim Battin, phone 916-651-4037; fax 916-327-2187
Senator Robert Dutton, phone 916-651-4031; fax 916-327-2272
Senator Martha Escutia, phone 916-651-4030; fax 916-327-8755
Senator Dean Florez, phone 916-651-4016; fax 916-327-5989
Senator Deborah Ortiz, phone 916-651-4006; fax 916-323-2263
Senator Charles Poochigian, phone 916-651-4014
Senator Gloria Romero, phone 916-651-4024; fax 916-445-0485
Senator Tom Torlakson, phone 916-651-4007; fax 916-445-2527/ P>
BY MAIL:
Senate Appropriations Committee, State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814
Senator________, State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/06/abuse.nys.regs.htm
  Please read this I am mom to Mic 5 yrs old downsyndrome and autism if
this is not child abuse I dont know what is. I am looking for letters
to present at the meeting for a public formum in Albany on aug 8 anyone
willing to write I will copy and take them and present to the state.
Thank you Laurie Drago

Here is a link   http://www.state.in.us/dcs/policies/cwmanual.html    and if you
click on #5 for Interstate Compact, do you see anything in there that says I
have to be a foster parent in Indiana through the interstate compact to have my
grandchildren placed with me, they are in foster homes in KY. I kinds read
through it but I didnt see anything saying I had to become a foster parent, but
maybe I missed something, I did see you had to have a home study done though.
                                          Thanks
                                              Belinda



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Protecting children
New state team should aid massive area abuse problem
FLINT
THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Children who are victims of sexual and severe physical abuse in
Genesee County may soon see a ray of hope. The local office of the
state Department of Human Services has tapped nine of its 49 Child
Protective Services caseworkers to work exclusively on these types of
cases here.

Severe child abuse is rampant in our county. According to the Child
Advocacy Center of Genesee County, which conducts forensic interviews
with victims, we have the second-highest number of confirmed cases of
sexual and severe physical abuse in the state, a number that is twice
the national average.

In 2005, 499 county children were removed from their homes because of
abuse or neglect.

The effects of such heartbreaking abuse are far-reaching, rippling
out to future generations. Mistreated young people often have
difficulty in school and in their relationships. They are at a
greater risk of becoming victimizers when they grow up. Even those
who do not become abusers often lead difficult lives as adults
because of the horrors they experienced in childhood.

Ferreting out abuse after the fact is a poor substitute for
prevention, which is why all adults - teachers, health care workers,
clergy, family members, neighbors - need to pay closer attention to
the plight of children. Still, this new unit is better than letting
more youngsters slip through the gaps in the current safety net.

That's apparently what happened to Rose Kelley. The Flint 5-year-old
died in June in a filthy, lice-infested home. She had been sick for
days, but her parents did not seek medical care. Even though the
family had come to the attention of DHS previously, nothing was done
to remove Rose or her siblings from the home.

It can be hoped that the new unit, staffed with well-trained
caseworkers who have volunteered for this emotionally taxing duty,
will have better success in spotting cases of abuse before they lead
to tragedy. Removing children from homes, or their victimizers, and
getting them appropriate therapy can mitigate their trauma. The
county's children in abusive environments deserve every effort to end
their suffering.

***




©2006 Flint Journal
© 2006 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

Trial set over care of Rose's siblings
By Paul Janczewski
pjanczewski@... • 810.766.6333

http://www.mlive.com/newslogs/fljournal/index.ssf?/mtlogs/mlive_flint
journalextra/archives/2006_07.html#165087

[Comments by Terry Bankert -trb]

A trial is scheduled for Oct. 25 to determine if the court will take
jurisdiction of three surviving siblings of a young girl who police
said died in squalor in her Flint home.

The trial, before Genesee Probate Judge Robert E. Weiss, will
include expert witnesses for prosecutors and defense attorneys to
try to determine if Rose Kelley died because of neglect.

[Our child neglect system can be measured by how it works in this
case. The media and community have condemned these parents. But the
inevitable result will be that several other children will never see
their parents again after these proceeding are over.-trb]

Dr. Ljubisa J. Dragovic, the Oakland County medical examiner,
earlier ruled that 5-year-old Rose Kelley's death was a homicide. He
said the child died from a liver disease compounded by neglect.

Weiss said he expects the trial to last about two weeks.

Assistant Genesee County Prosecutor Marcie M. Mabry and attorneys •
representing Michelle Bowen, the mother of all four children; the
father of Bowen's oldest child; the father of her three youngest
children, including Rose; and the surviving children • will meet
Sept. 19 at a pretrial to make sure that all records, reports and
other documents have been exchanged.

Weiss also ordered the parents to have no contact with the surviving
children.

[What justice is served here? What is in the minds of the other
children? Give me a break The actors in the system have prejudged
and determined to protect their witnesses by no further parental
contact. The judge had no choice, the DHS supervisors made the
safest decision for them selves not for the children.-trb]

Michelle Bowen, 31, and Jeffrey C. Kelley, 30, appeared in court
with their attorneys but had no comment on the rulings.

Besides Rose, they are also parents to a boy, 6, and a girl, 2.

Jeffrey Mitchell, who fathered a girl, 10, with Bowen, was not in
court.

A report from an official from the state Department of Human
Services indicated those children would be better off without any
further contact with the parents, Mabry said.

[Lets see the report. How can ,on Gods green earth, it be in the
hurt confused children interest that they not see parents which may
be the only people on the planet that can console them. The
prosecutor and DHS workers are playing to the media.-trb]



http://attorneybankert.com/

July 22, 2006 The Charleston Gazette: Child abuse

Broken system
Which abused child most deserves help — the poor one or the rich one? Too
bad it’s not a hypothetical trick question.
The federal government disburses money to states for foster care based on
the income of children who are taken away from their parents, and even sets
up a creepy incentive that could make states less likely to pull
upper-income children out of abusive situations.
The money in question is often referred to as Title IV-E money after a law
section that defines it. Ten years ago, Congress changed the way this money
is given to states. Since then, fewer foster children across the country
have qualified for help, and the amount of federal money going to states for
abused and neglected children has shrunk, according to a new report from the
Child Welfare League of America.
Two things happened: First, in 1996, Congress decreed that states could
collect this money only for taking care of children whose families were poor
enough to qualify for the old welfare program, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children. Second, although that program no longer exists, today’s
families are still judged by those 1996 income limits. The limit makes no
allowance for inflation. So, West Virginia may not be able to collect any
money to care for an abused child from a poor family, if that family’s
income is above a limit set 10 years ago.
States spend countless hours trying to comply with the tricky rules. West
Virginia, for example, had appalling reviews for several years, then cracked
down and received a glowing audit. Performance slipped again in recent years
  said Margaret Waybright, commissioner for the state Bureau for Children and
Families. Perhaps partly because the process was automated, partly because
of staff turnover, the state’s rate of foster children qualifying for aid
dropped.
Waybright pulled a team of workers off other duties to figure out how to
collect this federal money within the rules. Meanwhile the state failed an
audit because of three cases. She appealed, and two cases were overturned
and found to be correct. The state has passed laws and invested in computer
software to generate the precise court orders needed for each child to
qualify. Complicated reviews are also necessary because children not
eligible when they first enter state care are never eligible, and a child
who is eligible at first may not remain eligible. “It is the most
complicated funding source we deal with,” Waybright said.
As the Child Welfare League observed, states must put forth a tremendous
amount of effort to comply with rules that have nothing to do with whether a
child needs protection.
West Virginia received more than $19.5 million of this foster care money
during the 2005 federal fiscal year. Waybright expects that amount to rise
with recent improvements in the state’s compliance with the complex rules.
Eight years ago, 26 percent of the state’s foster children qualified. By
2004, only 20 percent did.
The Child Welfare League recommends eliminating the income eligibility
requirement altogether. It is not as if parents who can afford it will pay
for the privilege of having their children removed from their homes.
Congress must fix what was supposed to be a temporary measure. This
unnecessary complexity robs some children of efforts by caring state aides
to find them permanent, loving homes.
http://wvgazette.com/section/Editorials/200607217

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I wrote this letter about my experience with a Kentucky Judge last week in court
over my 4 grandchildren, please read this and tell me what you think and if
theres anything I should add to it, I have sent this e-mail out already to many
people in the court systems, Indiana and Kentucky Governors, Congressmen, and
Mayors.



   I would like you to hear my story................................

          On July 18th 2006 I went to court in Covington, Ky with my
Daughter-in-law Carlene Green regarding trying to get custody back of her 4
children, I myself am trying to get my grandchildren in case they dont let her
have the children back, I WANT THEM. I had to file an interstate compact and
become a foster parent in order to get my geandchildren, I completed everything
I needed to except when it was time for the home study it was then found that I
had an educational neglect report substanciated on my record. A Report I never
knew about until I filed for a foster care license, I have a copy of the report
that states I WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE due to I moved out of state, the report
states that my 15 1/2 yr old was being homeschooled but questioned it. I indeed
had a State of Indiana Homeschool # which is 61-6260R146( The person there to
contact is Kate Clark at 317-232-9111) I am in the process of appealing this
report right now to have it sponged from my record so we
  can continue on with the foster care license.
      What happened in court on July 18th with the Honorable Judge Groathaus, it
came up that I had an educational neglect on my record stopping me from getting
the foster care license in Indiana, the Judge asked me what grade in school had
I completed and I told him the 10th grade, he then said " How could the state of
Indiana let someone that didnt even finish highschool homeschool their child, he
then said that Indiana must be failing, here is a copy of Indiana's Homeschool
Laws

   Compulsory School Age
"Earlier of the date on which the child officially enrolls in a school or
reaches the age of 7 until the date on which he reaches the age of 18."
             Indiana Legal Home Schooling Options:  1

   Option: 1
     Legal Option:
   Operate a home school as a private school
     Attendance:
   Same as the public schools; Generally, 180 days per year
     Subjects:
   None
     Qualifications:
   None
     Notice:
   None, unless specifically requested by the state superintendent of education
     Recordkeeping:
   Maintain attendance records
     Testing:
   None


   And here is a copy of Kentucky's Homeschool Laws

   Compulsory School Age
"has reached 6th birthday and has not passed 16th birthday"
             Kentucky Legal Home Schooling Options:  1

   Option: 1
     Legal Option:
   Qualify a home school as a private school
     Attendance:
   185 days
     Subjects:
   Reading, writing, spelling, grammar, history, mathematics, and civics
     Qualifications:
   None
     Notice:
   Notify the local board of education of those students in attendance within two
weeks of start of school year
     Recordkeeping:
   Maintain an attendance register and scholarship reports
     Testing:
   None


   So was the Honorable Judge Grothaus(Kenton County District Court) saying that
Kentucky must be failing too? Because it sure doesnt say anything about you have
to be a highschool graduate to homeschool your child either, now does it?
      After he said what he said he then made a Statement that he sure isn't
gonna give me these 4 children so I can homeschool them with only a 10th grade
Education. Then he went on to tell my Daughter-in-law that since she's only at a
3rd grade reading and writing level that she isnt capable of raising 4 children
either. So how is it that at a 3rd grade level she can get a job and keep it,
Lets put a 3rd grader in her shoes and see if they can do the work she does, so
he sounded to me like he was saying she's too stupid to raise her children.
       I have read the SCR 4.300 Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct and this is
what I would like to draw to your attention.


   CANON 2: A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN
ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES

   (4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity,
and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and
others subject to the judge's direction and control.

   (5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge
shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest
bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon
race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or
socioeconomic status, and in proceedings before the judge, shall not permit
staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control
to do so.

   (7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a
proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
With regard to a pending or impending proceeding, a judge shall not initiate,
permit, or consider ex parte communications with attorneys and shall not
initiate, encourage or consider ex parte communications with parties, except
that:

   (9) A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any
court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its
outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might
substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. The judge shall require
similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's
direction and control. This Section does not prohibit judges from making public
statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public
information the procedures of the court. This Section does not apply to
proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

   (1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that
another judge has committed a violation of this Code should take appropriate
action. A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of
this Code that raises a substantial question as to the other judge's fitness for
office should inform the appropriate authority.



   E. Disqualification.

   (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited
to instances where:

   Doesnt this Honorable Judge Douglas Grothaus have to abide by this? I hope
something will be done about this matter and I will be waiting to hear back from
you.

                                     Sincerely,
                                          Belinda Green
                                              812-232-3851



---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A Times Editorial

Foster-care bombshell
Department of Children and Families officials should fully disclose the
recent report that found 75 percent of the foster children studied fell
below acceptable standards of care.

© St. Petersburg Times
published September 25, 2002



It's easy to see why former leaders of Florida's Department of Children and
Families would want to sit on the recent report from a private consultant
about Florida's foster-care system. The report was one more bombshell DCF
didn't need. But that's no excuse for holding back on information the public
has the right and need to know. DCF's new secretary, Jerry Regier, and state
leaders should ensure that the report now gets the full airing it deserves.
At DCF's request, the Alabama-based Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group
earlier this year reviewed the cases of more than 80 children statewide
under DCF's care -- and found that 75 percent fell below acceptable
standards. With alarming frequency, children were wrongly taken from parents
  bounced from foster home to foster home or ignored when their emotional or
educational needs dictated intervention. The reviewers blamed poor
coordination among caseworkers and specialists, lack of training and
inadequate resources.
DCF officials had the report months ago but chose to keep it from the public
and two panels investigating the agency until last week. They released it
only after being prodded by its critics and the media.
"Now that the document is public, we can see why DCF spent so much time and
effort to hide it," Carolyn Salisbury, associate director of the University
of Miami's Children and Youth Law Clinic, told the Sun-Sentinel.
The report is one more indictment of a system in need of radical repair.
Though its numbers are starker than previous reviews, its conclusion is the
same: Caseworkers need more time, training and tools to keep children safe
as they seek to reunite families and rebuild children's lives.
Two areas cry out for immediate change: DCF's rush to remove kids due to
conditions of poverty, and the state's failure to treat children once they
are in foster care.
As the reviewers confirmed, foster care in Florida has increasingly become a
"first step," rather than the "last resort," especially in cases involving
poverty.
In Marion County, for instance, caseworkers took a 3-year-old girl from her
mother when her house was dirty, flea-infested and barren of food. Yet, the
girl's condition worsened in foster care. DCF should never retreat on child
safety as its priority. But with better training and more resources,
caseworkers could respond to neglect or less serious abuse by bringing more
services into the home -- instead of taking the child out of it.
Once in foster care, Florida's children too often are forgotten, deprived of
the services they need to grow into healthy and productive adults.
A 13-year-old Palm Beach County boy, with a history of aggression, was
pulled from 19 foster homes in a few months -- only to wait more than a year
for a doctor-ordered brain scan necessitated by headaches and hallucinations
  An Orlando girl was bounced among foster homes so often that she fell two
years behind educationally and emotionally, without any intervention by the
state.
These cases, child experts say, just begin to scratch the surface of a deep well
of foster-care failures in Florida. It may be too late to penalize DCF's former
leaders for their failure to release the report. But state leaders still have
time -- and the duty -- to make sure some good comes from it, after all.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes I am the one trying to get a foster care license in Indiana but
due to an educational neglect report that was called in on me in
2001 regarding my 15 1/2 yr old was seen not going to school so
someone called the welfare and reported it and that they had heard
she was being homeschooled but questioned it, even though I was
unable to locate they called it a substancial neglect, I was
homeschooling my daughter at the time and I have the state ID# that
Homeschool gave me to homeschool her, I didnt find out about this
educational neglect untill I filed for a foster care license to get
my grandkids, well when I went to court in Ky last Tuesday with my
daughter-in-law to help her fight for her kids, the judge asked me
what was going on about my foster care license and I told him about
the neglect report and that I had proof to get it sponged from my
record, he asked me did I graduate and I told him I finished 10th
grade, he then made the comment that How could someone with only a
10th grade education homeschool anyone and that the State of Indiana
must be failing, well I read the homeschool laws for Indiana and KY
and low and behold neither of them say anything about you had to
graduate to homeschool your children.............Imagine
that.............so I guess he is saying that KY is failing
too....LOL, and then after he said Indiana must be failing he said
to me, theres NO WAY I'm gonna give you these 4 children so you can
screw up their lives too by homeschooling them, I have sent e-mails
to so many people high up about exactly what I'm telling you right
now, I want everyone in the United State Supreme Court, President,
Vice President, Mayor, Congressman, Governor. etc.................
to know what he said to me and how he made me feel that day in
court, I felt like I was the one on trial, By the way I got my
foster care license denial letter and have appealed it, now its only
a matter of time to get a hearing to prove myself on the educational
neglect and clear my record

                                        Belinda

Well I have my daughter-in-laws that they gave her on all 4 children
and the things in there are terrible and not true. One section in
there says how their Grandma Belinda(Me) let them watch dirty movies,
I have never watched dirty movies and have never owned any. Why would
that be said about me, also says in there that they removed the oldest
daughter and the youngest child(my grandson) that were together in a
residential foster home because the foster home was being investigated
for hitting and spanking the kids, then another foster home they put
the oldest one in, they moved her from that one because she told
social workers that the foster father was touching her below and
DIGGING in her crotch, but no investigation, they say she was lying.
The stuff in this CATS assessment is unbelievable and how do you go
about fighting to clear your name on this. About the dirty movies this
is making me look like a bad person, and I would of never done this.
This has me so upset and my nerves are shot. Those alligations against
me can harm me from ever getting my grandkids even if I got a foster
care license, what can I do to clear my name on this???
         Belinda in Indiana

God’s Promises of Salvation for Our Children !  - Benny Hinn Ministries
   God's Promises of Salvation for Your Loved Ones !  Benny Hinn Ministries $
0.00 USD

   1-800-433-1900  Item Code  PO36
    God's Promises of Salvation for Our Children !
  http://www.bennyhinn.org/shopping/productdesc.cfm/itemid/347




Lola Telmos - National Alliance For Family Court Justice  http://NAFCJ.org

  __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For The Kids
Queen and Pape!!!
Angel Femia
LoveCry

About five years ago the Riverdale Health Center opened  on Queen St.
near Boston Ave., and began to give out Methadone and needle kits to
people in the community. It seemed like a few of the Community Doctors
were handing out Oxies (a highly addictive pain killer) and other
prescribed drugs, like candy, to far too many people. These Doctors
went quietly out of business, but some of their patients were put on
Methadone to come off the Oxies or whatever (they were using), and
others just found ulterior methods of obtaining their favorite drugs..

Three summers ago Mark moved in down the street above Tasty Chickens
Bar, (one block west of Queen and Pape). Mark quickly made friends
throughout the community. At first Mark was selling meat as he was a
butcher. Then he began to sell pot and eventually, due to his partying
he began to take coke and to afford his habit he began to sell it.

LoveCry was between Queen and Pape and the Tasty Chickens Bar, on
Queen. Many of the kids LoveCry deal with have gotten themselves into
coke and crack. When they come to LoveCry it is usually to get clean.
At the time Mark decided to sell coke I had quite a few kids that had
gotten off crack and been clean for a while coming to LoveCry for Yoga
and Therapy every day. Many of the neighborhood people were clean from
coke at that time too. They always drank a lot, took the medications
given to them by doctors but very little else other then pot.

Mark began to give them testers of coke and they began to want more.
He was also lacing pot joints with coke to help his cause to grow.
Another dealer, Jerry began to flood the bars with Exstacy and Kay and
the numbers of people using grew much larger. The situation was very
painful to watch. Anyone on the side lines would attest to that.

Within a few months we found that half the community was drowning in
Coke, Kay and eventually more and more Coke was being cooked into
Crack. Many parents were either doing the drugs or screaming that
their kids were. It just kept getting worse. Using pregnant mothers
and other users screeching desperately that they wanted more in the
night, while roaming through the back ally ways behind our homes.
Verbal and physical fighting and violence everywhere. Blood and pukeon
the sidewalks many mornings when we opened our door. We had to wash it
down with bleach before we started our day. Friends and family members
horridly hooked and coming closer to death daily. They were so skinny
and had dark bags under their eyes. It truly hurt just to look at them
in such sickly conditions. The entire neighborhood was saturated. Some
people are using Methadone and Coke with Oxies and Booze, altogether.
They were Zombies.


A few of the  good hearted workers from the East Riverdale Medical
Center, Harm Reduction Clinic were sitting in the Bar, Tasty Chickens,
under Mark's apartment, on a daily basis handing out needle kits.
These kits are designed and handed out to help stop the spread of aids
on our streets.

Now the people that were going upstairs to Mark's apartment getting
very small quantities of coke, going down to the bar and getting
needle kits. They were usually in pairs or more. One would snort a
line of coke while one of the others would extract blood from the
person who had just snorted the coke. They then used the already coke
filled blood to mix the next hit of coke then they would crank the
coke/blood filled needle. This way they only needed a very little bit
of the drug to get stoned. It was hell and we had to watch our kids
and other people we loved doing this to themselves. From my view No
one seemed to give a damn.

Around the same time the bars and restaurants were forced to send
people outside to smoke. The new smoking bylaw made a real mess in
some cases. Now everyone parties on the streets at Queen and Pape as
soon as the weather permits.

The Cave, a bar (situated almost directly right under LoveCry),  had
drunk, medicated, coked out people at our door non stop. Pushers were
by this time everywhere. People were being home invaded all over the
community. Friends were stealing from friends and selling these good
to each other. It was nuts.

Several of LoveCry's kids hanging at Mark's and doing these drugs and
a great deal more. The only way to get them out of there was to hold
fast and get dirty, we did. We began to get involved by opening the
company to anyone who wanted help or food. This way we could get info
and inns to try to get the kids back out of this mess. These kids,
that had been clean for such a while were now back doing the crap and
working the strip bars and strolls. You know Becca,( she was in the
documentary with Fifth Estate last year and has a daughter Savana) and
you also know how hard it was to help her stay clean and on her feet.


The Police were not helping at all at that point in fact they had no
idea that they would be of any help   to us as they really wanted
LoveCry busted. They had for a very long time as LoveCry along with
OCAP, the Toronto Action For Social Change and many other non-profits
helping the poor open the locked can regarding "The Cherry Beach
Express"(mistreatment and abuse of some homeless by some police) years
ago.

The Police were everywhere but the users of Coke and other chemical
drugs just kept growing like a disease totally out of control. They
saw it all but only worked to bust small pot dealers and people who
help kids at street level. It seemed to everyone that they knew what
Mark and the others were doing and were just letting it happen. This
drug (coke) and the sickness of addiction  took the entire
neighborhood down and it hurt like hell to watch. I lived there
fourteen years and care for these people. They turned to wild
desperate animal-like-people because of using the coke and crack .



As I mentioned earlier, Mark had many of the LoveCry kids at his place
coked out. I had to get them out of there and clean again. The price
was rather high but the end result was saving the lives of  LoveCry Kids.


I have to thank that Judge who I stood before for bail (I am sorry but
I am bad with names) that ordered me to move myself and LoveCry away
from Queen and Pape, as well as Paul Mergler and Rocco Luciano, our
lawyers helped us get this mess straightened out. .

When the Police busted Richie and myself, due to crack dealers selling
crack outside our door and in our hall at the bottom of the steps to
the street. Paul and Rocco were right there helping us get our asses
out of jail.

The Police had heard a great deal of gossip and Mark (wanting to
divert suspicion away from himself) was making sure people heard that
at LoveCry we were selling chemicals and crack, which was a total lie.
Not much could be said in our defense as we were right in the middle
of the mess trying to get our kids out of there.

I live with cancer and anyone that knows me knows that I always have
some pot and hash in my home for medical use. This was made clear and
loud in many media articles and clips. It was never a secret. This is
what we got busted with. There were two bust on myself and Rich. The
second bust the Police only found less then a half gram of hash in my
possession.

Paul Mergler and Rocco Luciano, our lawyers helped us get this mess
straightened out.   I now have a new Medical Pot card that states I am
a Medical Pot user. I was given a complete discharge and Richie is
still in court.

I have to thank the Judge who I stood before for bail (I am sorry but
I am bad with names) that ordered me to move myself and LoveCry away
from Queen and Pape, as well as Paul Mergler and Rocco Luciano, our
lawyers helped us get this mess straightened out. .

Without the Police, the  Judge, Paul or Rocco even knowing anything
about what we were truly up to they helped save a few lives.these
lives may not mean much to others but they mean a great deal to us.

THEY ARE PARCIALLY RESPONSABLE FOR SAVING MANY LIVES, and one was an
unborn child..

I would like to thank you all for helping save the lives of:
(last names are left out by request)
Kenny, Becca, Roxie, Simon, Tabatha, Chris, Carie, Chantalle, Wayne,
Amy, Shaun, Steve, Harley, Gerry, Andrew, Jeremy, Cindy, her unborn
baby and Steve back off the coke and crack.

You see when I was ordered by the courts to move locations these kids
wanted to come too. I was forced to draw a hard line and let them know
that they had to quite using and begin to get their lives together
before they could rejoin LoveCry.

I stuck to what I said to them and much to my surprise within a few
weeks they all began to clean up. Some of them even stayed at LoveCry
to do so.

Kenny (was skidding death for almost a year) is my birth son and the
others I raised on the streets through LoveCry. My heart came back to
life when I watched them clean up.

They are all clean now and back on their feet. These are not just
names they are real people and I could not just walk away.

Mark was busted and is now in jail. I have no idea what has been going
on with the others that we had to leave there. I pray for them daily.

FOR THE KIDS!!!

Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(g),
(i), and (l); In re Miller

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re JH

e-Journal Number: 32383

Judge(s): Per Curiam – Jansen, Neff, and Zahra



The trial court did not clearly err in finding the statutory grounds
for termination of the respondent-mother's parental rights to the
minor child, JH, were established by clear and convincing evidence
and in terminating those rights. Respondent's parental rights to two
other children were allegedly previously terminated. At the time the
petition was filed, respondent did not have adequate housing and was
living with the respondent-father who had a long and continuing
history of domestic violence. Respondent admitted she had pleaded
guilty to distributing cocaine and heroin, was sentenced to 1 to 20
years imprisonment, and was released on parole after 2 years. At
trial, a caseworker admitted the mother submitted to and passed all
random drug screens, attended AA/NA meetings, completed parenting
and domestic violence classes, continued with group therapy, and on
most occasions visited with the children. She was also instrumental
in the father's criminal prosecution for assault with intent to do
great bodily harm less than murder, felony-firearm, and armed
robbery. However, reviewing the record as a whole, the court could
not conclude the trial court clearly erred in not reaching the
finding "that termination of parental rights to the child is clearly
not in the child's best interests." The trial court expressly
discounted the mother's credibility. The record showed she did not
consistently maintain adequate housing, or employment, supporting
the trial court's conclusion she was not able to provide a stable
income for JH. She also admitted she had contact with the father on
numerous occasions after her parent/agency agreement provided she
was to have no contact with him. Affirmed.

My daughter in law called me yesturday because she received the
monthly report about her youngest daughter, it keeps her up on how
her daughter is doing mentally and pyhsically, what meds she's on,
etc... There was a section in there that said on 2 different
occasions where I had called there to talk to my granddaughter that
after we hung up the phone my granddaughter(4 yrs old) went to her
foster mother and told her that her grandma(me) told her that I told
her I was coming to get her and that she didnt want to leave with
me, I was so mad and upset when my daughter in law read that to me,
I have never ever said that to my granddaughter, so because my
granddaughter reported that, the foster mother had to report it to
the caseworker, what can I do about this?
    Also court is coming up July 18th and I am wanting to show the
judge that I have at least filed an appeal on my denial for the
foster care license, but in order to appeal it I have to have the
letter of denial first and its been 3 weeks since I was told over
the phone that they were denying my license, because of the
educational neglect back in 2001 on my 15 1/2 yr old daughter(now
20) I was homeschooling her at the time and out of town on an
emergancy to help my sick mom, well I left my daughter in Indiana
with a girlfriend of mine while I would be gone for only about 2
months maybe less, during that time someone I guess reported to the
welfare they seen my daughter wasnt in school, and that they heard
she was being homeschooled but questioned it. I have proof that I
was homeschooling my daughter at that time, and I would like to
appeal it, what can I do about getting this denial letter and
putting in an appeal before July 18th.
            Belinda in Indiana

I just got my mail and low and behold I got 2 important letters, one
from the United States Senate Dick Lugar saying he has received my e-
mail regarding a complaint against a local state office charged with
administering the foster care program, he has forwarded a copy to
Governor Mitch Daniels.

  Then the other letter I got was from the Indiana Dept of Child
Services......My denial letter for the foster care license and how to
appeal it. So I am gonna send out the appeal in writing and make a
copy of it for the courts

This poem was written by a therapeutic foster child who had been in
state custody for 3 years. At the time she wrote this she was in a treatment
facility.
             A Rad Day!
   I feel so far apart,
   From the people in my heart.
   I want you here with me.
   Oh, if I could go home, I'd shout with glee.
   But as I sit in the custody of the state for years to come,
   Every feeling without you will feel so numb.
   Maybe God has a miracle stashed away,
   That he will send for me to go home... "Oh what a rad day!"
   Written by: Misty on 12/17/99 12pm Rm #17
   Dedicated to her family


             A Rad Day


             Mr Mom's Inspirational Poems & Stories

             Wonderful Sites For Your Reading Pleasure




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

my question is why would you want to be a foster
parent if you had an educational neglect on your
record?  That would be my first question, not why
didn't it show up and why did I go through all of this
only to have it later show up and now I can't be a
foster parent.  If you knew it was there, why did you
not tell someone?  Kids need a place to feel safe, to
be able to get medical attention when needed and
education, that is the law.  So sorry, but I guess I
am not understanding why you are upset if you knew it
was there.

--- Belinda <lovinindiana64@...> wrote:

> I was wondering if someone can answer this or check
> this out for me, I
> found out that when my county requested a criminal
> background check on
> me, that the Educational Neglect should of came up
> on my record. Is
> this true, and if it is why didn't the state deny me
> the foster care
> license right away and make me go through everything
> I had to go
> through to get a foster care license. I called today
> to make a
> complaint against my County and the man I spoke to
> said that when they
> got the crimimal background check it should of been
> on there, and he
> is gonna find out if it was and if it is why my
> county didnt deny my
> license right away instead of waiting a whole year,
> would anyone know
> anything about this?
>                 Belinda in Indiana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Yes, in this SC  ruling below, it has been shown that state actors, in the
discharge of their  duties under good faith, cannot be held accountable for
errors that occur during  this discharge.  So, even though this department is
responsible for your  home study, training, and background check, you cannot
hold
them responsible  because they didn't have the full report on your child abuse
history.   Pretty crazy, since in these two cases I quote, the children died.
   However, although the outcome is tragic, if the social worker didn't feel
that  the child was in danger and didn't act because of her assessment, then
they are  protected from suit.
In De Shaney v.  Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U. S.
189 (1989), the U. S.  Supreme Court held that the State did not have a
constitutional duty — absent a  special relationship — to protect its
citizens
against deprivation of life,  liberty or property committed by private third
party
actors.
The decision was  based upon Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process
grounds. The court  specifically declined to address whether procedural due
process would apply,  since De Shaney raised the issue for the first time in his
brief before the  court. Id., at 195, n. 2.
In a case decided  June 27, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005 WL 1499788,
the Supreme Court  reached the issue, and similarly ruled that a
constitutional claim for "failure  to protect" against non-State tortfeasors did
not lie
under procedural due  process.
Whereas the Court of Appeals decided that the plain text  of the law, its
legislative history and another law granting good faith immunity  from civil or
criminal penalties to officers making an arrest rendered an arrest  mandatory,
Scalia disagreed. Instead, he opined, "[a] well established tradition  of
police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest 
statutes."
He used the facts of the Gonzales case as an example where an officer  must be
afforded discretion because "the suspected violator is not actually  present
and his whereabouts are unknown.
In a message dated  7/12/2006 7:16:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lovinindiana64@...  writes:



I was wondering if someone can answer this or check this out for me, I
found out that when my county requested a criminal background check on
me, that the Educational Neglect should of came up on my record. Is
this true, and if it is why didn't the state deny me the foster care
license right away and make me go through everything I had to go
through to get a foster care license. I called today to make a
complaint against my County and the man I spoke to said that when they
got the crimimal background check it should of been on there, and he
is gonna find out if it was and if it is why my county didnt deny my
license right away instead of waiting a whole year, would anyone know
anything about this?
Belinda in Indiana









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was wondering if someone can answer this or check this out for me, I
found out that when my county requested a criminal background check on
me, that the Educational Neglect should of came up on my record. Is
this true, and if it is why didn't the state deny me the foster care
license right away and make me go through everything I had to go
through to get a foster care license. I called today to make a
complaint against my County and the man I spoke to said that when they
got the crimimal background check it should of been on there, and he
is gonna find out if it was and if it is why my county didnt deny my
license right away instead of waiting a whole year, would anyone know
anything about this?
                 Belinda in Indiana

How does one go about putting out their BLOG and Petition for more
people to be able to see and read? I only have about 200 signatures
and I would like to get a bunch more before I go to court next week. I
know some members have told me that a Petition wont do me any good,
but I want my message to go out to the world and other people that are
dealing with what I'm dealing with to see what someone goes through
dealing with the state welfare systems.
       Belinda in Indiana

He If I knew it would be the last time that
I'd see you fall asleep,
I would tuck you in more tightly
and pray the Lord your soul to keep.

If I knew it would be the last time
that I see you walk out the door,
I would give you a hug and kiss
and call you back for more.

If I knew it would be the last time
I'd hear your voice lifted up in praise,
I would video tape each action and word,
so I could play them back day after day.

If I knew it would be the last time,
I could spare an extra minute or two,
To stop and say " I love you,"
instead of assuming you KNOW I do.

If I knew it would be the last time
I would be there to share your day,
Well I'm sure you'll have so many more,
so I can let just this one slip away.

For surely there's alway's tomorrow
to make up for an oversight,
And we always get a second chance
to make everything alright.

There will always be another day
to say our "I love you's",
And certainly there's another chance
to ask our "Anything I can do's?".


So if your waiting for tomorrow,
why not do it today?


For if tomorrow never comes,
you'll surely regret the day,


That you didn't take the extra time
for a smile, a hug, a kiss,
And you were too busy to grant someone,
what turned out to be their one last wish.


So hold your loved ones close today,
whisper in their ear,
Tell them how much you love them
and you'll always hold them dear.


Take time to say " I'm sorry,"
" please forgive me,"
" thank you " or
" it's okay ".


And if tomorrow never comes,
You'll have no regrets about today.


Written by Joanie and Gina.

(Mother and Daughter)






                                                
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/796764101


























---------------------------------
Sneak preview the  all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just
radically better.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Foster child adoption push investigated
REPORT: STATE UNJUSTLY TERMINATES PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR FEDERAL MONEY
By Valarie Honeycutt Spears
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
I e-mailed this Valerie Honeycutt Spears and OH MY GOD she called me
awhile ago, I was shocked. I told her my story and she said she is
gonna check into it and call me back, then about an hour or two
after she called some guy from the Kentucky welfare system calls me
and said that if I really want the kids then I will move to KY and
NOW, once there I will have to go to counsiling with the kids, visit
them on their visits, they will then do supervised home visits in my
home(there in KY) of course. And this process will go on for about
90 day to 6 months after I move there. Once they feel that the kids
are comfortable with living with me, they will close the case and I
am more than welcome to bring them back to Indiana where I own a
house at. But I might have to stay there for 6 months, I told them I
will do whatever it takes to get my grandkids, so I am moving to
Kentucky so I can bring my grandbabies home where they belong. I
can't wait

                                                           Belinda

This Great State Of Michigan?

   You see here in Michigan our DHS dept. offer parents services that wouldn't
change
   the title wave of eliminating their parental rights, but just something to say
we did
   offer them services, or as simple  as this can be said in our courtroom, " the
   parents didn't benefit from our services."( No Checks & Balance) After all our
   DHS case workers are officers of the court.

   PARENTS EDUCATE YOURSELVES!
   We just play a game that looks like what was done, was the right way things
are
   to be done, after all who is going to take it up to the Federal court level
anyway?

   Education! parents must do today in order to be able to protect their family
rights.

   From,
   Karon

Hello I have been fighting to get my 4 grandchildren out of the foster care
system in Kentucky for almost a year now with no luck, please read my Blog and
the Petiton that I have started, and maybe together we can help bring these
children home.
                             Thanks and God Bless

   After reading my Blog please send me any comments that might help me to better
fight for my Grandchildren.

   http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/796764101

   http://imnotreadytosaygoodbye.blogspot.com/



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And where were the  inhome services required under title XX and under  AFSA
to keep the family unified??? What rehab was the mother placed in on the  state
of MI?


In a message dated 6/30/2006 11:51:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
attorneybankert@... writes:





Termination of Parental Rights , MICHIGAN COURT OF  APPEALS ON LINE
06/29/06
Issues: Termination of parental rights  pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i)Is
(g), and (j); The children's best  interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In  re Bartlett
e-Journal Number: 32232
Judge(s): Memorandum – Davis,  Sawyer, and Schuette
The trial court did not clearly err in finding the  petitioner proved
by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or  more
statutory grounds for the termination of the respondent-mother'statut
rights to her three children and in terminating those rights.
Petitioner sought termination based primarily on the physical
neglect  of the children and respondent's substance abuse. Testimony
showed  respondent provided only 14 drug screens of the 67 requested.
Two of the  screens were positive for alcohol and marijuana.
Respondent admitted at  the termination hearing she drank alcohol and
continued to use marijuana.  Respondent also did not have a plan to
provide for her children and she  was not able to care for them at
that time or in the near future.  Respondent testified in 2002, she
was hospitalized because of domestic  violence involving the
children's father, who apparently "cut" her during  a fight. The
incident of domestic violence and respondent's history of  drug use
posed a risk of harm to the children. There was a reasonable
likelihood the children would be harmed if returned to respondent's
home. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Whether the trial court  properly terminated respondent's
parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(g)  and (h); Best interests of
the children
Court: Michigan Court of  Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Blalock
e-Journal Number: 32233
Judge(s): Memorandum – Davis, Sawyer, and Schuette
The trial court  correctly found the statutory bases for termination
of the  respondent-father'of the  respondent-father'<WBR>s p
children were  established by clear and convincing evidence and in
terminated his rights.  At the time of trial, respondent was
incarcerated with a maximum sentence  of eight years. Because of the
incarceration, he was unable to provide  proper care and custody of
the children. There was no evidence as to when  he would be eligible
for parole or released. Based on the recent  eight-year sentence, the
trial court did not clearly err in finding the  children would be
deprived of a normal home for more than two years.  Further, there
was evidence after his release, respondent would need at  least six
months to be able to provide the children with proper care and
custody. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding there
was no reasonable expectation the respondent would be able to
provide  proper care and custody for the children within a reasonable
time,  considering their ages. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Termination  pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j); Whether the
respondent-mother'respondent-mother'<WBR>s  parental rights were
Court: Michigan Court of  Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Blevins
e-Journal Number:  32188
Judge(s): Memorandum – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The  respondent-mother failed to cite any authority to support her
claim she  should have been allowed more time to regulate her
medication before her  parental rights were terminated, and the court
concluded even if it was to  consider her argument, it would find it
was without merit. Respondent had  months in which her medication
could have been regulated. Her mental  health was an issue from the
beginning. While she initially addressed the  issue so the child was
returned to her care, testimony showed respondent  subsequently began
exhibiting "bizarre" behavior, which continued over the  next few
months to the point where she endangered the child by "yanking"  him
through traffic and then hitting him. There was testimony respondent
was fine as long as she was monitored, but when she did not take her
medication, she was "someone totally different." The trial court
could  not continue monitoring her indefinitely. Respondent failed to
provide  proper care and custody for the child. Affirmed.
Full Text  Opinion
Issues: Whether the trial court properly terminated respondent's
parental rights pursuant to § 19b(3)(b)(i)parental rights purs
Jurisdiction; In re BZ; Evidentiary standards (MCR 3.977); Whether
the  trial court properly shifted the burden of proof to respondent
as to the  child's best interests; Harmless error
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals  (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Boudro
e-Journal Number: 32180
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The trial court did  not clearly err in basing the termination of the
respondent-father'respondent-father'<WBR>s  parental rights on
terminating those rights. The  child's testimony provided clear and
convincing evidence she had been  sexually abused and respondent was
the perpetrator. Given respondent's  continued denial of and refusal
to accept responsibility for the abuse, it  was reasonably likely the
child would be abused during any potential  future contact with him.
The trial court committed harmless error when it  shifted the burden
of proof to respondent concerning the child's best  interests. The
trial court did not accept respondent's argument the child  was
coached. Also, respondent's life was very unstable with repeated
incarcerations and criminal activity. The fact the child was in a
guardianship protected her from much of respondent's abuse and
instability. However, she was still at risk during visitations, and
evidence was presented the child had conflicting feelings about
respondent. On one hand, she professed her love for him and clearly
missed him. But she was also anxious the respondent would come and
get  her. Even the child's mother, who did not believe the abuse
allegations,  admitted telling a caseworker the child cried at the
prospect of being  alone with respondent. The trial court did not
clearly err in finding  termination was in the child's best
interests. Affirmed.
Full Text  Opinion
Issues: Termination pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i)Issues: Termination pursua
court's admission of a letter into evidence; In re Gilliam; Harmless
error; Children's best interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals  (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Root
e-Journal Number: 32187
Judge(s):  Memorandum – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The trial court did not abuse its  discretion in admitting a letter
into evidence and did not clearly err in  determining the statutory
grounds for termination of the  respondent-mother'grounds for termin
were established by clear and  convincing evidence. Unlike the
situation in Gilliam, the supplemental  petition did not seek
termination of respondent's parental rights based on  changed or new
circumstances. While the supplemental petition detailed  respondent's
failure to comply with the treatment plan, her attending only  three
therapy sessions was not a "new circumstance" on which petitioner
sought termination – the evidence was simply offered to prove she
was  unable to provide proper care or custody for the children. The
evidence  clearly showed respondent failed to comply with the
treatment plan and she  made only minimal progress in the almost year
and a half since the  children entered foster care. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues:  Termination of both respondents' parental rights; The
children's best  interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In  re Turlin
e-Journal Number: 32184
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Kelly,  Markey, and Meter
The trial court properly terminated the parental rights  of both the
respondents-respondents-<WBR>parents to the two minor children. In 2
agents raided respondents' home and arrested them on drug charges.
The next day, the children (four years and seven months old) were
taken into temporary custody and placed with their paternal
grandmother. The mother pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 27
months  in federal prison, and the father also pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to  10 years in prison. The mother was released to a
Michigan halfway house  after serving 22 months. Several months
later, she was reincarcerated for  violating her probation by failing
to timely return to the halfway house.  She spent 58 days in prison
and missed the first face-to-face meeting with  the four-year old.
Both the caseworker and the four-year old's therapist  recommended
termination of both respondents' parental rights. The  caseworker
focused on the mother's lack of stability since her release  from
prison, noting her probation violation and a marriage to a man with
a lengthy criminal history. The therapist was concerned about the
psychological damage to the children if they were removed from their
home with the grandmother and placed back with the mother. The
psychologist, who evaluated the mother's parenting skills after her
release from prison, testified she had the intellectual ability to
parent, but also expressed concerns about the harm to the children
if  they were removed from their grandmother'if  they were removed fro
court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights under §  19b
(3)(j), the court held in light of evidence supporting termination
under a separate statutory ground, the error was harmless.  Affirmed.

Question?
Terry bankert
_http://attorneybankhttp://a_ (http://attorneybankert.com/)








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Termination of Parental Rights , MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ON LINE
06/29/06
Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j); The children's best interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Bartlett
e-Journal Number: 32232
Judge(s): Memorandum – Davis, Sawyer, and Schuette
The trial court did not clearly err in finding the petitioner proved
by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more
statutory grounds for the termination of the respondent-mother's
rights to her three children and in terminating those rights.
Petitioner sought termination based primarily on the physical
neglect of the children and respondent's substance abuse. Testimony
showed respondent provided only 14 drug screens of the 67 requested.
Two of the screens were positive for alcohol and marijuana.
Respondent admitted at the termination hearing she drank alcohol and
continued to use marijuana. Respondent also did not have a plan to
provide for her children and she was not able to care for them at
that time or in the near future. Respondent testified in 2002, she
was hospitalized because of domestic violence involving the
children's father, who apparently "cut" her during a fight. The
incident of domestic violence and respondent's history of drug use
posed a risk of harm to the children. There was a reasonable
likelihood the children would be harmed if returned to respondent's
home. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Whether the trial court properly terminated respondent's
parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(g) and (h); Best interests of
the children
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Blalock
e-Journal Number: 32233
Judge(s): Memorandum – Davis, Sawyer, and Schuette
The trial court correctly found the statutory bases for termination
of the respondent-father's parental rights to the three minor
children were established by clear and convincing evidence and in
terminated his rights. At the time of trial, respondent was
incarcerated with a maximum sentence of eight years. Because of the
incarceration, he was unable to provide proper care and custody of
the children. There was no evidence as to when he would be eligible
for parole or released. Based on the recent eight-year sentence, the
trial court did not clearly err in finding the children would be
deprived of a normal home for more than two years. Further, there
was evidence after his release, respondent would need at least six
months to be able to provide the children with proper care and
custody. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding there
was no reasonable expectation the respondent would be able to
provide proper care and custody for the children within a reasonable
time, considering their ages. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Termination pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j); Whether the
respondent-mother's parental rights were terminated prematurely
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Blevins
e-Journal Number: 32188
Judge(s): Memorandum – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The respondent-mother failed to cite any authority to support her
claim she should have been allowed more time to regulate her
medication before her parental rights were terminated, and the court
concluded even if it was to consider her argument, it would find it
was without merit. Respondent had months in which her medication
could have been regulated. Her mental health was an issue from the
beginning. While she initially addressed the issue so the child was
returned to her care, testimony showed respondent subsequently began
exhibiting "bizarre" behavior, which continued over the next few
months to the point where she endangered the child by "yanking" him
through traffic and then hitting him. There was testimony respondent
was fine as long as she was monitored, but when she did not take her
medication, she was "someone totally different." The trial court
could not continue monitoring her indefinitely. Respondent failed to
provide proper care and custody for the child. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Whether the trial court properly terminated respondent's
parental rights pursuant to § 19b(3)(b)(i); In re Miller;
Jurisdiction; In re BZ; Evidentiary standards (MCR 3.977); Whether
the trial court properly shifted the burden of proof to respondent
as to the child's best interests; Harmless error
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Boudro
e-Journal Number: 32180
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The trial court did not clearly err in basing the termination of the
respondent-father's parental rights on § 19b(3)(b)(i) and in
terminating those rights. The child's testimony provided clear and
convincing evidence she had been sexually abused and respondent was
the perpetrator. Given respondent's continued denial of and refusal
to accept responsibility for the abuse, it was reasonably likely the
child would be abused during any potential future contact with him.
The trial court committed harmless error when it shifted the burden
of proof to respondent concerning the child's best interests. The
trial court did not accept respondent's argument the child was
coached. Also, respondent's life was very unstable with repeated
incarcerations and criminal activity. The fact the child was in a
guardianship protected her from much of respondent's abuse and
instability. However, she was still at risk during visitations, and
evidence was presented the child had conflicting feelings about
respondent. On one hand, she professed her love for him and clearly
missed him. But she was also anxious the respondent would come and
get her. Even the child's mother, who did not believe the abuse
allegations, admitted telling a caseworker the child cried at the
prospect of being alone with respondent. The trial court did not
clearly err in finding termination was in the child's best
interests. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Termination pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); Trial
court's admission of a letter into evidence; In re Gilliam; Harmless
error; Children's best interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Root
e-Journal Number: 32187
Judge(s): Memorandum – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a letter
into evidence and did not clearly err in determining the statutory
grounds for termination of the respondent-mother's parental rights
were established by clear and convincing evidence. Unlike the
situation in Gilliam, the supplemental petition did not seek
termination of respondent's parental rights based on changed or new
circumstances. While the supplemental petition detailed respondent's
failure to comply with the treatment plan, her attending only three
therapy sessions was not a "new circumstance" on which petitioner
sought termination – the evidence was simply offered to prove she
was unable to provide proper care or custody for the children. The
evidence clearly showed respondent failed to comply with the
treatment plan and she made only minimal progress in the almost year
and a half since the children entered foster care. Affirmed.
Full Text Opinion
Issues: Termination of both respondents' parental rights; The
children's best interests
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Turlin
e-Journal Number: 32184
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Kelly, Markey, and Meter
The trial court properly terminated the parental rights of both the
respondents-parents to the two minor children. In 2003, federal
agents raided respondents' home and arrested them on drug charges.
The next day, the children (four years and seven months old) were
taken into temporary custody and placed with their paternal
grandmother. The mother pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 27
months in federal prison, and the father also pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to 10 years in prison. The mother was released to a
Michigan halfway house after serving 22 months. Several months
later, she was reincarcerated for violating her probation by failing
to timely return to the halfway house. She spent 58 days in prison
and missed the first face-to-face meeting with the four-year old.
Both the caseworker and the four-year old's therapist recommended
termination of both respondents' parental rights. The caseworker
focused on the mother's lack of stability since her release from
prison, noting her probation violation and a marriage to a man with
a lengthy criminal history. The therapist was concerned about the
psychological damage to the children if they were removed from their
home with the grandmother and placed back with the mother. The
psychologist, who evaluated the mother's parenting skills after her
release from prison, testified she had the intellectual ability to
parent, but also expressed concerns about the harm to the children
if they were removed from their grandmother's care. While the trial
court erred in terminating the mother's parental rights under § 19b
(3)(j), the court held in light of evidence supporting termination
under a separate statutory ground, the error was harmless. Affirmed.

Question?
Terry bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/

From Kathy
Flintcitizen · Flint Citizen Internet Advocacy.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Flintcitizen/message/406

How very sad. It seems the family hasn't even had time to mourn.
It seems to me, by your description of the parents actions that
there may be
a lot of blaming going on.
Will the other children go into the system?
***
BANKERT RESPONSE: Yes the system will remove the children to protect
them,
possibly to different foster homes because of the racial mix of the
children.
Neglect or abuse to one child is imputed to all children. As to
placement I did
not hear any attorneys , particularly the childrens attorney asking
for
grandparent placement. They seemed like nice people. Essentially the
children
are captives of the prosecution.
***

I do not believe in children's cases like this that other children
in the
household can be made to testify or participate. I also think they
should be
allowed to be with another family member through this ,if not the
parents.
***
BANKERT RESPONSE I agree. The safest route for the worker to
guarantee child
safety is to place the children in foster care. They will say they
need time for
a family member home study. But they have made their mind up to
separate forever
the children from their parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts,
uncles , family
friends neighbors school mates and pastors.
***

Moving the children, for there safety I can understand, although I
blame the
system for no follow through, advertently causing this also. The
other siblings
should not be subjected to the politics of this whole thing.

I wonder how many troubled teens who do not have faith in the system/
police/courts has had an issue like this as a child and a bad
experience with
them.


Kathy

Amicus Community :Legal proceeding of the parents of the deceased
child Rose Kelley

By Tery Bankert 06/29/06

http://attorneybankert.com/



see generally MFL sec 22 Michigan Family Law 6th Edition an ICLE
publication

Overview of child protection proceedigns in Michigan USA

The Flint MI USA Family Court abuse/neglect Child Protection
proceedings (CPS) of Michelle L. Bowen and Jeffrey C. Kelley are
based upon the Child Protection Law (CPL) MCL 722.621 and the
Juvenile code MCL 712 A.1. This law creates a process for reporting
cases of suspected abuse and neglect, investigating those reports
and responding with action to protect children.

See: http://courts.michigan.gov/mji/resources/cppbook/cppbench.htm

Any citizen can start a CPS neglect or abuse case. Usually a CPS
case begins when Child Protection Services (CPS) filing a petition
with the court.

CPS must do an investigation and make a findings. Depending on that
finding it must chose how to proceed in a manner to protect a child.
If the case is not closed a petition may be filed asking the court
to take jurisdiction over the children.

If the petition is filed the court must determine if there is enough
evidence to bring the child within the courts jurisdiction or
control. MCL 712A.2(b) of the Juvenile Code. There must be child
abuse, neglect, emotional abuse or neglect, medical neglect or
educational neglect to name a few reasons.

The court must determine that there is a preponderance of the
evidence allowing it to take jurisdiction under section 2(b) of the
law. The court takes temporary or permanent custody of the child.

An initial petition may seek the termination of parental rights at
the initial dispositional hearing. Although the majority of
petitions often look only to temporary custody of the child by the
state the CPL now requires that in certain circumstances the
Department of Human services seeks the termination of parental
rights at the initial dispositional hearing. These children have
been the targets of extreme actions of abuse or neglect. ( torture,
criminal sexual conduct involving penetration) or situations in
which the court has previously terminated the parents rights in
another child or subsequent child is a t risk..

In the average case the court will give itself temporary
jurisdiction over the child. There must be established a treatment
plan intended to assist parents in regaining custody of the child.
If the child is placed in the family home, the court must review the
case every six months. When the child has been taken from the
parents home and getting family back together is the goal there must
be a hearing every 91 days.

When children are placed in foster care there must be ordered a
permanency planning hearing (PHH) one year after the original
petition is filed and once a year after that so long as the child is
a temporary ward of the court.

At the PHH hearing it must be determined whether the state has done
its job to complete the permanency plan.

The court has five basic options.

1.return the child to parental care.

2.direct that a petition to terminate parental rights be filed.

3.place the child in legal guardianship(under Michigan law
guardianship is never in fact permanent.)

4. Place the child permanently with a relative who is willing to
care for the child ( with a continuing warship)

5.order some other unspecific permanent solution.

If the facts show a child cannot be returned to parents for their
own safety the court will generally be forced to consider
terminating parental rights. There is authority to terminate if one
of the statutory basis is established by clear and convincing
evidence. If a basis for termination is established, the court must
terminate parental rights unless it finds that termination is
clearly not in the children best interest.

The determination regarding best interest may be only be made based
on the whole record of the case.

If the court terminates parental rights it shall review the case
every 91 days.

An order removing the child from the parental home, placing the
child under the courts temporary jurisdiction or terminating
parental rights may be appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals by
right. All other Appeals are by leave. Issues concerned with the
assertion of temporary jurisdiction must be appealed directly and
may not be raised after a subsequent termination of parental rights
because the court has determined this to be a collateral attack.

Next 22.2 Family Court Practice concerning juvenile matters