fightcps.com

The Family Court Hearing - A Constitutional Defense

This is quite informative and one should, even if you have a lawyer, know your rights because you cannot count on him/ her to know your Constitutional Rights for your hearing/s.


http://www.life-vs-cps.com/index_files/Page357.htm

CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT has been added to the First Family Court Hearing.

Everything on this site is very informative to you as a parent and grandparent.

http://www.life-vs-cps.com/index_files/Page357.htm

But it is a sham of both your time and the court.

It is better to be drug clean and present a defense that you did not abuse or neglect a child.

michael
you state it is better to have not done the things that most of the people on here are accused of. that is correct, but what about the people that are accused of crimes that did not happen. for example, FINN was accused of murdering his stepdaughter or since you are from texas cps, what about all the cases profiled on Dr. G Medical Examiner and 48 Hrs. these have been parents who have been accused of shaken baby syndrome, throwing children against hard surfaces, choking a child, etc.... tell me if innocence is the best defense why does it not work, why do you have to fight to clear your name from a civil charge that cause you not to loose your freedom, but your children. why should we have to go in front of civil or quasi-civil court to prove or disprove allegation that were made by a caller who does not know the whole story or is retaliating against some wrong they think was done to them by this person. then again, what about the grandparents who are about to loose their grandchildren becuase a caseworker is working on the assumption that their child is guilty, they raised that child so therefore they can not be a good parent.
i feel that what cps is doing is trying to create a euphorium for the creation and rearing of children. if they want that, licenses and psychological screening should be done before a person is allowed to reproduce. your office and other offices around the country choose to strip the constitution out of our lives becuase it makes your job easier. one of these day someone will win and cps will be revamped. most of the cases i know of are a waste of spending, my case in particular was one, the local office even admitted that it was a waste. you can not offer parenting classes to fix every problem and that is what most of these offices do. you can not pay for evaulation that say no need for parenting classes and make a person take others until they say they need parenting classes. that is just a waste.
another thing is, cps works under this policy that does change from time to time. when a worker comes to your house and they say our policy says this, how the hell are we as novices suppose to know your policy when in most cases even the caseworker doesnt know it. our children did not come with instruction manuals, yet your organization wants us to operate under one.
i feel like in most cases i agree with your assessment of some cases, but the comment you made here just offends me. you can not say that everyone on here is guilty of the accusation and that we do not deserve the rights that the constitution affords us. that is what i feel you are saying.

A defense based on your facts is better than a Constitutional defense. You are going to lose on a Constitutional defense. While it is true that some one may eventually wnl when the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court by that time the child wil be several years older.

However, in order to argue a constitutional defense at a higher court, it must be presented in the trial court level. It can not first be brought up at appeals.
The appellate court can only rule on trial court error of law.

The link no longer works.

I have been told not to bring up what constitutional rights cps violated. Atleast not in a juvenile dependency case when its still at civil level. Now if and when you take it to federal, it may be different. I was told it was about the kids, how you are as a parent (said in court at trial) and to basically prove cps wrong and prove the allegations to be false..not about what constitutiinal rights cps violated...but..correct me if I am wrong.

There is a concept referred to a the "poisoned tree" doctrine. Also, known as "fruit of the poisonous tree". If something is wrong at the beginning, or the root, everything after that is invalid. Needs to be brought up early to be a point for appeal.
I don't blame any one for trying anything that might help put their family back together. However, making a constitutional argument can be seen as legitimizing the system just like any other argument.
Suppose the constitution actually said, "Congress shall create CPS with god-like powers." Would that make it OK?
CPS is bad because it is backed by violence, workers have a self interest in taking families apart, and all involved are effectively shielded from personal liability for the wrongs and mistakes they make.
The constitution, like any other law, doesn't make things right or wrong.

KDus wrote:making a constitutional argument can be seen as legitimizing the system just like any other argument.

How would the constitution legitimize CPS?

You talk about the 'poisoned tree doctrine' ... well how about the fact that all the federal child welfare laws violate the tenth amendment of the US constitution?

Arguments must be brought up in the lower courts, all lower courts in order to be heard at appeal.

If the argument was not presented in the lower court, you may not address same at the Appellate level-this does NOT just apply to Federal filings.

LindaJM wrote:

KDus wrote:making a constitutional argument can be seen as legitimizing the system just like any other argument.

How would the constitution legitimize CPS?

You talk about the 'poisoned tree doctrine' ... well how about the fact that all the federal child welfare laws violate the tenth amendment of the US constitution?

the constitution does not legitimize CPS. Arguing in court legitimizes it. If you weren't in their jurisdiction, you wouldn't be in their court arguing about it. So, if you're arguing about it, you must be in their jurisdiction.
Why do we argue in court? What we really should do is just go pick up our kids, because we are right. Why don't we do that? Because we'll end up dead.
So what really legitimizes CPS is people willing to kill you to be "right".

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Lysander Spooner

Well, I can't agree with you.

True that the constitution has been powerless to prevent communist takeover of our country. Our socialist president who may not even have been born in the USA has proven that, along with his mentors. But on the other side of the coin is the television-mesmerized, media-brainwashed people who make up the mass of Americans, too lazy or stupid to do anything to stop the foreign takeover of our country.

If Americans cared about their Constitution more than they cared about seeing this week's episode of Survivor, we might have a great country again.

The Constitution is a sound basis for the country, created by great minds back in the days when there were great minds liberated enough to think these principals through. We're lucky to have it and our state legislators should force the federal government to abide by it. The State Sovereignty Movement is a great start in regaining our balance. Until state legislators have the intestinal fortitude to say no to federal funding schemes, the situation will continue.

It isn't my constitution and I didn't sign it. It was a created in secret by a political coup. It is no accident that our society is what it has become. As long as people believe in government that operates with a monopoly on coercion and violence, that's what we'll get.

It is time to realize that government can't be fixed. You will never "get the right people" elected. It is inherently broken. It will continue to grow. They will continue to make new laws. CPS will get more funding and more workers.

There is a non-violent solution but it is off topic.

and whats that kdus? what is the non violent solution?

Re: The Family Court Hearing - A Constitutional Defense

Postby MaggieC » Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:32 am
Arguments must be brought up in the lower courts, all lower courts in order to be heard at appeal.

If the argument was not presented in the lower court, you may not address same at the Appellate level-this does NOT just apply to Federal filings.

How can you bring up anything about Constitutional Rights if the Judge tells your Attorney (a very good attorney) that she doesn't care what evidence either side has, that she will find my child dependent neglect regardless of our evidence and witnesses testimony. The Judge would not let my attorney talk, I was falsely accused, my son is home but I was found guilty, what kind of sense does that make?....I'm just glad that my son is home in my arms where he belongs....Any one in Middle TN that is having problems with CPS/DCS/Juvenile Judge please get in touch with me

If we all stand together (Class Action Suit) we can make these monsters pay for the trauma they have and continue to put us and our children through .... There is POWER in numbers.....

One does same on papers. That is, your briefs. It is not all talking, motions and briefs are an integral part of the process.

The first three links don't work for me , I came in to look at the first one , a constitutional defense , I find it ironic , i dont feel the famiy court is constitutional , since it says above the door to any court house " to uphold constitutional rights" , and clearly family court doesn't do that , I dunno if there is an issue with the links , or if it's me , just wanted to drop a note ~Kelz~

Among the legal crowd, family court is said to practice fuzzy law. That doesn't mean that you and your counsel need to do same. Do it on papers, write it all down on motions and pleadings, make it all a matter of record, legally.

kelz03103 wrote:The first three links don't work for me , I came in to look at the first one , a constitutional defense , I find it ironic , i dont feel the famiy court is constitutional , since it says above the door to any court house " to uphold constitutional rights" , and clearly family court doesn't do that , I dunno if there is an issue with the links , or if it's me , just wanted to drop a note ~Kelz~

The "Live vs. CPS" site has apparently gone offline. So sad, that many sites about CPS disappear.

KDus wrote:It isn't my constitution and I didn't sign it. It was a created in secret by a political coup. It is no accident that our society is what it has become. As long as people believe in government that operates with a monopoly on coercion and violence, that's what we'll get.

It is time to realize that government can't be fixed. You will never "get the right people" elected. It is inherently broken. It will continue to grow. They will continue to make new laws. CPS will get more funding and more workers.

There is a non-violent solution but it is off topic.

That argument will get you nowhere fast.

Despite the clearly unconstitutional actions of the govt, in CPS especially but everywhere else as well, we have in place something akin to due process.
To fight the system you gotta do your best to fight within those rules, trying to dismiss the whole problem in one fell swoop by uttering talismanic statements is magical thinking. The court will not listen, and you will attain the taint of a nut.
(I think that family court as a concept and court of review is not unconstitutional, but rather the vast and arbitrary powers they wield are very unconstitutional.)

That notwithstanding, if one does intend to try to fight the jurisdiction of the family court, one does have to raise the objection in the family court.
More pertinently, CPS is really the institution that should not have jurisdiction to do the things they are empowered to do; that is the real constitutional violation.

(Checkout my Family Law Support group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FamilyCourtDads/ )

I get your drift -BUT- It is imperative to note in a lower court case that one's Constitutional rights have been violated because without doing same, one can not argue Constitituional rights in a higher court. Often it is the higher court that prevails.

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

I believe the terminology is a constitutional challenge. Some folks here in Texas have been talking about the possibilities. Depends on state law, specific CPS practices, and facts of the individual case. Start at the beginning - right to confront witnesses...

Has anyone had any success?

The system badly needs reform. The philosophy favoring termination is beginning to shift, I think.