Exposure to Illegal Drugs Insufficient Basis for Dependency

For those who need to know the laws.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Exposure to Illegal Drugs Insufficient Basis for Dependency

Postby Dazeemay » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:57 pm

http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinio ... 387%20.pdf

April 11, 2006
Case Law Developments: Exposure to Illegal Drugs Insufficient Basis for Dependency Finding
The Florida Court of Appeals reversed an order adjudicating a child dependent based the 12-year-old child's exposure to small quantities of marijuana and residual amounts of cocaine in several areas of the child's house. The court emphasized that findings of dependency must be based on evidence that a parent's behavior creates an "imminent risk of being abused or neglected as those terms are defined by statute." The court observed that, "Exposing a child to controlled substances constitutes “harm” in only two situations: (1) when a mother’s use of a controlled substance during her pregnancy demonstrably adversely affects the child; or (2) when a parent’s “continued chronic and severe use of a controlled substance” demonstrably adversely affects the child. Absent such evidence, the trial court’s adjudication of dependency based on this ground must be reversed."

The court also rejected the proffered basis for the dependency that the child was at risk of being left alone when Father was arrested. The court noted that the mere fact that a child has been left alone is insufficient proof of neglect.

J.B. v. Department of Children and Families, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5063 (April 7, 2006)
Opinion on the web (last visited April 11, 2006 bgf)
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:15 am

This is actually a fantastic find. CPS plays on the bogus "war on drugs" issue to support many child seizure arguments and this new case law provides great ammunition against any such argument. But if you read the opinion carefully, you note that the opinion has much broader implication than what you see on the surface.

The court emphasized that findings of dependency must be based on evidence that a parent's behavior creates an "imminent risk of being abused or neglected as those terms are defined by statute."

The statement above applies to ANY finding of dependency and/or imminent danger based on a parent's behavior when such behavior does not adversely affect a child. It does not have to apply to drugs only.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:58 am

Bob_Lynn wrote:This is actually a fantastic find. CPS plays on the bogus "war on drugs" issue to support many child seizure arguments and this new case law provides great ammunition against any such argument. But if you read the opinion carefully, you note that the opinion has much broader implication than what you see on the surface.

The court emphasized that findings of dependency must be based on evidence that a parent's behavior creates an "imminent risk of being abused or neglected as those terms are defined by statute."

The statement above applies to ANY finding of dependency and/or imminent danger based on a parent's behavior when such behavior does not adversely affect a child. It does not have to apply to drugs only.


The trial court's order/decision was reversed because the decision wasn't supported by competent, substantial evidence.

And what you're all excited about has been the standard for years.

See J.B.M., 870 So. 2d at 951.

And the reason for the reversal

See B.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 797 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:42 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:The trial court's order/decision was reversed because the decision wasn't supported by competent, substantial evidence.


Right, so the case law affirms that. Thanks for the additional point.

Dan Sullivan wrote:And what you're all excited about has been the standard for years.

See J.B.M., 870 So. 2d at 951.

And the reason for the reversal

See B.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 797 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)


Once again, thanks for the additional info. So the new case law again affirms the above and any and all case law that supports arguments that can be used against CPS is extremely valuable. I agree, many of us are excited about it, I assume by your tone that you're not? I wouldn't be surprised.

BTW, can you contribute any more case law that would help us out even if it doesn't "excite" you? Thanks.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:06 am

Bob_Lynn wrote:
Dan Sullivan wrote:The trial court's order/decision was reversed because the decision wasn't supported by competent, substantial evidence.


Right, so the case law affirms that. Thanks for the additional point.


It doesn't affirm the law, the Appeal's Court decision quotes that law because it's the standard that the trial court is SUPPOSED to use.

Dan Sullivan wrote:And what you're all excited about has been the standard for years.

See J.B.M., 870 So. 2d at 951.

And the reason for the reversal

See B.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 797 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)


Bob_Lynn wrote: Once again, thanks for the additional info. So the new case law again affirms the above and any and all case law that supports arguments that can be used against CPS is extremely valuable. I agree, many of us are excited about it, I assume by your tone that you're not? I wouldn't be surprised.


I've beaten CPS for not complying with that law many times.

The law doesn't excite me.

I get excited when I use it successfully against CPS.


Bob_Lynn wrote: BTW, can you contribute any more case law that would help us out even if it doesn't "excite" you? Thanks.


The information I posted came directly from the decision that Dazeemay posted the link to.

You might read it.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:44 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:It doesn't affirm the law, the Appeal's Court decision quotes that law because it's the standard that the trial court is SUPPOSED to use.


Quoting other case law in an opinion IS an affirmation.

Dan Sullivan wrote:I get excited when I use it successfully against CPS.


How do you use it successfully against CPS? I never saw you claim you are an attorney specializing in family law.

Dan Sullivan wrote:The information I posted came directly from the decision that Dazeemay posted the link to.


I did read it.

So now I'm confused, you just posted that you've used the case law you copied from the opinion for years, so that implies you've known about it for years. However, I don't believe anyone here knew about it, I certainly didn't (I'm such a dummy, I forgot to go to law school). So why didn't you inform us before about this case law that you've used often and known about for years? This thread has been around since I first posted on this site and I sure would have liked to know about that case law, it looks critical to me and I'm sure it would have been critical to many who need help.

I mean, I know it's not really exciting for you because it must be boring after so many years in your process to bring all those thousands of children home from foster care. But for us, none of us do this as a hobby or for a living or for what other reason you do this for, we're just trying to get our lives back and keep our families together.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:10 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:It doesn't affirm the law, the Appeal's Court decision quotes that law because it's the standard that the trial court is SUPPOSED to use.


Bob_Lynn wrote: Quoting other case law in an opinion IS an affirmation.


If you say so.

Dan Sullivan wrote:I get excited when I use it successfully against CPS.


Bob_Lynn wrote: How do you use it successfully against CPS?


By demonstrating that their decision wasn't supported by competent, substantial evidence, which is the standard.

I accomplish that by claiming that CPS had no credible evidence to support their decision... and then they prove me right by not producing any.


Bob_Lynn wrote: I never saw you claim you are an attorney specializing in family law.


That's because I've never made that claim.

Dan Sullivan wrote:The information I posted came directly from the decision that Dazeemay posted the link to.


Bob_Lynn wrote: I did read it.

So now I'm confused,


What's the saying???

This is like Deja vu all over again.


Bob_Lynn wrote:you just posted that you've used the case law you copied from the opinion for years, so that implies you've known about it for years.


I wrote "I've beaten CPS for not complying with that law many times."

That law being the standard... that their decisions must be supported by credible evidence.


Bob_Lynn wrote: However, I don't believe anyone here knew about it, I certainly didn't


I've been posting for years that CPS needs credible evidence to make their decisions.

Bob_Lynn wrote:(I'm such a dummy, I forgot to go to law school).


I'm sure there are more reasons than just that one.

Bob_Lynn wrote: So why didn't you inform us before about this case law that you've used often and known about for years? This thread has been around since I first posted on this site and I sure would have liked to know about that case law, it looks critical to me and I'm sure it would have been critical to many who need help.


See here's where I think you're confusing yourself, Bob.

The law I'm speaking about is the standard that decisions must be based on credible evidence.

I'm sure it's mentioned in the case law you're referring to.


Bob_Lynn wrote: I mean, I know it's not really exciting for you because it must be boring after so many years in your process to bring all those thousands of children home from foster care.


Lies only reflect on the people caught making them, Bob.

Bob_Lynn wrote: But for us, none of us do this as a hobby or for a living or for what other reason you do this for, we're just trying to get our lives back and keep our families together.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:12 pm

Nice predictably evasive reply Dan. You didn't answer any of my questions.

The fact that it's mentioned in the case law I'm referring to has nothing to do with you using or knowing about any specific case law as you'd have us believe. Telling me that it's a "standard" after you just learned about it is laughable. The fact that you never cited any of this in this forum makes your BS obvious. It's also not "law", case law is not a statute, nor is case law per se a "standard" because it can be refuted by other case law and as such, cannot be characterized as a "standard" of any kind. Even Supreme Court opinions can be and have been reversed, although rarely.

You can't use case law unless you're acting pro se or you're an attorney. So your claim that you "accomplish that by claiming that CPS has no credible evidence to support their decision" means what? Claim where? how? to whom? Like I said, evasive reply.

And one more point, since you are making an issue of this, do you have a specific problem with Dazeemay posting case law that may help us fight CPS (just because you purport you knew about it all along)?

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:23 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote: Nice predictably evasive reply Dan. You didn't answer any of my questions.


You asked two questions, Bob.

I answered the first and explained that you were mistaken in your premise in the second, but corrected your mistake and answered it anyway.


Bob_Lynn wrote: The fact that it's mentioned in the case law I'm referring to has nothing to do with you using or knowing about any specific case law as you'd have us believe.


I never claimed to be talking about case law.

The following is what I posted.

"The trial court's order/decision was reversed because the decision wasn't supported by competent, substantial evidence.

And what you're all excited about has been the standard for years."

Next,

"It doesn't affirm the law, the Appeal's Court decision quotes that law because it's the standard that the trial court is SUPPOSED to use."

And

"I've beaten CPS for not complying with that law many times.

The law doesn't excite me.

I get excited when I use it successfully against CPS."

See anything about case law, Bob?

See what I've underlined?

Again, here's the standard,

"The court emphasized that findings of dependency must be based on evidence that a parent's behavior creates an "imminent risk of being abused or neglected as those terms are defined by statute."


Bob_Lynn wrote: Telling me that it's a "standard" after you just learned about it is laughable. The fact that you never cited any of this in this forum makes your BS obvious.


You didn't know that CPS' decisions are supposed to be supported by credible evidence?

Bob_Lynn wrote: It's also not "law", case law is not a statute, nor is case law per se a "standard" because it can be refuted by other case law and as such, cannot be characterized as a "standard" of any kind.


As I said before, I wasn't talking about case law.

I was talking about the standard of evidence that CPS has to comply with in their decisions.


Bob_Lynn wrote:Even Supreme Court opinions can be and have been reversed, although rarely.


???

Bob_Lynn wrote: You can't use case law unless you're acting pro se or you're an attorney.


I've used it personally.

And when I've helped others get CPS decisions reversed.

And when I've helped people get their children out of foster care.


Bob_Lynn wrote: So your claim that you "accomplish that by claiming that CPS has no credible evidence to support their decision" means what?


Exactly what it says, Bob.

Bob_Lynn wrote:Claim where?


In an appeal.

In court.


Bob_Lynn wrote: how?


I already told you.

Bob_Lynn wrote:to whom?


A Judge.

A Hearing Examiner.


Bob_Lynn wrote:Like I said, evasive reply.

And one more point, since you are making an issue of this, do you have a specific problem with Dazeemay posting case law that may help us fight CPS (just because you purport you knew about it all along)?


I don't have any problem with Dazeemay posting case law.

What makes you think I do?

Just to post it one more time in case you failed to understand...

When CPS makes a decision of abuse or neglect their conclusion is supposed to be supported by credible evidence.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:19 pm

It's ok Dan , BS away to your heart's content, your BS is really not important to anyone but yourself. This thread is for the purpose of legal research, which is what case law helps with and the only thing that we're concerned with in this thread, not your incessant bragging.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:49 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:It's ok Dan , BS away to your heart's content, your BS is really not important to anyone but yourself. This thread is for the purpose of legal research, which is what case law helps with and the only thing that we're concerned with in this thread, not your incessant bragging.


First you complain that I didn't answer your questions when I did.

Then you ask me a more questions, which I also answer, and you claim my answers are BS when they're not.

You also wrote "it must be boring after so many years in your process to bring all those thousands of children home from foster care" when that obviously isn't true.

As I said before, lies only reflect on the people caught making them, Bob.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:56 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:As I said before, lies only reflect on the people caught making them


How true.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:08 pm

I probably shouldn't ask this, but I'm curious as to how you work your magic that no one else is capable of.

I don't believe judges (or the court system) allow people to bring a PC to court and post on FightCPS virtually 24/7. I also don't believe they allow those who aren't attorneys and aren't licensed in any capacity to defend others to cite all sorts of things in court in their defense.

I assume where you live they make special provisions for you?

I also believe you once stated that you helped people in several different states far apart, all while posting on FightCPS of course. Do you own some kind of Star Trek-like transporter?

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:44 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote: I probably shouldn't ask this, but I'm curious as to how you work your magic that no one else is capable of.


So far you haven't asked anything, Bob.

Bob_Lynn wrote:I don't believe judges (or the court system) allow people to bring a PC to court and post on FightCPS virtually 24/7.


You still haven't asked a question, Bob.

Bob_Lynn wrote:I also don't believe they allow those who aren't attorneys and aren't licensed in any capacity to defend others to cite all sorts of things in court in their defense.


Do you know what a question is, Bob?

So far you've had three chances and you've missed every time.


Bob_Lynn wrote:I assume where you live they make special provisions for you?


Finally! One out of four.

I'll answer your question as specifically as I can

Where I live, you say?

No, Bob, there are no special provisions for me in my home.


Bob_Lynn wrote: I also believe you once stated that you helped people in several different states far apart, all while posting on FightCPS of course.


All while posting on FightCPS?

I never said that.


Bob_Lynn wrote: Do you own some kind of Star Trek-like transporter?


Star Trek-like transporter?

That's a bit too broad a description, Bob.

Can you be more specific?

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:23 pm

Sure I can Dan, you do nothing but dance around the questions with non-answers and juvenile sarcasm as fully expected.

You may have some people fooled, but we're not all that gullible.

You really expect people to believe you walk into courtrooms all over the country, in a non-specific capacity and judges just ask Dan Sullivan, person off the street, for his "expert" opinion and they all see the error of CPS and hand children back to their parents because Dan Sullivan said so? Even lawyers who try to do their jobs properly have extreme difficulty with family courts, but not Dan Sullivan.

Was I specific enough?

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:10 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote: Sure I can Dan, you do nothing but dance around the questions with non-answers and juvenile sarcasm as fully expected.


"Do nothin but???"

That's not true.

Only my previous post on this thread was I kiddin around.

The five previous to that my answers were serious, accurate and true.

Well, maybe I was kidding in one or two things I said.

But you ran off in this thread after Dazeemay posted a link to some new case law like you'd discovered something that would help lots of people fighting CPS that never existed before... and all it was was the standard for acceptable evidence that has been in effect for years!!!

Isn't that true, Bob?

And then you made post after post trying to say I said something about the case law when all I was talking about was THE STANDARD of acceptable evidence, correct, Bob?

And I even posted the proof that all I was talking about was the standard, didn't I, Bob?


Bob_Lynn wrote: You may have some people fooled, but we're not all that gullible.


Anyone is free to read back thru this thread to see that I knew what I was talking about and it was you who was confused. You even said you were confused... I didn't!

And who are the "we" you're referring to SPECIFICALLY?


Bob_Lynn wrote: You really expect people to believe you walk into courtrooms all over the country, in a non-specific capacity and judges just ask Dan Sullivan, person off the street, for his "expert" opinion and they all see the error of CPS and hand children back to their parents because Dan Sullivan said so?


I never claimed to have done that, did I, Bob?

If you're going to claim I did please post the links or citations or whatever proof you think you have to substantiate your claim.


Bob_Lynn wrote: Even lawyers who try to do their jobs properly have extreme difficulty with family courts, but not Dan Sullivan.


From a post on asCPS NG (2-22-03) by Loyal Fan who just had gotten his baby back from foster care the night before her first birthday. She was removed because CPS claimed one of her parents non-accidently broke her leg,

"Our daughters first B-day was yesterday! Everything went great and our daughter is doing so well with adjusting.

I spoke with my attorney the same night, he called to say happy b-day and check in on us.

He reminded me that a while back my friend, Dan, had pushed me to ask him to emergency petition the court. The attorney was saying if it was not done when we had the opportunity then, we might not be sitting around having cake celebrating. We owed this guy a world of thanks.

Dan told me to call him and push at him to file the darn motion. I made the call and the attoreny said "its what I was thinking but how did you have the same idea"?

I said I just spoke with my friend Dan and the attorney politely cut me short. He said "In what area does your friend Dan practice law"? I said he doesnt. He said "are you sure"? , "only an attorney thinks like this".

At the end of our convo he said I am not sure what to really bill you. I think I just showed up in court and your buddy gave you everything you needed to prevail. So I said how about you charge me nothing? ;-p

Well its not quite nothing but no where near what it would be had I not had Dan fighting hard along side me.

He did the real work. He knew we were a mess, we weren't sleeping, eating. When my voice cracked on the phone his did too. He said it was alright to cry, he let me get it out.

Once I was so angry I wanted to smash everything!!! He told me to go punch the trees outside. He told me a joke, he made me laugh.

I would sit and stare blankly at the computer and an email box would pop up. It was Dan, he just found a new piece of info about OI and had to share it. When I was down he picked me up. He gave me the strength to fight. He spent more time on the phone with me than my own father.

When I had a question at, 10pm, 11pm, 12pm.......Dan had the answer.

My wife's mom died during this ordeal to cancer. While we grieved her loss Dan took this tragedy and worked it into our case to use against cps.

I honestly forgot about parts of our case that happened in court. The guy shocked me by reminding me exactly what transpired. It ws like he was there in court with us taping the whole thing. He is just a great listener and nothing gets passed him. My problem was his problem.

When it comes to family, this guy is as serious as a heart attack!

He told me we won months before we even walked into court. He was right.

Dan, Thank You! The smile on my wife's face!!! You have no idea!!!

In every snapshot, my daughter is all smiles! My wife couldn't stop crying.

I thought I was going to have to cover her with a shock blanket! She still cant believe its over.

I also went to NY to pick up my 8 year old daughter today. She has not seen her sister once since cps intervened on us. They said she would also be fair game to take if she were at my home and they came calling.

They are together for the first time in 7 months! My life is complete
again, my world is whole.

Dan, we all (not kids) lifted a glass of champagne last night and we
toasted to YOU! Not only have you made us the happiest people in the world, but you made my parents the happiest grandparents in the world!

I needed to say this publicly here. People need to know from where the help came, from who was willing, night or day, to listen and to guide us.

Many Thanks,

Chuck, Margie and baby Angie
aka Loyal Fan

P.S. My wife is insisting on her confirmation name being Danielle. You better have no plans cause your now her sponsor!


Bob_Lynn wrote: Was I specific enough?


Was my friend Chuck aka Loyal Fan specific enough?

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:06 am

C'mon Dan, you've made all sorts of ridiculous claims about bringing home 24 children from foster care in the last 4 years and you once posted how you helped people in about 3 different states all virtually in the same day. You've claimed you go to family court and judges just happen to patiently listen to Dan Sullivan, who's not an attorney when they are notorious for not listening to anyone who is not CPS and these same judges rarely follow the law or proper judicial procedures. And all this while you have almost 1,200 posts here in less than a year and you yourself claim you have thousands of posts in other forums.

I've been researching this almost 24/7 for over 2 years now and I've never come across anyone who claims to be even remotely as successful as you, not even genuine family law attorneys who do this for a living.

You never stated in what capacity you do any of this such as, this is a full time job for you and you get paid, it's a hobby and you do all this and work a separate full-time job too. Do you advertise, such as "Dan Sullivan - CPS Magician call xxx-xxxx" and lawyers and families ring your phone off the hook?

You can post alleged letters from people who worship you all you want, like I said, I'm not that gullible.

It's ok Dan, you don't need to try to "prove" anything to me or anyone, your own posts tell me everything I need to know. Do you really think if you were genuine that many posters here would be highly suspicious of you and your motives? And no, I'm not going to name names, that's none of your business. You already have too many people's red flag up.

I'm sure you have some BS answer for me but consider this thread closed, it's supposed to be for legal research, not Dan Sullivan's ego. This is my last post on this subject.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:34 am

Bob_Lynn wrote: C'mon Dan, you've made all sorts of ridiculous claims about bringing home 24 children from foster care in the last 4 years


If you're going to make claims about me, Bob, please when you make the claim also post your proof that what you are claiming is true.

What I actually said was I HELPED get children out of foster care.

The number is higher than that now.


Bob_Lynn wrote:and you once posted how you helped people in about 3 different states all virtually in the same day.


I never said that.

Post the proof that I did, Bob.


Bob_Lynn wrote: ou've claimed you go to family court and judges just happen to patiently listen to Dan Sullivan, who's not an attorney when they are notorious for not listening to anyone who is not CPS and these same judges rarely follow the law or proper judicial procedures.


I've helped many people prepare for Family Court.

I never claimed to "go" with them.

Post the proof that I said I did, Bob.

I did go to the local courthouse a few times with friends but I didn't go into the courtroom. It's funny when we got their case record from that day, CPS described me and speculated about who I was. They even described the case I was carrying!


Bob_Lynn wrote: And all this while you have almost 1,200 posts here in less than a year and you yourself claim you have thousands of posts in other forums.


One other forum.

Yes, that's true.


Bob_Lynn wrote: I've been researching this almost 24/7 for over 2 years now and I've never come across anyone who claims to be even remotely as successful as you, not even genuine family law attorneys who do this for a living.


Maybe they're not as compassionate as I am. Maybe they don't spend enough time on the case. Maybe all they want to do is cash a check and drag it out so they can charge more billable hours. Maye they just want to make a settlement and get the people off their backs.. then when things turn to crap they hope the families will come back for more legal "help." You do know that few attnies like taking Family Court cases.

Bob_Lynn wrote: You never stated in what capacity you do any of this such as,


Sure I did.

I said as a family advisor.


Bob_Lynn wrote:this is a full time job for you and you get paid,


No.

Bob_Lynn wrote:it's a hobby


I consider myself an activist.

Bob_Lynn wrote: and you do all this and work a separate full-time job too.


Why do you need to know what else I do?

Bob_Lynn wrote: Do you advertise, such as "Dan Sullivan - CPS Magician call xxx-xxxx" and lawyers and families ring your phone off the hook?


No.

Bob_Lynn wrote:You can post alleged letters from people who worship you all you want, like I said, I'm not that gullible.


You think I posted a message on another forum in 2003 to substantiate something I said in 2006?

Gullible isn't the word, Bob.


Bob_Lynn wrote:It's ok Dan, you don't need to try to "prove" anything to me or anyone, your own posts tell me everything I need to know.


I don't think they do, Bob.

Bob_Lynn wrote:Do you really think if you were genuine that many posters here would be highly suspicious of you and your motives?


I am genuine.

And many people can't get passed their anger or their own case and many think what they believe will work for everyone in every case.

Every case is different... and every situation is different... but the goal remains the same. Get the children out of foster care as soon as possible.

And that's done by proving the allegations to be false... proving that the evidence CPS claims to have isn't credible... and demonstrating that the children will be safe and secure with their parents at home.


Bob_Lynn wrote: And no, I'm not going to name names, that's none of your business.


You wouldn't be blowing smoke, would ya, Bob?

Bob_Lynn wrote: You already have too many people's red flag up.


People like you, Bob?

People who think I planted a message on another forum three years ago to substantiate a claim I recently made?

Check out the other "thank yous" posted to me on that NG.

You spend your time researching 24/7?

Then you must have found this message to me posted on asCPS by Doug Quirmbach, former Public Relations Director at CPSWatch,

"I am fully aware of the valuable role you play on this newsgroup.

<<<snip>>>

I think you are an intregal source of valuable information in this newsgroup."

And, Doug Quirmbach to Chuck Kimmel, after Chuck got his baby back from CPS,

"It is my understanding that you are rightfully grateful for Dan's expert help in developing and following through with the approach you successfully implemented. Dan's is an approach that begins by assuming a posture that CPS mistakenly reads as submissive and then using the agency's own procedures against them. He is like a bulldog. He never lets go. He begins with the very accurate assumption that the caseworker goofed up and goes into the closet to find the administrative policy or directives that define the malpractice. He is brilliant with the tools of this approach."


Bob_Lynn wrote: I'm sure you have some BS answer for me but consider this thread closed, it's supposed to be for legal research, not Dan Sullivan's ego.


Then why didn't you pm me with your questions, Bob, instead of asking them on this thread?

You ask questions here, Bob, I'm gonna answer them here.


Bob_Lynn wrote:This is my last post on this subject.


Promise??


Return to “Legal Research”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest