NC - Iredell DSS Gets The Boot

[AllForThisSite]

Statesville Record & Landmark
Friday, January 27, 2006

PARENT TAKES ISSUE WITH DSS CUSTODY PROCEDURES
By Carrie J. Sidener
[email protected]

A former Statesville resident has sued the Iredell County Department of Social Services in an effort to regain custody of her children.

Alice McIntyre's two sons were placed in the custody of her ex-husband in May. Earlier this month, she and her current husband, Bradley McIntyre, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Iredell County Department of Social Services; DSS employees Leann Smith, Carol Rhoulac and Robin Nicholson; the Iredell County Sheriff's Office; Deputy Benjamin Jenkins; and Iredell County.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Fourth Amendment and the 14th Amendment protection against illegal searches and violations of due process.

"Social Services believes they have the full authority to walk into someone's house and take their children," Bradley McIntyre said.

The lawsuit asks that Alice McIntyre's children be returned, that the defendants be punished as the court deems suitable, and that the defendants pay court fees and unspecified damages.

The defendants have until Feb. 9 to file a response to the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, on April 29, 2005, Rhoulac came to the house to investigate two anonymous reports of abuse and one report from a family member.

The reports alleged that Bradley McIntyre had abused the children.

A juvenile court summary dated July 26, 2005, alleges that Bradley McIntyre was "inappropriately disciplining the children by whipping them with belts and hitting them with his fists."

It also alleges that Bradley McIntyre locked the children in their bedrooms and withheld food as punishment.

Bradley McIntyre denies all of the allegations. He says Alice's mother and Alice's ex-husband worked together to get the children out of the house when he refused to help care for a family member.

On May 2, Alice and Bradley McIntyre signed an agreement stating that Bradley McIntyre would no longer be around the children. In return, the DSS left the children with Alice.

"Both agreed that any violation of this plan would result in the immediate removal of the children from the mother's home," the court summary said.

For three weeks, Bradley McIntyre lived in a hotel. During that time, he and Alice got married. Then he returned home.

Alice McIntyre immediately moved to a shelter with the boys. She says she was pressured by social workers tellign her things about her husband's criminal past.

Three days after she left, a friend who looked into Bradley McIntyre's criminal record told Alice there was nothing in his past to fear. She returned home on May 22.

That same night, caseworker Robin Nicholson and Deputy Benjamin Jenkins came to the McIntyre's home around 10:30 p.m.

According to the lawsuit, the 8-year-old boy let them in.

"They did not have my permission to come in," Bradley McIntyre said.

Since Bradley had broken the DSS service agreement by being in the house, the caseworker and the deputy took the children to their father's house, where they remain.

"I've seen my kids three times in eight months," said Alice McIntyre, who was awarded unsupervised weekly visitation last month. "They literally broke my bond with my children."

In their lawsuit, the McIntyres take issue with the children having been removed without a court order. They also allege Jenkins searched the house without a warrant.

Lt. Roger McDaniel's of the Iredell County Sheriff's Office said he isn't worried about the lawsuit.

"We had one officer to assist like we normally do," on DSS custody cases. McDaniels said. "I think when they (the courts) see that only one officer was involved, they'll drop us from the suit."

Don Wall, director of the DSS, said he cannot discuss pending litigation.

Wall said social workers work with families to determine their strengths and weaknesses and try to give them the resources to help.

"If we don't get cooperation and the child's safety and well-being are in danger, we will file a petition and let the juvenile court decide what to do," Wall said.

The McIntyre's now live in Boone. Bradley McIntyre has completed a class in anger management at the request of DSS.

The only contact Alice has with her children is a few hours once a week at the home of a church member.

"It's just a mess," Alice McIntyre said.

The couple will return to court on Feb. 7 to revisit custody and visitation.

[AllForThisSite]

Forgive me for being absent so long, friends. Between working my regular job and working on my novel I've been pushed for time unable to update myself on what is happening with everyone. I miss all of you so much and I've not forgotten the heartaches that many of you are going through.

My husband and I were on our way to enjoying an evening out alone when we decided to catch a movie. Just before going inside our chosen restaraunt I bought a paper to check out the movie titles and times. On the front page of our local paper I see that a parent has chosen to stand up to DSS. The same county DSS that I had dealings with last summer that ended up in a 4 month long pointless investigation because we refused counseling without a court order for it.

It surprised me very much when I read this article that at the time this ball was moving to sue Iredell County DSS, I'd also threatened to do the same if my rights were not upheld and respected as the Constitution and State laws so state. DSS was quick to leave when I mentioned all visits to my home would be video recorded. They were quick to back off when I mentioned a court order must be obtained in order for them to ask my husband to submit to a drug test. They were quiet when I refused them permission to enter my home. They were quiet when I requested that before they could open their mouths that a witness on my behalf must be present to observe their interaction with my family.

I imagine that they were playing their roles very carefully with me knowing in the back of their minds that they were about to be sued by the McIntyre family. No one would dare want the McIntyre's to have a second witnessing family. No one would dare want the McIntyre's to have someone else appear on their behalf to discuss the boundaries of law that DSS so often erases and steps over in effort to illegally gain custody of children and the unrealistic requests made upon impoverished families in order to keep their children.

Since my investigation has closed, two other families I am familiar with have been investigated and are still under the clutches of DSS. One family is being investigated for abuse of pain pills. They've been drug-tested and the tests were clear. Their source of the DSS intervention was an ER doctor. This family is still being investigated and the marital relationship has become an issue rather than the parental relationship which is the area that DSS is supposed to be limited to dealing with.

The other family received DSS intervention because another caller chose to abuse the "anonymous" calling option due to the fact that the young lady--mother of 3--chose to sue for arrearages in child support that sum in the ballpark of $8,387. She has passed a drug-test, her father whom she lives with and cares for has passed his drug-test. Both have had successful criminal background checks. Both have prooved that they are perfectly able to provide support and care for the children. DSS remains involved with both of these families in efforts to monitor them for future services. In other words, look for something else to continue their involvement.

Since the start of my case back last July and the ending of it last November, I've made it very clear to those under investigation that standing up for the rights detailed in the Constitution and pushing for the rights that each person has by State, is the way to fight back against illegal child custody by DSS and false accusations made by them. Rules must be followed and they will not be followed if no one points them out. If we the people--not saying I agree with this subject but I am using it as a point--can stand up to our government and ask that the word "God" be stricken from the opening court sessions, national landmarks, and government buildings, then why can we not find the strength to stand up to the same government and tell them our families will not allow harassment where it is not warranted and not LEGAL!??

Loudness is heard. Voices are heard. Bravery is heard. More people like the McIntyre's is what it takes to end what we are going through. We have people in Iraq and other foreign countries killing children, bombing them, blowing them to smitherines, and DSS cannot make it their business to intervene there where their presence is accepted, to take children out of exile, but they'd rather point the finger at you because somebody called and said your children are dirty.

A parent that has a dirty child is not a bad parent. A parent that allows one child to sleep on the sofa while the other sleeps in a bed until they can afford bunk beds is not a bad parent. A parent that has dealt with his or her children in a hot mini-van for 4 hours while they shop for groceries, run errands and pay their bills is not a bad parent when the last straw is drawn and they raise their voice because they've heard "Stop touching me!" and "Stop looking at me!" for the umpteenth time. A parent that cannot find work is not a bad parent. A parent that finds out their child has taken up with peer pressure and decided to smoke is not a bad parent. A parent that is attending rehabilitation classes to stop drinking or abusing drugs is not a bad parent; they are getting help for pete sake. We are not living in a perfect world and with perfect people, folks. You can bend, stretch, and try to be perfect but it's not going to play out in your favor; you will never be the perfect person let alone the perfect parent.

You will make mistakes. You will do some stupid things. You will wonder how in the hell you ever got through 18 years of raising your kids without going bananas. But you will never be the adult with all of the answers and all of the ideas and all of the perfections. You will fall by the way because you are human. You should never feel that you should have to apologize for being one.

I'd never want to unlock the door to a home bought and paid for by the children I'd taken or drive a car paid for by the heartache and tears of a family I'd taken children from.

[scarfyrre]

Oh, I cannot wait to see what happens with this case. I'll have to remember to add the Constitution violations when I sue.

Thanks for the heads up!

[Frustrated]

Me too. The Judge would take a very serious look at the Consitution, but in History alway tells me that Judge favour for the best interest of the Child/ren. They need to prove that the Children were in fact "risk of imminent danger and harm, as reasons for removal. CPS have to prove that the Children were in fact in danger from harm but this Consitution protects them from CPS getting in without a Court order because such removal, REQUIRES a Court order to do so. If there was no Court order for Removal of Children, CPS are in trouble. I know I read up that in every removal of Children, the CPS MUST OBTAIN a Court order to get them removed, which means CPS MUST tell the Judge the reason for removal. It would be very interesting to know what the Court Order indicates? Imminenet danger of harm? If there is no mention anywhere for imminenet danger of harm, then CPS has no case. I think the Family has a Case, because they say there was NO Court order whatsover for lots of things in their violation.

NO Court order for:

1. Removal of Children
2. Entry of the Home
3. Search of the House and on Persons.

The Family has the right to refuse entry because they had CPS Case before and they already signed an agreement but they breached for removal of her Children. It would be interesting to see this one unfold. I know CPS are like slinky snakes, and always win the case. That is why this Family needs to argue that it is not always the case, but to respect the color of Law.