Marina's Outline for Declaration of Facts

For those who need to know the laws.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Marina's Outline for Declaration of Facts

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:46 pm

Marina's Outline for Declaration of Facts

(A work in progress)

Previously, a long Statement of Facts from Standing Up's Case, using a lot of legal background to understand how her case unfolded. Will try to organize the information in there more, separating into federal and state, and using the outline I developed below, and posting information in relevant research topics.

post beginning Fri. Oct. 13
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php ... c&start=25

*
*
*

PROPOSED OUTLINE

Based on

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/i ... #chapter_i

and on Responsibilities of Child Protective Services
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/userma ... s/cpsd.cfm


1. State what you want to happen.
2. List the parties involved, particularly in the current stage of the process, and state something about the party's legal rights, status, responsibilities, or authority.
3. Mention the statutory framework, perhaps mentioning what is currently relevant to your case.
4. State the facts that support what you want to happen.
5. Complain about why you haven't gotten the results you want.


I. Pleadings and Motions
A. Intake
B. Initial assessment or investigation
C. Family assessment
D. Case Planning
E. Service Provision
F. Family Progress
G. Case Closure


II. Parties
A. Intake
B. Initial assessment or investigation
C. Family assessment
D. Case Planning
E. Service Provision
F. Family Progress
G. Case Closure


III. Statutory Framework
A. Intake
B. Initial assessment or investigation
C. Family assessment
D. Case Planning
E. Service Provision
F. Family Progress
G. Case Closure


IV. Facts
A. Intake
B. Initial assessment or investigation
C. Family assessment
D. Case Planning
E. Service Provision
F. Family Progress
G. Case Closure


V. Complaints
A. Intake
B. Initial assessment or investigation
C. Family assessment
D. Case Planning
E. Service Provision
F. Family Progress
G. Case Closure



I will repeat this below, with links.

(A work in progress.)
Last edited by Marina on Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:47 pm


Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

PARTIES

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:49 pm

PARTIES

http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5921

Legal Status issues

legal custody
physical custody
visitation
education
health
child support


"Residual parental rights and responsibilities" means all rights and responsibilities remaining with the parent after the transfer of legal custody or guardianship of the person, including but not limited to the right of visitation, consent to adoption, the right to determine religious affiliation and the responsibility for support.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... d+16.1-228



CHILDREN AS CHATTEL

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/ ... n-chattel/

Responsibilities of CPS caseworkers

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/userma ... s/cpsd.cfm

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Statutory Framework

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:06 pm

Statutory Framework

Federal Statutory Framework
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5978

State Statutory Framework
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5979

State Statutory Framework in real NY class action Case that won
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5929



Intake -- fed.
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5980

Intake -- state
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5981



Initial assessment or investigation -- Fed
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5982

Initial assessment or investigation -- State
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5983



Family Assessment -- Fed
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5984

Family Assessment -- State



Case Planning -- Fed
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5985

Case Planning -- State


Service Provision -- Fed
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5986

Service Provision -- state


Family Progress -- Fed
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5987

Family Progress -- state


Case Closure -- Fed
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5988

Case Closure -- state

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Facts

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:08 pm


Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

COMPLAINTS

Postby Marina » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:10 pm

COMPLAINTS

Cause of action
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=5923

Deprivation of Rights
“Every person who, under color of” law, subjects any citizen to the “deprivation of any rights” shall be “liable to the party injured.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

Liability and acting under color of law
Courts have held that authorization of unconstitutional conduct is a basis for supervisory liability, and that a person who make a report of child maltreatment acts under color of law.
http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/muell ... pinion.pdf

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:07 pm

THANK YOU!

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:53 pm

Thanks for the feedback.

It is finally all starting to click for me, too.

Started from a large database of various information,

condensed it into a simple workable outline,

now have to work backwards
and add back the information into a more organized format ---

a menu to choose from, to plug into each point in the outline as needed.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:50 pm

From the court case on "clear and convincing evidence."

Santosky v. Kramer
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 45_ZO.html

...
Since the litigants and the factfinder must know at the outset of a given proceeding how the risk of error will be allocated, the standard of proof necessarily must be calibrated in advance. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard...

The State seeks to establish a series of historical facts about the intensity of its agency's efforts to reunite the family, the infrequency and insubstantiality of the parents' contacts with their child, and the parents' inability or unwillingness to formulate a plan for the child's future. The attorneys submit documentary evidence, and call witnesses who are subject to cross-examination. Based on all the evidence, the judge then determines whether the State has proved the statutory elements of permanent neglect by a fair preponderance of the evidence...

At such a proceeding, numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding. Permanent neglect proceedings employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge. ... In appraising the nature and quality of a complex series of encounters among the agency, the parents, and the child, the court possesses unusual discretion to underweigh probative facts that might favor the parent. .. Because parents subject to termination proceedings are often poor, uneducated, or members of minority groups, ... such proceedings are often vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias.

The State's ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parents' ability to mount a defense. No predetermined limits restrict the sums an agency may spend in prosecuting a given termination proceeding. The State's attorney usually will be expert on the issues contested and the procedures employed at the factfinding hearing, and enjoys full access to all public records concerning the family. The State may call on experts in family relations, psychology, and medicine to bolster its case. Furthermore, the primary witnesses at the hearing will be the agency's own professional caseworkers, whom the State has empowered both to investigate the family situation and to testify against the parents. Indeed, because the child is already in agency custody, the State even has the power to shape the historical events that form the basis for termination...

The disparity between the adversaries' litigation resources is matched by a striking asymmetry in their litigation options. Unlike criminal defendants, natural parents have no "double jeopardy" defense against repeated state termination efforts. If the State initially fails to win termination, as New York did here, ... it always can try once again to cut off the parents' rights after gathering more or better evidence. Yet even when the parents have attained the level of fitness required by the State, they have no similar means by which they can forestall future termination efforts.

Coupled with a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard, these factors create a significant prospect of erroneous termination. A standard of proof that, by its very terms, demands consideration of the quantity, rather than the quality, of the evidence may misdirect the factfinder in the marginal case. ...Given the weight of the private interests at stake, the social cost of even occasional error is sizable.

Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences...

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:48 pm

Marina, do you know where the definition of investigation is? I have the ASFA but as far as any other standard which an investigation must be conducted I haven't found? Oh dur. Nervermind you already answered that. I am sorry I missed it. I've read a bazillion different things and my brain is on overload!

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

INTERPRETATION NEEDED

Postby fightingfor3 » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:33 am

E. "neglected child" means a child:

(5) who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of the law; provided that nothing in the Children's Code [32A-1-1 NMSA 1978] shall be construed to imply that a child who is being provided with treatment by spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination, by a duly accredited practitioner thereof is for that reason alone a neglected child within the meaning of the Children's Code; and further provided that no child shall be denied the protection afforded to all children under the Children's Code;

Can someone help me interpret this? Thanks!

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:43 am

What is the link?

who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of the law


I imagine this means that "placement" or "adoption" is done by someone who is not legally authorized to do so, or is not done according to the law.

For example, this is about placement:
(This is currently being fought out in federal court.)

http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/muell ... amcplt.pdf

page 7
In fact, Taige was not taken to a shelter much less "removed" to anywhere, as the
Notice stated. Rather, she was kept in the hospital and forced to undergo medical procedures to
which her mother had objected. The statute under which Detective Rogers purported to act
(Idaho Code § 16-1612) does not authorize transfer of legal custody to the state nor does it
authorize the state to make medical decisions for a minor. Because Taige was not in any serious
danger, it also did not authorize Taige's seizure.

Defendant (doctor) MacDonald did not have a reasonable belief that Corissa's and/or Eric's
legal guardianship of Taige had been properly taken away.

*
*
*

I imagine illegal placement for adoption would be something like not notifying the absent father.

Again, a case like this is in the courts and in the news.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/463552.html

The agency ran a notice in The Chapel Hill News, alerting the unidentified father that a judge would terminate his parental rights if he didn't challenge the adoption.

Robinson kept her plans for the baby quiet. A month before she delivered, she told Ingram she had had a miscarriage...

ignited a court process that continues nearly four years later...

One of many uncertainties in the case is whether Brianna has been legally adopted or whether the California couple simply has legal custody.

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:13 am

It is under NM statute: 32A-4-2. The Link is http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?%20f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0 I was thinking black market babies and such? But I am still unclear. I don't think it would be cases such as CPS illegally taking my children because how can they define that through the fault of the State that my children would still be neglected?

I was trying to find out to see if this is something I can use against them, but also I am dispute the fact that they did an "investigation" because they did not. Had they done a true investigation they would have determined that my children did not ever meet any of the definitions under the children's code and that this referral was made with malicious intent, and therefore never had any reason to take my children in the first place.

E. "neglected child" means a child:

(1) who has been abandoned by the child's parent, guardian or custodian;

(2) who is without proper parental care and control or subsistence, education, medical or other care or control necessary for the child's well-being because of the faults or habits of the child's parent, guardian or custodian or the failure or refusal of the parent, guardian or custodian, when able to do so, to provide them;

(3) who has been physically or sexually abused, when the child's parent, guardian or custodian knew or should have known of the abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the child from further harm;

(4) whose parent, guardian or custodian is unable to discharge his responsibilities to and for the child because of incarceration, hospitalization or physical or mental disorder or incapacity; or

(5) who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of the law; provided that nothing in the Children's Code [32A-1-1 NMSA 1978] shall be construed to imply that a child who is being provided with treatment by spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination, by a duly accredited practitioner thereof is for that reason alone a neglected child within the meaning of the Children's Code; and further provided that no child shall be denied the protection afforded to all children under the Children's Code;

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:54 am

IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CHILDREN'S COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF *******
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

*********
and for ******, minor offspring
and for ******, minor offspring
Petitioner/Aggrieved Party
V
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT
Respondents/Persecutors No: Judge:

OBJECTIONS AND CORRECTIONS

The Honorable Court above named is herby advised that the ABUSE and/or NEGLECT PETITION as prepared and typed is ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT in the following particulars, to wit:
1. Page One: My legal name is ******.

2. Page One: I have not abused or neglected my children, *****, *****, and *****, by any standard, legal, moral, or otherwise.

3. Page One: The children did not reside at ******, *****. They resided at *******, *****, **.

4. Page One: My listed residence was *********, ****, **, not *****, **, **.

5. Page Two: “The facts giving rise to this Petition are set forth in the Affidavit for Ex Parte Custody Order, presented to the court in the casue, which is incorporated herein by this reference.” There was no Affidavit or Ex Parte Custody Order presented in the cause at the time this petition was filed.

6. Page Two: My children *****, ****, and ***** have never suffered physical abuse, emotional abuse, or psychological abuse inflicted by me, and CYFD has no offerings of proof to support this ridiculous allegation because none exists, as it never occured.

7. Page Two: I never neglected my children *****, *****, and ****. The facts dismissing this false allegation are set forth in the attached Investigative Report submitted by responding POLICE OFFICERS as Exhibit A.

8. Page Two: I never abandoned my children ******, *****, and *******. The facts dismissing this false allegation set forth in the attached Investigative Report submitted by responding POLICE OFFICERS. See Exhibit A.

9.Page Two: ***** was never a neglected child under §32-4-2(E)(4). The facts dismissing this false allegation are set forth in the Declaration of Facts, presented to the court in the cause, which is incorporated herein by this reference.

10. Page Two: CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT did not complete an investigation of the allegations. They acted under Color of Law to suit their own biased interest. Had they done a proper investigation they would have found that the allegations were unsubstantiated and made with malicious intent. By the standards of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, authors of the Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers. 2003 SOCIAL WORKER and SOCIAL WORKER as well as SOCIAL WORKER should have done the following in the beginning stages of the “investigation”: Gather sufficient information from the reporter and agency records to be able to: Identify and locate the children and the parents or primary caregiver, Determine if the report meets the statutory and agency guidelines for child maltreatment, Assess whether the child is safe, Evaluate the motives of the reporter; Provide support and encouragement to the reporter by: Explaining that the purpose of CPS is to protect children and strengthen families, Emphasizing the importance of reporting and explaining the process in which the report will be tracked, Describing the types of cases accepted by CPS as well as the types of information needed from the, reporter, Responding sensitively to the fears and concerns of the reporter, Discussing the State's regulations regarding confidentiality, including the circumstances under which a reporter's identity may be revealed (e.g., if required by court action in a particular case); Handle emergency situations such as: Calming the caller, Determining how to meet the immediate needs of the child and family being reported, Check agency records and the State's SIC (if appropriate) to determine if the family or child is known or has been reported to the agency previously.

11. SOCIAL WORKER, SOCIAL WORKER, and SOCIAL WORKER all failed to determine if the report met the statutory and agency guidelines for child maltreatment.

12. By New Mexico statute §32-A-4 “abandonment” is defined by:
instances when the parent, without justifiable cause: (1) left the child without provision for the child's identification for a period of fourteen days. ****, ***, and *** were not left with SO's Mom for fourteen days, but rather one night and day that she agreed to care for the children. SO's Mom by her own free will and choice picked up my children from school and daycare May 9th, 2005. The children ****, ****, and **** all had their birth certificates, social security cards, and insurance card with them. (2) left the child with others, including the other parent or an agency, without provision for support and without communication for a period of: (a) three months if the child was under six years of age at the commencement of the three-month period; or (b) six months if the child was over six years of age at the commencement of the six-month period. **** and **** were both over the age of six when SO's Mom cared for them. Neither **** or **** were left for six months. ***** was under the age of six and was never left for three months. Never during the duration of their care provided by SO's Mom were they left without provision for support and without communication.

12. The POLICE Investigative Report concurred that my children “were never in any type of danger as a result of the mother’s actions.” See Exhibit A. By New Mexico statute §32-A-4 an “abused” means a child: (1) who has suffered or who is at risk of suffering serious harm because of the ac(2) who has suffered physical abuse, emotional abuse or psychological abuse inflicted or caused by the child's parent, guardian or custodian; (3) who has suffered sexual abuse or sexual exploitation inflicted by the child's parent, guardian or custodian; (4) whose parent, guardian or custodian has knowingly, intentionally or negligently placed the child in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health; or (5) whose parent, guardian or custodian has knowingly or intentionally tortured, cruelly confined or cruelly punished the child; C. "aggravated circumstances" include those circumstances in which the parent, guardian or custodian has: (1) attempted, conspired to cause or caused great bodily harm to the child or great bodily harm or death to the child's sibling; (2) attempted, conspired to cause or caused great bodily harm or death to another parent, guardian or custodian of the child; (3) attempted, conspired to subject or has subjected the child to torture, chronic abuse or sexual abuse; or (4) had his parental rights over a sibling of the child terminated involuntarily; D. "Great bodily harm" means an injury to a person that creates a high probability of death, that causes serious disfigurement or that results in permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any member or organ of the body. There was never any allegations regarding abuse or proof of abuse because no abuse ever occurred.

13."Neglected child" means a child: (1) who has been abandoned by the child's parent, guardian or custodian. My children were never abandoned. See # 12. (2) who is without proper parental care and control or subsistence, education, medical or other care or control necessary for the child's well-being because of the faults or habits of the child's parent, guardian or custodian or the failure or refusal of the parent, guardian or custodian, when able to do so, to provide them. My children *****, ****, and **** had parental care. My children ******, *****, went to school May 9th and on a continuous basis prior. ***** went to daycare May 9th. All children had medical insurance and had Primary Medical Doctors, and saw them when needed. ****** was able to receive medical services May 9th and was treated by a medical doctor and was able to receive and fill a prescription by which SO's Mom oversaw. The children ****, ****, and **** were all healthy, happy, and striving before CYFD’s intrusion into the family body. (3) Who has been physically or sexually abused, when the child's parent, guardian or custodian knew or should have known of the abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the child from further harm. At no time were my children *****, ****, or **** physically or sexually abused, nor have allegations thereof been made. (4) Whose parent, guardian or custodian is unable to discharge his responsibilities to and for the child because of incarceration, hospitalization or physical or mental disorder or incapacity. I have at no time in the duration of my children’s lives been unable to discharge my responsibilities to my children under any circumstance.

This is the beginning of the objections and corrections just to the petition itself. I got stuck on #5 under neglect. Then I will go into the fact that my children were safe. That they did not properly assess the intent of the caller. That they did not determine the needs of the family and look into all resonable efforts as defined by ASFA. And whatever else I can come up with. Then I will go on to the ex parte custody order and affidavit which was filed a day later and do the same.

Any feedback so far would be wonderful! I wonder if I should break up the longer paragraphs even more or organize them differently?

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:38 pm

I am not the expert on this, but here goes:

#2 Maybe add that you have not "allowed" them to be abused either, meaning abused by someone else.

Did the original paper state that YOU maltreated them, or that they were maltreated ?

# 5 correct spelling of 'cause.'

#6 "inflicted by me" ? Did the original paper state that YOU inflicted maltreatment, or that they were maltreated ?

#7 Same thing. Maybe ? say, My children have never been neglected.

#8 Same thing ?

#10 'to suit their own biased interest' -- emotionally charged.

Rather than say, 'Social workers should have done such and such',

maybe say, Social workers did the following, or failed to do the following, or there is no evidence that workers did such and such.

Here are some ideas for wording

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/g ... ml#Scene_1

(1) Perjury.
(2) Fabrication of evidence.
(3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence.
(4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of
the Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section
1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section
1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) As used in this section, "malice" means conduct that is
intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury
to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the
person described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious
disregard of the rights or safety of others.


You don't know what was done behind the scenes, so the policies on that don't matter.

#11 Reword ? 'The allegations in the report failed to meet the statutory definition of maltreatment...'
or 'There were no allegations that met the statutory definition...'

#12 Reword: 'The allegation failed to meet the statutory definition of abandonment.' or 'There were no allegations of abandonment.' Try to condense this paragraph to essential elements.


# (There are 2 #12's)

Second #12 - 'There were no allegations of abuse...' ?
#13 "There were no allegations of neglect..." ?

*********

What you are doing is good -- going through each policy in detail.
After you have complied a long statement, you can go back and condense it, or combine statements.

For example, 'There were no allegations of maltreatment, abuse or neglect.'

Hardly anybody ever has any allegations that meet the statutory definition of maltreatment. The lawyer does a plea bargain in a pre-hearing conference, without you, and then you are stuck with 'services' for the next 2 years.

Most children are taken into foster care because the family 'needs' something.

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:01 pm

:D I posted twice by accident.
Last edited by fightingfor3 on Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Sorry, let me be more clear, yes they filed against me as well as the children's fathers. They filed against them for abandonment, neglect (32A-4-2(E)(2), and the other with emotional abuse, and general neglect.

This is what they filed against me:

They used statutes 32-A-4-(B)(2) "as amended, in that the children have suffered physical abuse, emotional abuse (by the supposed abandonment), or psychological abuse inflicted or caused by the children's parent. UGH! I'm confused why would they amend one father and only put emotional abuse but leave mine the almost full description? There was never any mention of physical abuse or anything else in the affidavit that explains the interviews nor was it in the police report? So, I guess I was alleged to have committed abuse. This just pisses me off more and more!

32A-4-2(E)(1) "as amended in that the children have been abandoned by the children's parent"

They call E2 general neglect; this is the catch all and what I was finally adjudicated of, and 32-A-2(E)(2). "as amended, in that the children have been without proper parental care and control or sbsistence, educatin, medical or other care or control necessary for the children's well being because of the faults or habits of the children's parent, or the failure or refusal of the parent, when able to do so, to provide them.

32A-4-2(E)(4) as amended in that the parent is unable to discharge the parent's responsibilities to and for the child because of incarceration, hospitalization or other physical or mental disorder or incapacity. [I was arrested two days later May 11th for a failure to appear on a traffic violation and was detained for 5 hours another part of the plot, will explain in the declaration]

I will work on the wording and other suggestions! Thanks so much!

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:48 pm

"The undersigned further states the following facts (referring to the Affidavit) to establish probable cause in support of this Affidavit."

How can the affidavit establish probable cause to support the affidavit? Does this make sense?

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Postby fightingfor3 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:52 pm

Can a probable cause hearing be held in CPS cases?

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:31 pm

I am thinking that in order for CPS to file a petition to intefere, they have to have probable cause that the child has been maltreated or is in need of services.

The level of evidence for this is very low -- 'preponderance of evidence' -- which they evidently are giving as 'probable cause.'

For a criminal action, the evidence has to be 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

For termination of parental rights, the evidence has to be 'clear and convincing.'

This article on administrative appeals of CPS founded dispositions explains the difference. If a child is eventually returned to the parents, then in this case especially, the parents want to expunge or get their name off the Central Registry, which prevents them from working in schools, daycare, etc.

http://www.dcba.org/brief/decissue/2000/art51200.htm

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

Postby Dazeemay » Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:56 pm

Probable cause hearings are held many times in cps cases.

Take for instance our daughter. They filed a petition that she was medically neglectful which was a probable cause. They then had to prove to the judge a preponderence of evidence which they could not.

I like the way this article explains it.

There are several standards of proof in the legal system, and they apply in different places. We will deal with them from the least to the most likely.

"Probable cause" is the lowest standard of proof. It is what is required to pull you over on the highway for suspected drunk driving, for instance. The police officer can't just randomly decide he thinks you're drunk - he has to have some kind of objective observation that leads him to believe this. When the police officer sees you weaving on the road, he has that probable cause.

Now this really is no proof at all, since you could have dropped a cigarette in your lap and been trying to avoid burning your legs in half - and that's why you were weaving. Or the famous "McDonalds' Coffee" incident might have just occurred. But, that standard of proof - a reasonable belief that you might have committed a crime, and that a reasonable person would believe, constitutes Probable Cause.

The next standard is "a preponderance of the evidence."


http://childrens-justice.org/papers/cps-reform.htm
**********************************
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

User avatar
fightingfor3
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:40 pm

Can you all tell me what you think?

Postby fightingfor3 » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:00 pm

IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CHILDREN'S COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF ******
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

**************
and for *********, minor offspring
and for *********, minor offspring
and for *********, minor offspring
Petitioner/Aggrieved Party
V
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT
Respondents/Persecutors No:
Judge:

OBJECTIONS AND CORRECTIONS

The Honorable Court above named is herby advised that the MOTION for EX PARTE CUSTODY ORDER as prepared and typed is ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT in the following particulars, to wit:

1.Page One: My legal name is **********.

2.Page One: The Motion for Ex Parte Custody Order was based on the Affidavit entered as Exhibit A which is erroneous and incorrect. See Objections and Corrections to the Affidavit for Ex Parte Custody Order.

3.The Affidavit fails to establish probable cause and the Persecutors offer no credible evidence that any of the allegations are founded. H.R. v State Department of Human Resources Ala Ct. App. 612 So. 2d 477 (1992) Court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause.

4.As required by §32A-4-16 The Affidavit for Ex Parte Custody Order fails to list ****** as a party and there is no sworn statement that SOCIAL WORKER has reason to believe that ****** has been neglected and/or abused. The Motion For Ex Parte Custody Order does not meet statutory guidelines and is an illegitimate document. The STATE OF NEW MEXICO fails to offer any credible evidence or probable cause that this Motion should be granted in regards to the children ********, ********, and *******, therefore this Motion should be denied.

5.Bendiburg v Dempsey (11th Cir. 1990) Post deprivation remedies do not provide due process if pre-deprivation remedies are practicable. The STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel SOCIAL WORKER, SOCIAL WORKER, and SOCIAL WORKER failed to take any action that would prevent or eliminate the need for removing my children *******, and ****** from the home as required by Public Law 105-89, The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

6.Malik v Arapahoe Cty. Department of Social Services (10th Cir. 1999) found that absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. An Ex-Parte hearing based on misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. Procurement of an order to seize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or omission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The STATE lacked probable cause, a warrant, and or a court order, and my children were never in any imminent danger prior to depriving my children ********, *********, and ******** and myself of our fundamental liberties. The Affidavit attached to the Motion For Ex Parte Custody Order was based entirely on hearsay and false allegations and a fabrication of statements. INCLUDE CASE LAW THAT STATES THAT ALLEGATIONS ALONE CANNOT CREATE ROBABLE CAUSE.

7.Elrod v Burns (96 S. Ct. 1976) Loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. The STATE OF NEW MEXICO has absolutely no tangible evidence and no probable cause that my children met any statutory definitions of abuse/and or neglect and withholding my children any longer is a continuation of violating my children’s and my civil liberties and freedoms as protected by the U.S. Constitution and continues to inflict irreparable emotional pain and suffering onto my family and myself.

8.North Hudson DYFS v Koehler Family (2001) The court found “absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses. Mere parroting of the phrase “best interest of the child” without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground.” There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Persecutors can produce which amounts this case to nothing more than a fishing expedition.

9.Thomas v Scan Volunteer Services, Inc. (8th Cir. 1996) Found that parent interest is of “the highest order” and the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials. SOCIAL WORKER, SOCIAL WORKER, and SOCIAL WORKER acted out of their own overzealous suspicion although there was no collaborating evidence to any allegations set forth by the EX/EX'S FAMILY and violated my children‘s and my civil rights and caused harm to my children and myself, and furthermore sOCIAL WORKER, SOCIAL WORKER, and SOCIAL WORKER had no authority to do so.

10.Hearsay and allegations do not justify an order to seize my children. Hurlman v Rice (2nd Cir. 1991) The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency of exigent circumstances that would justify a forced warrantless seizure of a child. Furthermore, the children *********, *******, and ******** were never in any suspected danger or was there a possibility of danger. The following case law supports that the seizure of my children by the STATE was a violation of the Fourth Amendment: Lenz v Winburn (11th Cir. 1995) The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Wallis v. Spencer (9th Cir. 1999/2000) Police officers or social workers may not “pick up” a child without an investigation or court order absent an emergency. Walsh v Erie county Department of Job and Family Services 3:01-cv-7588 “The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCFS employee, or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of child abuse, neglect, or dependency.” Good v Dauhpin County Soical Services 3rd Cir. 891 F 2d 1087 (1989) Police officers and social workers may not conduct a warrant-less search or seizure in a suspected abuse case, absent exigent circumstances. Persecutors must have a reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonably necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home.

11.The following case law also supports the fact that the intrusion into the family body by the STATE was illegal and done only by obstructing my children and my sovereign rights which are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Griswold v Connecticut 361 F 2d 257; (1963) found that the Constitution also protects under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love, and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy, which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Quilloin v Walcott 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978) A due-process violation occurs when a state required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Ram v Rubin (9th Cir. 1997) Children may not be removed from their home by police officers or social workers without notice and a hearing unless the officials have a reasonable belief that the children are in imminent danger. Langton v Maloney 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981) The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Morris v Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999) The right to procedural Due Process was violated when the state denied the plaintiff the fundamental right to fair procedure before having their child removed with the intentional use of fraudulent evidence during the procedure. J.B. v Washington County (10th Cir. 1997) The forced separation of parent from child even for a short time represents serious infringement upon the rights of both. Gross v State of Illinois 312 F 2d 257; (1963) State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of the Federal Constitutional rights.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:31 am

This federal article on "Effective Documentation" gives a good outline on what to put in a "Declaration of Facts" and "Objections and Corrections."

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/userma ... s/cpsl.cfm


Return to “Legal Research”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests