Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

For those concerned about children and parents in CPS cases.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

jtbator
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 am
Contact:

Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby jtbator » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:20 am

Camille Bator Case - Termination of Parental Rights/Adoption (How justice can go wrong)

Case Description:

In December of 2006 my grand daughter was diagnosed with shaking baby syndrome and placed into foster care shortly thereafter. As not to elicit an inordinate amount of detail now, the rights of the natural parents were terminated in 2011. Various appeals ensued during this period of time which were eventually turned down by all legal entities. My grand daughter was legally adopted by the foster family in 2011 after the legal process "ran it's course".


The main issue of concern is that material was discovered that was posted by the foster family on various websites on the internet between 2006 and 2010 or so. This material indicated that the child in question was being called "a name different than the birth name" and other individuals commented and were aware of this alleged name change which corresponded with that of the foster family. The BIG PROBLEM here is that all this occurred prior to the termination of the legal rights of the parents. How could this ensue before the legal process was completed? This matter was brought to the attention of the agency in question who basically stated that they were unaware of any name change and as far as they were concerned visits to the home did not indicate any name change occurred. The records we copied indicated otherwise. Shortly thereafter ALL MATERIAL THAT EXISTED ON THE INTERNET WERE ABRUPTLY REMOVED on a permanent basis and have never reappeared in any form. As stated, we copied much that existed prior the material deletion, and that is in our possession currently. A this juncture, because of all the internet deletion, we are unaware as to how far back this name change and other potential alleged deficiencies occurred/existed.


Other occurrences exist in this case that are also strange to comprehend. NO ONE was ever charged in this case and the case was eventually "dropped and closed by the State Police". How could this happen when alleged shaking baby syndrome was involved? The main perpetrator in the case was never formally questioned, no order was ever issued by the judge in question to order his appearance. The case was just abruptly "dropped". Also a major deficiency was noted during the case which indicated that the agency in question did not follow proper procedure and protocol. The agency was eventually cited because the deficiency was proven to be true yet nothing else occurred to remedy the problems that were created by the deficiency in question. Naturally documentation exists that substantiates the same.


I believe, that from the documents in existence, that collusion occurred between the agency involved as well as the foster family. In my estimation, from what I have seen and have, this foster family was "promised" my grand daughter by the agency in question shortly after she entered the foster care system in 2006. All issues that were brought up and occurred afterward were "moot" because the agency in question supported the foster family. The natural family had "no chance whatsoever" for reunification which was never the goal in this case.


Family attorney's can attest to what transpired and would contribute to the "validation process". Under normal circumstances reunification with the family would be the primary concern; In this case the primary concern was termination of parental rights/adoption

POINTS OF FACT:

a) Internet information regarding Guyadeen family noting "Sarah Guyadeen" was removed from all websites after Pike County Children and Youth was apprised of the deficiency. Essentially Camille Bator was being called Sarah Guyadeen prior to the termination of parental rights in 2010 with visible physical evidence in existence. The case did not reach it's ultimate conclusion until 2011 when all appeals were exhausted.

(b) Alleged perpetrator case was abruptly dropped by the Pennsylvania State Police after a two (2) to three (3) year period without any conclusion. It should also be noted that the main alleged perpetrator was never questioned (did not appear for initial request for questioning) nor was any type of warrant ever issued thereafter regarding potential questioning. Two (2) complaints filed against Pennsylvania State Police for their participation/non-participation regarding case in general.

(c) Pike County Children and Youth was noted with major deficiencies during this case because of policy and procedure not being followed. Basic result was minimal in nature as far as the agency was concerned with deficiencies noted in this case not being remedied. Other information on family members being viable resources for care were given to Pike County Children and Youth; These resources were, in fact, never contacted nor was any attempt ever made for contact

(d) Medical records exist in the case which refuted later records. These records were not allowed to be admitted by Pike County Court because they were not admitted initially during the appeal process (per Judge Kameen who was presiding Judge)..

(e) Petition submitted for recusal of Judge Joseph Kameen from the case because of bias/prejudice but was denied. Picture noted afterward and published in the Pike County Courier show Sarah Guyadeen as well as A. Kameen in the same picture which would indicate a definite conflict of interest. Two (2) complaints filed against Judge Kameen with the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board regarding his interpretation of the Child Protective Services Law as related to this case. Complaints were submitted prior to his denial of Petition for recusal.

User avatar
Eljay
Posts: 2645
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:01 am

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby Eljay » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:15 am

Some of this is irrelevant and ambiguous. Namely:
-- only a LEGAL name change would be of concern... they could call a foster child 'Sweetpea' and it wouldn't mean anything;
-- charges dropped may be more about a chance of conviction than a belief in innocence/guilt... since CPS TPR'd, they pretty much guaranteed that the alleged perp would never keep children again if found out;
-- picture with the judge? When, where, why... was it @court on day of adoption????

Otherwise............. what is your goal here? Yes, CPS doesn't follow rules and has unchecked power. We all learn this as we suffer through being their victims, but at this point, what do you want to happen?
Advice & opinions provided are no substitute for genuine legal assistance. Laws & rules vary by state/jurisdiction so do your homework and get
an education in CPS laws, rules & practices so that you can FIGHT for your children's rights. I am not a lawyer. Your mileage may vary.

----<>----<>----<>---- BREED WITH CAUTION ----<>----<>----<>----

User avatar
Eljay
Posts: 2645
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:01 am

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby Eljay » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:25 am

Interesting here.... stupid PTA puts their newsletter on the internet:

http://dvsd.schoolwires.net/cms/lib6/PA ... 202011.pdf

Kids pics & names, including Sarah Guyadeen *and* Elizabeth Kameen in the same picture. Pike County/Delaware Valley School District. At least now you have a recent picture!!!
Advice & opinions provided are no substitute for genuine legal assistance. Laws & rules vary by state/jurisdiction so do your homework and get
an education in CPS laws, rules & practices so that you can FIGHT for your children's rights. I am not a lawyer. Your mileage may vary.

----<>----<>----<>---- BREED WITH CAUTION ----<>----<>----<>----

jtbator
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby jtbator » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:06 am

At this juncture, with what has transpired thus far, The goal would be to have "someone in authority" review this case. I will continue to post "interesting facts" which inlude comments from GUYADEEN FRIENDS indicating adoption prior to termination of parental rights. What transpired prior to the termination of parental rights is unbelievable. We notified Pike County of some of the discrepancies and, soon after, EVERY PROFILE that ever existed disappeared (never to reappear).
Pike County was cited for not following procedure; RESULT NOTHING but a comment from State Offices that they would have to be monitored monthly. As far as correcting the major deficiency - NOTHING DONE. I am attaching an article that appeared in the Pike County Courier Newspaper - Interesting to read.

Attempt to load file rejected; File too big. Restrictions exist everywhere !!!!!

jtbator
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby jtbator » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:55 am

NOW THIS IS A CONFLICT TO NOTE:
(A) Parents rights in this case were terminated for "alleged" abuse.
(b) FOSTER PARENTS/ADOPTIVE PARENTS - A PROTECTION FROM ABUSE Court Case.
(c) JUDGE overseeing this case is CHELAK; His WIFE, who is an attorney, represented Pike County Children and Youth in the CAMILLE BATOR CASE proceedings.

One would assume that A GREAT background check was facilitated regarding this family. What a contradiction !!!!!

The Pike County Court Calendar

Case Details

Date: 6/27/2012
Time: 09:00 AM
Estimated Time:
Caption: Eileen Guyadeen vs. Kelvin Guyadeen
Event Type: Civil Court
New Case Type: PFA Hearing -
Old Case Type:
Docket No: 844-2012
Plaintiff: Eileen Guyadeen
Defendant: Kelvin Guyadeen
Presiding: Hon. Gregory H. Chelak
Location: Main Courtroom
Plaintiff Attorney:
Defense Attorney:

User avatar
Eljay
Posts: 2645
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:01 am

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby Eljay » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:09 am

jtbator wrote:At this juncture, with what has transpired thus far, The goal would be to have "someone in authority" review this case.


All this effort just to have someone review a case? I would think you'd want your granddaughter placed with family, or corrupt judges unseated, or CPS employees fired, or department reformed... something more! IMHO, you should fight for something more substantial if you're going to fight at all.
Advice & opinions provided are no substitute for genuine legal assistance. Laws & rules vary by state/jurisdiction so do your homework and get
an education in CPS laws, rules & practices so that you can FIGHT for your children's rights. I am not a lawyer. Your mileage may vary.

----<>----<>----<>---- BREED WITH CAUTION ----<>----<>----<>----

jtbator
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby jtbator » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:03 am

You do not realize the steps we have taken - TO NO AVAIL (everything that you have mentioned and then some). The attorney's contacted have said the following: (a) Too much time to devote, (b) We do not have the adequate resources. These attorney's want "QUICK MONEY"; They DO NOT wish to engage in anything prolonged. We have offered to pay UP FRONT but still no success.

Complaints filed against THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE AS WELL AS JUDGE KAMEEN; Negative results. Frustration to the Nth degree. But we continue to try with any avenue that we can possibly think of .....

User avatar
Eljay
Posts: 2645
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:01 am

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby Eljay » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:42 pm

I'm still baffled by what you're saying. I don't intend to sound combative, but what is the point of all that you are doing? So far, it sounds as if you expected that parental rights would be terminated, by stating, "The natural family had "no chance whatsoever" for reunification which was never the goal in this case."

You don't say that the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome was wrong or there was any false allegation, and all of the legal appeals failed, which means the decisions were affirmed OUTSIDE of family/CPS court, so we're not talking about a single court's corrupt practices. I don't see you stating what we typically see from grandparents which is, "my grandchild was placed with strangers even though we are perfectly capable and willing to care for the child yet CPS refused to consider us." There are conditions in which reunification is not an option and it would be SOP (standard operating procedure) to place the child in a home, preferably PERMANENTLY, at the earliest possible time. Bouncing a child from home to home is patently detrimental. If there were no viable family options, then it would be completely "normal" or standard operating procedure to say to the foster/placement family, "we have a child who was abused and there is NO WAY this child is going back to it's parents, and no other family is able or willing... this adoption is in the bag." The family taking in such a child would have every reason to treat her as a complete member of their family, even renaming her prior to her adoption day so as to integrate her into the family as quickly as possible.

As for the judges & lawyers knowing each other, even being friends... well, they work together, right? Is it not normal for coworkers to socialize together? It's a network... if the person who was looking to adopt happened to be friends or associate lawyers with the judge, does that mean a law was broken? Was there some advantage that this person had over any other foster parent? Were there a dozen equally qualified foster families fighting for this particular child and the "winners" got an unfair advantage? I mean... lawyers DO adopt children! And lawyers DO associate with other lawyers and judges!

You haven't indicated at all what the big controversy is in this case. You're printing names and specific information, so what is it that isn't being said? I'm not sure where the great injustice is here because nothing you've said is out of the range of normal. The reality is that when people abuse or neglect their children, they are often deprived of their parental rights and placed in an adoptive home. It happens. When someone LIES to make that happen, that's when things go wrong and we want to help fight for what is right.

As for the news article that was too large to load, it is site policy that you provide a link to the original source with a snippet of the original article. Otherwise, copyright laws might be broken.
Advice & opinions provided are no substitute for genuine legal assistance. Laws & rules vary by state/jurisdiction so do your homework and get
an education in CPS laws, rules & practices so that you can FIGHT for your children's rights. I am not a lawyer. Your mileage may vary.

----<>----<>----<>---- BREED WITH CAUTION ----<>----<>----<>----

jtbator
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Camille Bator case in Pike County, Pennsylvania

Postby jtbator » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:17 pm

Basis for Civil Rights case as presented by Paul Kramer, ESQ. - Legal Counsel. ANYONE FEEL FREE TO SUGGEST LEGAL COUNSEL IF KNOWLEDGABLE OF A "REPUTABLE" ATTORNEY.

RE: John Bator- Civil Rights Your Case No. 528687


Dear Counsel:


Thank you for speaking on the telephone with me regarding my Client, John Bator, who seeks to pursue a federal Civil Rights action against Pike County Child & Youth Services. It has taken me a week or so to put this presentation together.


John Bator (JB) was deprived of his right to assisted efforts at family reunification following unsupported finding of aggravated neglect. The deprivation resulted from Pike County Child and Youth Services determination, made immediately after the JB’s daughter was taken into custody on 12/21/06, that JB’s parental rights would be terminated and from the trial court’s virtual cessation of his custody at the same time.


That no reunification was attempted is evidenced by PCCYS’s statements, acts and omissions. Only retroactively did the lower court find that aggravating circumstances (AGC) might excuse reunification(1) and only after taking nine months to do so.


Attached find, for both the dependancy and the termination, the lower court’s order and §1925 Statement, JB’s appellate brief and the Superior Court’s orders. I’ve made bold, italicised and out-sized what I believe may be critical. Note:


• PCCYS’s tacit and direct statements, indications, etc., that no real reunification was being attempted. Also see how a few bits of PCCYS’s rebuttal on reunification efforts “blossomed” into detailed claims of reunification efforts latter on.


• The only substantial - if not exclusive - facts given rise to JB’s aggravated neglect was (1) a five minute visit with his daughter to drop off medicine just before the serious injury wherein JB is faulted for failing to “act” and (2), circumstantially, his daughter’s poor physical condition at such time, attributable to other factors.


• Assuming only for the argument that AGC can retroactively excuse lack of reunification efforts, such does not trump the termination factors. The Superior allows the period in which it curtailed JB’s custody to demonstrate abandonment, using tortured readings of the record: e.g., JB didn’t write letters, etc.


One must read the transcripts to understand how scant the record is. The “findings” of the trial and Superior Courts, are speculation founded on anecdotes. I’ll speak with JB about getting you those transcripts, if you desire. Please advise.


In a nutshell, PCCYS actions and those of the adopting mother from 12/21/06 until about June 1, 2007, must be examined. I believe you might find behavior consistant exclusively with adoption plans to the exclusion of reunification efforts. You will likely discover little, if anything in the way of adherence to established reunification criteria. You may find a “smoking gun” in the form of statements or sympathetic PCCYS personnel.


Thank you in advance for whatever consideration and any action you can provide.


Very truly yours,


Paul Kramer, ESQ.


PS / I’ve also attached a published Superior Court case with all the “players” herein. Such happened simultaneously with JB’s matter. Might a “cottage industry” of adoption have been in place. The adoptive mother’s records might reveal that, for purposes of state and federal assistance, she hels herslf out as the “adoptive” mother at a very early stage.


1 - There is caselaw suggesting that an aggravating circumstance (AGC) can serve as the sole basis for dependency but there is no period of “suspension” where a court can toll reunification efforts as it slowly determines AGC. Such caselaw speaks to prompt decisions where AGC requires dependancy while reunification is examined. Ironically, JB’s matter missed by a few months new rules that would require a dependancy finding within 45 days! A civil rights issue arises regarding whether the passing of nine months without sincere reunification efforts violates due process.


cc /Client

jtbator
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:31 am
Contact:

Investigation of Pike County Children and Youth Services in

Postby jtbator » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:43 am

Petition started at signon.org. Please take the time to sign. It is easy, No cost and takes about a minute. It will be appreciated. Not asking for much - Just a signature :)

http://signon.org/sign/investigation-of ... _by=115860


Return to “Grandparents and Other Relatives”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests