Oy. My head hurts. Can anyone help look these over?

[fightingfor3]

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

Me
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. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000) Persecutors could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker's home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. My children ***, ***, and *** were never in any imminent danger. See POLICE Investigative Report.

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 WITCH, SOCIAL WENCH and SOCIAL WENCH IN TRAINING 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.

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 the 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 seizing my children 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. SW1, SW2, and SW3 acted out of their own overzealous suspicion although there was no collaborating evidence to any allegations set forth by the SOBs and violated my children‘s and my civil rights and caused harm to my children and myself, and furthermore SW, SW, and SW had no authority to do so.

10.Hearsay and unfounded allegations do not justify an order to seize my children. The United States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 ruling, ruled that it is unconstitutional to use hearsay evidence in any court procedure as reversed and remanded in (02-9410) 147 Wash. 2d 424, 54 P.3d 656. The allegations in the Affidavit is nothing more than hearsay and is completely unfounded and therefore should be dismissed. 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 Social 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. California v Hobari D. 499 U.S. 621 (1991) For purposes of the Fourth Amendment a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest.

10.The DAB also ruled in Decision No. 1428 that a report of child abuse or neglect is insufficient for establishing a child's candidacy for foster care. "The fact that a child is the subject of [a child abuse/neglect report] falls far short of establishing that the child is at serious risk of placement in foster care and thus of becoming eligible for IV-E assistance." A child cannot be considered a candidate for foster care when the State agency has no formal involvement with the child or simply because s/he has been described as "at risk" due to circumstances such as social/interpersonal problems or a dysfunctional home environment. However my children where never found to be “at risk” and their home environment was not dysfunctional.
????????

11.The taking of my children against my will and my children’s will and without consent by force and fraud to withhold them from me at the gain of the Persecutors without legal excuse is kidnapping. U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 55 § 1201. Kidnapping (a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent (b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported to interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended. (c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. (d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years. (g) Special Rule for Certain Offenses Involving Children. (1) To whom applicable. If (A) the victim of an offense under this section has not attained the age of eighteen years; and (B) the offender (i) has attained such age; and (ii) is not (I) a parent; (II) a grandparent; (III) a brother; (IV) a sister; (V) an aunt; (VI) an uncle; or (VII) an individual having legal custody of the victim; the sentence under this section for such offense shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years. Under U.S. Code Title 18 Section 1203 (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

12.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]

Here is something on formatting.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/article. ... olumeID=52

May be able to help more later.

[fightingfor3]

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

Me
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 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.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 One: *** is father of ***.

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 cause, 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 tangible evidence to support this ridiculous allegation because none exists, as it never occurred..

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 SWFH and SWFH as well as SWFH failed to do 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; Determine how to meet the immediate needs of the child and family being reported.

11.SWFH, SWFH, and SWFH failed to properly evaluate the report as there were no allegations that met the statutory definition of 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 momfor fourteen days, but rather one night and day that she agreed to care for the children. Connie Bryant 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 SOB'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 SOB's MOM were they left without provision for support and without communication.

13.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 action or inaction of the chi(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 credible evidence of abuse because no abuse ever occurred.

14."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 SOBs 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. (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. (5) who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of the law; provided that nothing in the Children's Code 32-A-1-1 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. None of my children ***, ***, or *** have never been placed for care or adoption in violation of the law until CYFD took custody of them.

15.My children ***, ***, *** were all alive, thriving, and healthy and were not subjected to any illegal acts nor were there allegations thereof. F. "physical abuse" includes but is not limited to any case in which the child exhibits evidence of skin bruising, bleeding, malnutrition, failure to thrive, burns, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling or death and: (1) there is not a justifiable explanation for the condition or death; (2) the explanation given for the condition is at variance with the degree or nature of the condition; (4) circumstances indicate that the condition or death may not be the product of an accidental occurrence; G. "sexual abuse" includes but is not limited to criminal sexual contact, incest or criminal sexual penetration, as those acts are defined by state law; and H. "sexual exploitation" includes but is not limited to: (1) allowing, permitting or encouraging a child to engage in prostitution; (2) allowing, permitting, encouraging or engaging a child in obscene or pornographic photographing; or (3) filming or depicting a child for obscene or pornographic commercial purposes, as those acts are defined by state law.

16.***, ***, and *** all failed to properly assess the safety of my children ***, ***, and *** did not meet any of the definitions as defined herein by #12-15. My children ***, ***, and ***were never in any type of danger and were happy and healthy.

17.SWB, SWB, and SWB failed to evaluate the motives of the caller. SWB, SWB, and SWB knew or should have known that the referral made by SOBs Mom was made with malice and SOBs Mom, SOB, SOB's BRO, and SOB'S DAD acted in bad faith. As used in this section, "malice" means conduct that is intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury to the respondent 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. M, SOB, B., and D conspired amongst themselves and with Officials to keep me from my son, *** See Objections and Corrections of the Motion For Ex Parte Custody Order which is incorporated herein by this reference. Also See Declaration of Facts.

18.SW, SW, and SW failed to determine how to meet the immediate needs of the child and family being reported. As the minor children did not meet the statutory definition of maltreatment they had no special needs that could not be meet beyond what the family bond could provide. Under Public Law 105-89 The Adoption and Safe Families Act Title I Sec. 101 and 471(a)(15) of the Social Security Act reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home. SW, SW, SW failed to make any attempt at all to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the children from their home. SOB'S Mom informed SWFH that I was on my way to pick up my children, however SWFH, SWFH, and SWFH made the decision under the Color of Law to interfere with the Constitutionally protected family bond, and willfully deprived my children ***, ***, and *** as well as myself of our liberties, rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. 767 F 2d 651: US Ct. App 9th Cir, 1985 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See: Declaration of Independence--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution-- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Matter of Gentry 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983) A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. May v Anderson (73 S. Ct. 840 1952) The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. Carson v Elrod 411 F Supp 645, 649;DC E.D. VA (1976) No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. 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 interest of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government.

19.Page Two: It was not in my children’s best interest that this Petition be filed. 345 US 528, 533: 73 S. Ct. 840, 843 (1952) Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment (first) which may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Quilloin v Walcott (1978) 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. Bendiburg v Dempsey (11th Cir. 1990) Post-deprivation remedies do not provide due process if pre-deprivation remedies are practicable. Franz v U.S. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983) A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Ward v San jose (9th Cir. 1992) A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent.

[fightingfor3]

This is only half. I had to try and block out names. UGH.

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

ME
and for My baby, minor offspring
and for My baby, 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 AFFIDAVIT included in 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 children ***and ***have not been abused and or neglected and do not in anyway meet statutory definitions of such.

2.Page one: “The undersigned further states the following facts to establish probable cause in support of this Affidavit.” This Affidavit is erroneous and incorrect, and cannot establish probable cause to support itself. Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or reason to believe that an injury had criminal cause; neither existed as the minor children in question were not abused or neglected and did not meet any statutory definitions of such. The STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. SW, SW, along with SW violated the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution of the United States as they failed to establish probable cause prior to seizing my children and as such it was not and could not be supported by Oath or affirmation. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

3.Page One: The Affidavit fails to show credible evidence that would define the referral made to CYFD on May 09, 2005 as an emergency. Add CHart?

4.Page One: I did not drop off my children 123 at SOB dad
and SOB’s mom house located at *** on April 10th, 2005. ** and ** were not even in town on the 10th.

5.Page One: I never left my children 123.

6.Page One: I never stated that I “had to get my sanity back,” as I never lost it to begin with.

7.Page One: “The source reported that me has been hanging out in bars drinking and partying.” This is hearsay. I was not hanging out in bars and drinking and partying.

8.Page one: “The fathers of the two girls are unknown and live in Washington State and have not been involved.” If the fathers are unknown how would the caller know where they lived? Neither ** or ** father lived in Washington State.

9.Page Two: “Source reported that SOD and SOM do not have temporary guardianship and can no longer care for baby, age 7 and baby, age 8 and them picked up this afternoon.” This is not a complete sentence and it is unclear what the meaning of this sentence is. Temporary guardianship and care for baby, baby, and baby was of no concern to SOM&D as I clearly stated to SO's mom and to SO that I would be picking up all of my children May 09, 2005 prior to the referral to CYFD.

10.Page Two: “SO's Bro told me his mother was in the bedroom explaining to the girls what is going on.” This is hearsay. SOBro nor SW were in the bedroom and did not witness what SO's mom was saying or doing. If SO's mom was in the bedroom why was she only speaking to the girls, baby, and baby, when my son was also present and the allegations supposedly pertained to him as well? What would there be to explain to the two girls at that time, since , , and just arrived, unless there was already a plot and plan in place?

11.Page Two: “SOB's Bro. told me that his brother, SO and me have been living together on and off for the last three years and have a son together, Baby, age two.” This is hearsay. SOB's BRO did not live with me and would not have any direct knowledge of when or if SOB's Bro was living with me. SOB last name is ***, not ***. My last name is also ***.

12.Page Two: “BRO also told me that me has two daughters, baby, and baby, whose father lives out of state.” This is hearsay as bro does not know who the fathers of baby or baby are and would not know their whereabouts.

13.Page Two: “Bro told me me “dumped” all three of the children off with his brother, SOB about one month ago.” This is hearsay as BRO is alleging something took place with someone else, who is not him. I never “dumped” my children off anywhere with anyone at any time.

14.Page Two: “bro told me that me has been hanging out at the bars all day and night.” This is slanderous hearsay. It would be impossible to “hang out at the bars all day and night.” knew or should have known this was a slanderous attempt. At the time this referral was made I was employed at BAR during the night shift 2-3 nights a week, and I was not in the bars all day and night, nor was I in the bars in excess.

15.Page Two: “BRO. told me that his brother, SOB, works for the railroad and is currently in Kansas attending engineering school for the railroad, so his parents have been caring for the children.” SOB left for engineer school on Sunday May 8th, 2005. SOB's mom agreed to care for my children baby, baby, and baby on May 8th and 9th, 2005 so that I may take a friend to Lubbock, TX for surgery.

16.Page Two: “SOBro. told me that on Mother’s day, May 08, me had picked the kids up for a cook out and when she brought them back she shoved them in the door and said “the kids are sick, you need to take care of it.” This is hearsay. SOBro. was not there when I brought the children to SOB mom and SOBdads house and therefore would have no idea what took place or did not. I at no time pushed my children in the door. At no time did I say “the kids are sick, you need to take care of it.” The children were not sick when I brought them to SOBmom and SOBdads house.

17.Page Two: “SOB bro. reported that his mother had tried to contact me today to come and take baby to the doctor because she has pink eye and when me answered the phone she cussed out his mother.” This is hearsay. I talked to SOB's mom by phone and SOB's Bro was not present at the time I spoke with her. At no time did I “cuss out” SOBMOM. At no time did SOBMOM state or request that I come get baby, although I stated very clearly to SOBMOM and SOB that I would pick up all of my children May 09, 2005. baby had already been treated for pink eye by a doctor and who’s care was overseen by SOB's MOM.

18.Page Two: “:twisted: tried calling me and there was no answer.” only attempted to call me one time.

19.Page Two: “ left a message informing me that she needed to contact CYFD as soon as possible in regards to her children.” Because I was in nothere, ** I did not receive constant cellular service and did not receive the message immediately. only attempted to call me one time, very briefly before my children were taken into custody. She left a message that stated that they were taking my children into custody and that I needed to contact them immediately she did not provide a contact number other than the one at the CYFD office.

20.Page Two: “ contacted Clovis dispatch and requested an officer to respond **. Officer responded to the residence. We informed the officer of the circumstances and Officer gave CYFD custody of baby and baby at 4:36 p.m.” OFFICER was dispatched at 4:21 p.m., exactly 15 minutes prior to relinquishing custody of my children baby, and baby to CYFD. OFFICER spoke with . gave a false report to OFFICER . False statements included that “she told me that they were called to *** because there were three children that were left at their home by me.” My three children, baby, baby, and baby were not left at their home at anytime. “The caller was SOBmom.” SOBro stated that he was the caller and made the referral. “ told me that one of the children is SOBMOM grandchild, but the two children that the Children Youth and Families were called for were half sisters to SOBMOM grandchild.” The POLICE report previously stated that “they [CYFD] were called“ “because there were three children” however now, suddenly the concern only focused on two children, the two non-biological children in SOBmom care. The POLICE report goes on to document the false report made by SOBmom. “She [SOBmom] said the children have been in her care since 04-10-05.” The children baby, baby, and baby came into SOBmom’s care on May 08, 2005. SOBmom choose to pick up the children from school and daycare on May 09, 2005. “She said she doesn’t have Power of Attorney on the two children baby and baby. SOBmom said the children had become sick, and without Power of Attorney she could not have the two girls treated for their illnessess.” baby was the only child who had pink eye. SOBmom had baby treated by a medical doctor and received and filled a prescription that was prescribed by that doctor, using the insurance card that covered all three of the children that was given to her in the event that she may need to use it. “Attempts have been made to contact the mother of the children me, but she has made no attempts to come for her children.” There was only one attempt made by moments before she contacted dispatch. At no time did anyone call me or try and contact me in any other way or at any other time. I did make attempts to come for my children. I was unaware that CYFD was attempting to interfere with my family and to gain custody of my children. My friend did however cancel his appointment so that we may return from nothere, ** and so that I may pick up my children. CYFD took custody of my children at 4:36, 24 minutes before CYFD offices close. When I learned of the message left by I immediately called the number, left by her, to the CYFD office, ***-****, however the office had already closed. I called 911 and *** County dispatch responded, as I was closest to that county while coming into town. They stated that they could not help me because the incident occurred in *** county. I attempted to call *** county POLICE dispatch and my phone battery died. I was speeding at high rates and was pulled over by a STATE OFFICER. Very hysterical I jumped out of the car and the OFFICER asked me if this was an emergency I said yes and explained I had gotten a message from saying that they were taking custody of my children and that I needed to call her immediately. The OFFICER verified that CYFD had taken all three of my children into custody, although this was not true, and stated that there was nothing I could do until morning. The POLICE report made by OFFICER went on to say “Children Youth and Families were called to take custody of baby and baby.” The SOBfamily orchestrated a plot to keep me from my son, baby after I said that I was coming to get all three of my children. If any of the allegations were true, wouldn’t they apply to all of my children? Why did CYFD only take custody of my two girls, baby, and baby? OFFICER did not have authority to release custody of my children to CYFD.???

21. Page Two: “I met with SOBmom and SOBDAD.” The STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel , , and took custody of my children before even conducting a full assessment, and without speaking to all parties. relied on one conversation with SOBRO. that was based on complete hearsay and provided no probable cause let alone no clear and convincing evidence that my children baby, baby, baby had met any statutory definition for abuse and or neglect. My children at no time were in any danger. did not clarify which SOBDAD she spoke with.

21. Page Three: “SOBmom told me {me} had dumped her children off with her son, SOB, who is baby’s father, on April 10.” This is hearsay as SOBmom was not even in town on April 10th. I at no time dumped my children off with anyone.

22. Page Three: “SOBmom told me that today SOB had faxed her a POA from Kansas for baby.” SOBro called UNDERSHERIFF, a co-worker and family friend. At that point UNDERSHERIFF instructed SOB to fax in a POA in order to keep me from my son. UNDERSHERIFF also instructed the SOBfamily to call CYFD and on what to say. At no time did UNDERSHERIFF contact me and advise me to present a POA. At not time did CYFD contact me and advise me to present a POA.

23. Page Three: “SOBmom provided me with a copy of the POA for baby.” knew as clearly stated by on page seven of the Affidavit that this supposed POA was not a legal document and clearly was written with the attempts to keep me from my son.

24. Page Three: “SOBmom told me that baby has pinkeye and needed medical attention so she called me today to ask her to come and take baby to the doctor.” SOBmom did not call me at any time to ask me to take baby to the doctor. SOBmom knew that I was out of town in nothere, **. SOB had called me and informed me that baby’s school had called and said she might have pinkeye. I asked SOB to call the school and ask if baby could wait in the nurse’s office until I could pick her up. SOB then informed me that his mother had picked up baby from school already and that he would “take care of things.”

25. Page Three: “When SOBmom called to inform me that baby needed to be taken to the doctor me cussed her out.” SOBmom did not call me to inform me that baby needed to be taken to the doctor. SOBmom had already taken Baby to the doctor. I called SOBmom to tell her that I was on my way to pick up all of my children, at no time did I “cuss her out.”

26. Page Three: “SOBmom told me that she took off work and was able to take baby to Dr. ** without a POA.” SOBmom was put on the emergency call list of baby and baby’s school as SOBmom was considered family; all of the children calling SOBmom grandma. SOBmom agreed to be put on the emergency contact list in the event that I was unable to make it to the school in an emergency she would be available. There were several other people listed on the emergency contact list. SOBMOM has taken the children in the past to see Dr. *** their PCP without a POA; the doctor‘s office also recognizing the SOBs as family. I was not aware of a POA until SOB attempted to use a document he attempted to pass off as a POA to keep me from my son. I had no reason to believe that SOBmom would not be able to seek medical care for the children. baby received treatment and care prior to the referral to CYFD, yet CYFD still alleged that baby was neglected.

27. Page Three: “Sobmom reported that she and SOBdad are not able to care for baby and baby at this time because she works full time and they do not have any guardianship for the girls.” However, Sobmom and sobdad continued to work full time and they did not have guardianship for my son, yet they were able to continue care for my son baby as CYFD did not take custody of him. Their work schedule or their status of guardianship for the girls was irrelevant as I said I was coming to pick up my children.

28. Page Three: “sobmom also told me that on April 10, me left a letter in her mail box stating the following: “Dear SOBMom and SOBdad, I just wanted to let you know that this is not a punishment to SOB , and I am not abandoning my kids. I don’t know how long, but I just know I have to go. I am doing what I feel is the best for all right now. As long as I am around Sob he will continue in his ways. I enable him to not take responsibility. This is the only way I see of saving my sanity and hopefully allowing Sob some time to prioritize and learn to understand. Like I told sob, I am willing to give up everything that is anything to me to hopefully get to a better place, whether sob and I end up together or not. I hope you all understand. I love my kids very much, and sob. I love you all. me.”” I did write this letter and leave it in sobmom mailbox, however she was not in town April 10th and would not know when I left it. When I wrote this letter I wrote it in reference to SOB’s controlling and abusive behaviors. SOB and I did agree that he would watch my children while I got on my feet financially and could support the children myself. All three of my children 123 referred to SOB as dad and the girls baby and baby resided with SOB and myself for approximately four years. SOB agreed to care for the children in the house that we all had currently resided in at ***, **. SOB and I agreed that he would keep the suburban while caring for the children and I another vehicle. The children’s clothing and toys and other necessity items remained in the house as they were. SOB had the children’s birth certificates, social security cards, and insurance card. I kept in daily contact with SOB regarding the children. When SOB permitted I talked with or saw the children. I also saw the girls daily as I went every day to eat lunch with them at their school. I continued to be involved with the children and SOB had my contact number.

29. Page Three: “SOBmom told me that me only had contact with her kids approximately four or five times in the last month.” This is completely fabricated and is hearsay. My children 123 were not in care of SOBmom and therefore she would not know when I contacted them.

30. Page Three: “SOBdad told me that me behavior is very unpredictable she is really nice one minute and very violent and out of control the next, and that she feels that this is the reason SOB and me are not together.” My relationship with SOBdad. and SOBmom was very minimal. Never has my behavior been unpredictable, violent, or out of control. SOBdad is male. SoBmom or dad’s opinion of why SOB and I were no longer in a relationship is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with my children, but should show that the SOBs were biased and unreasonably negative and slanderous towards me.

31. Page Three: “Sobdad told me that me has bi-polar and does not take her medication.” This is ludicrous as sobdad is not nor has ever been a psychiatrist and does not have any diagnosing capabilities, nor is he able to prescribe or monitor medication for such illnesses as bipolar. I have not been diagnosed with bipolar and am not and have not taken medications for bipolar.

32. Page Three: “sobmom also reported that me has been working at BAR and hanging out at BAR2 during the day.” I was working at BAR 2-3 nights a week. I was not “hanging out at BAR2 during the day,” or at any bar for that matter.

33. Page Three: “On May 10, 2005, I met with ME at CYFD.” I first called at exactly 8:00 in the morning when the office opens Tuesday, May 10th, 2005, and then immediately came into the CYFD office to speak with her in person.

34. Page Three: “I gave me a copy of the standard Advice of Rights to read. me read the Advice of right and stated that she did not have any questions and was willing to talk to me.” I was told that if I did not talk with that my children would not be returned to me. I was at no time informed of my Miranda Rights nor was I informed that my children and I were allowed to leave and that I had not been charged with a crime, therefore the interaction between and myself was done under the guise of a false arrest. J.B. v Washington County (10th Cir. 1997) found that “Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. California v Hobari D. 499 U.S. 621 (1991) For purposes of the Fourth Amendment a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest. At no time did I give consent or agree to talk to . I spoke with under the pretense that I was charged with a crime and with the prevailing threat that my children would remain in CYFD’s custody, inflicting emotional harm and distress. I did not at anytime waive my rights protected by the U.S. Constitution including my 5th Amendment Protection. Under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law it is a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities accrued or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 Federally Protected Activities this statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as: b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal govenment; e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

35. Page Four: “I informed me that CYFD had custody of baby and baby.” The first thing I asked when I met with in the entrance of CYFD was if my children were okay, at that time she informed me that CYFD had only taken custody of my two daughters.
36. Page Four: “[me] told me that she had taken a friend to Lubbock yesterday and had explained to SOB when he had called asking her to come and take baby to the doctor that she was not able to help because she was in not here.” This is fabricated. I was in nothere taking a friend who was unable to drive to the hospital for surgery. I informed SOB on Sunday May 8th, 2005 that I would be out of town. SOB called me and told me that the school had called for baby to be picked up on May 9th, 2005. I asked if SOB could call the school and ask the nurse to let baby stay in her office until I could return to pick her up. SOB then informed me that his mother SOBmom had already picked baby up. SOB at that time said that he would “take care of things” and hung up the phone. I called SOB when I reached the doctors office in nothere and he informed me his mother SOBmom would be taking baby to the doctor, and he hung up on me. I called SOBmom home phone and no one answered. SOBmom did not have a cell phone. I had several more phone conversations with SOB to check on baby. After a conflict in which SOB was putting me down and calling me names I said that I was no longer taking his abuse and I was “coming to get all of my children and that from now on he could talk to me through an attorney or a judge,” I then hung up the phone. I called SOBmom who reported that she just got home from taking baby to the doctors. I explained that I would be coming to pick up all the children, Sobmom hung up on me. SOB called me and stated, “Do not come, if you come things will get very bad and ugly for you.“ I reiterated that I was coming to pick up my children, and hung up the phone. SOB called me again and stated “I just want you to know that I made the last phone call.“ I asked for him to clarify if he was threatening me. He said that his parents were very upset and implied that if I came that something “bad” would happen and that he was just trying to help me. I again reiterated that I was coming to pick up my children. I at no time said that I was unable to help because I was in Nothere.

37. Page Four: “I asked me if SOB or SOBMom had a POA for her children to seek medical attention. me told me that she had been with SOB for four years and he had always been able to take her girls to the doctor without any documentation she assumed this was still the case.” I did not know what a POA was and was still unclear. I had explained to that SOB and I had been together for approximately four years and that during that time SOB and SOBmom had sought and received medical care for the girls and my son without on occasion without any problem. SOBmom did receive medical care for baby on May 9th, 2005 through our primary care physician Dr. **.

38. Page Four: “[me] told me SOB had told her he was still committed to the kids.” I do not recall ever saying this and do not know what it is in reference to and cannot respond without further information.

39. Page Four: “Me reported that she had the kids a few hours on Mother’s Day and felt the kids were getting sick, but assumed Sobmom would take care of it.” This is fabricated. When I brought the children to SOBmom for the children to spend the night I informed Sobmom that baby was rubbing her eye a lot, and I asked that while she was watching them that she make sure baby did not rub her nose and then her eye and that SOBmom also wash baby’s eye and hands frequently so that she did not develop pink eye because the illness is very contagious. SOBmom only response was snappishly, “I know. I am a nurse.” The children were not sick and I had no reason when I dropped the children off to suspect that they were getting sick. I asked SOBmom to take preventative measures so that baby did not become sick. I was assured that because SOBmom was, what I thought at the time, a reliable adult and a practicing nurse my children would be safe in her care.

40. Page Four: “me reported that SOB had not seen the kids for three weeks, so on April the 10th she asked SOb to come and see the kids.” This is fabricated. What I did say is SOB had not seen the children for three weeks and that I called several times and made attempts to set up arrangements for him to come see the children and spend time with them.

41. Page Four: “[me] told me that when SOB came over she told him that she was leaving “to get on her feet without his negativity.” This is fabricated. SOB had come to see the children after many requests for his involvement. He and I had a conversation about him staying with the children for an unsaid period of time, so that I may get on my feet financially and situated so that I may substantially provide for the children myself.

42. Page Four: “[me] told me “I needed to get on my feet and get my sanity back.”” is distorting information that she received from the SOBs and fabricating evidence to create a damaging perspective of me. I never said I needed to get my sanity back.

43. Page Four: “[me] told me she had left a note with SOBmom and SOBdad stating that she wasn’t leaving the kids, she just needed time and hopefully during this time SOB will get on his feet and learn priority with his family.” questioned me about the letter left with Sobmom and Sobdad. I explained that I did leave a note that clearly stated that I was not leaving or abandoning my children. I never said that I “just needed time and hopefully during this time SOB will get on his feet and learn priority with his family.” This is fabricated.

44. Page Four: “[me] told me that for the first two weeks after she left the kids she ate lunch at school with the girls everyday.” This is fabricated. I did not say “for the first two weeks after I left the kids.” I never left my children. I did inform that I was regularly involved with the kids and that I did eat lunch with the girls at their school on a daily basis.

45. Page Four: “me told me that SOB had called her shortly after this and told her he could not handle baby’s behavior.” This is fabricated. I did explain that when William Bryant and I were together that I was responsible for all the children’s care, including baby’s special needs, as I was a stay at home mom and that SOB was rarely involved even when he was home from work.

46. Page Four: “[me] told me SOB also informed her that he was leaving for engineering school and wanted to know what she was planning to do with the kids. me said she told SOB there was not much she could do because she still needed time.” This is fabricated. SOB did call me approximately three days before Sunday the 8th, 2005. and told me that he might go to engineering school and that he was not sure he was going to take the offer, he said that he would let me know if he heard anything. SOB and I did not discuss any arrangements for childcare. I did not learn that SOB had decided to go to engineering school until the May 8th, 2005 when he informed me by phone. I then made arrangements with SOBmom for the children to spend the night with her so that I may take a friend to nothere the following day.

47. Page Four: “me said SOB knew he was going to engineering school so HE should have made arrangements for the kids along time ago.” This is fabricated. The arrangements were made that SOBmom would watch the children overnight May 8th, 2005 and that I would pick them up on May 9th, 2005.

48. Page Five: “[me] told me she later had asked baby and baby what they were going to do when SOB is gone and they told her they were going to stay between babysitters and grandmom’s house.” This is completely fabricated.

49. Page Five: “[me] told me she had begged SOB to put the lease in her name so she could move back in the home.” This is fabricated. I did tell prior to making arrangements with SOB to watch the children, I had asked SOB several times for assistance. I asked him to watch the children and he refused. I asked that we hire a sitter so that I may look for a job and he refused. I asked that he put the lease of the house in my name so that I may go get assistance and he refused. He told me that he would only give me so much money a month because he knew I would leave him.

50. Page Five: “I asked me if she was able to care for her kids at this point. me told me that she did not know.” This is completely fabricated. I did tell that I had every intention of taking them home. I was employed and had another residence where I could take the children.

[fightingfor3]

51. Page Five: “I asked me what she felt was different from April 10 to now and [me] told me she got a job at the BAR and she has also met a guy at BAR who has offered to provide her with a job and housing.” This is fabricated. There was no specific date mentioned by . I did not say that I met a guy at BAR who has offered to provide me with a job and housing. I was already employed and already had housing.

52. Page Five: “”me told me that she does not currently have baby on medication.” I never said this. I am not a doctor and would not be able to put baby on medication. Baby was not taking any medication at the time because a doctor took her off both of her medications as he did not feel she needed them any longer.

53. Page Five: “[me] told me that she tried to start a business called ***, to help children with mental illnesses but SOB would not support her.” I did not say that I tried to start a business. I did have a business, ***. SOB’s lack of support did not have anything to do with the success of my business. SOB was not supportive in many ways not just regarding the business.

54. Page Five: “OFFICER of the Clovis Police Department called and reported that me was at Daycare picking baby up. I explained the details to and the fact that CYFD did have custody of her two oldest children, but CYFD did not have custody of baby because the grandparents had a POA for him.” I did not sign a release form for to speak to SHERIFF nor for to disclose any information or details of the investigation with anyone. had knowledge that the document that SOB faxed to Sobmom and SOBdad on May 9th, 2005 was not a POA as it was not a legal document. Furthermore, a POA does not give any one the authority to relinquish my parental rights. I went to pick up baby after I asked several times if I could. told me that CYFD could not prevent me from doing so. SHERIFF is employed by the *** COUNTY SHERIFF's OFFICE. The Incident Narrative made by SHERIFF states: “I advised the day care personnel that they could not keep the mother from getting her son because a temporary power of attorney was for medical responses and nothing more.” “I was then advised that CYFD had a 48 hour custody of me’s two daughters I then contacted from Children Youth and Families and was told that the issue in reference to me’s two daughter was at this point a very weak case and that custody of the two girls would more than likely be given back to me.” The facts giving rise to this information are set forth in the Incident Narrative, presented to the court in the cause, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as Exhibit A.

55. Page Five: “SHERIFF informed me that he was going to release Baby to me.” In the Incident Narrative made by SHERIFF it states this: “Without a court order being in place stating which parent had primary custody, at this time me was allowed to take custody of her son.” See Exhibit A.

56. Page Six: “SOB told me that biggest problem with me is she is “Loopy”. There is no definition of the word “loopy” as used in this context. This is a biased statement made to create a negative perception of me.

57. Page Six: “SOB told me that his biggest fear is that me will try to leave town with the children.” This is completely contradictory of allegations of neglect and, or abandonment. This shows that SOB acknowledges my willingness to care for the children and his attempts to withhold my children from me at his own gain.

58. Page Six: “SOB also told me that he has also been concerned that me might hurt the kids, when she is not in the right state of mind.” There is no proof or history that would show that I would be a danger to my children or to anyone else. SOB is not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist and cannot determine nor define what is the “right state of mind” for me. I have always been of sound mind.

59. Page Six: “SOB told me they have been having a lot of problems, me is very verbally abusive towards him.” I am not and have not been verbally abusive towards SOB. In fact I was granted a domestic violent order of protection against SOB May 10th. In that order I was also given temporary custody of my son and SOB was to have no contact with my son or myself. The facts giving rise to this information are set forth in the Domestic Violence Order of Protection, presented to the court in the cause, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as Exhibit B.

60. Page Six: “One minute me loves and the next minute she is angry and hostile.” It is unclear if SOB is stating this or if is stating this. I have never been hostile. As in many relationships there are problems and at times the relationship can be very happy and at others unhappy. Never did this transition take place within a matter of minutes or without external circumstances.

61. Page Six: “SOB told me he continued to pay for everything, continued to help me out until she got on her feet.” It is unclear what is meant by “continued to pay for everything” or how SOB helped me, until I got on my feet.

62. Page Six: “SOB told me [me] had told him on April 10th that she was leaving.” SOB and I had a discussion and agreed prior to me leaving the home that he would care for the children in the home while I left temporarily to find employment.

62. Page Six: “SOB told me he probably agreed to keep the kids because he was thinking she might have needed time away.” The reasons why SOB agreed to the arrangement, are irrelevant. It is clearly stated that SOB willingly entered into a verbal agreement for the care of my children baby, baby, and baby. I clearly made arrangements with what I believed at the time to be a reliable adult and had reason to believe that my children would be safe.

63. Page Six: “SOB told me that in 2003 me was suicidal and was hospitalized in nothere.” I was not suicidal and I voluntarily placed myself into hospital treatment due to trauma with my daughter baby and the abusive relationship with SOB.

64. Page Six: “SOB reported that he was concerned that if she did not have time away she might be suicidal or may take off with the kids.” I was not suicidal nor would I have been suicidal. SOB consistently throughout our four year relationship expressed a fear that I would leave him. SOB stated “I will only give you so much money because I know if I give you more you‘ll leave.” I had tried to leave the relationship several times and SOB either threatened me by threatening to take the children away from me, or would hold me captive.

65. Page Six: “SOB told me that he is concerned because me has been hanging out in the bars with a guy who may be a new boyfriend.” This exemplifies SOB fears and need to be in control. My relationships have nothing to do with the care of my children. I did not have a new boyfriend. I was not hanging out in the bars. I did work at BAR 2-3 nights a week.

66. Page Six: “SOB told me he feels that me would die for her kids.” It is unclear what context this statement was made in or in regards to, but like most good loving parents this is often a sentiment of endearment. This is also a great contradiction to allegations of abandonment or neglect as it is implies that I would go to great lengths for my children.

67. Page Six: “SOB told me he feels a lot of her problems are from a horrible childhood.” SOB lacks the ability to define any problems or what they stem from.

68. Page Six: “me has a lot of anger issues that may be associated with PTSD.” It is unclear whether this statement is made by SOB or , neither of them posses the ability to define any anger issues or whether they be associated with PTSD or not.

69. Page Six: “SOB told me that he has concerns about me’s ability to care for the kids at this point.” There is nothing that would cause SOB to be concerned about my ability to care for my children. Since the beginning of our relationship and prior I have always been the main caretaker of my children. While I was with SOB for approximately four years I was a stay at home mom. During this time I was a Girl Scout leader of fourteen girls. I was a soccer coach. I was a t-ball coach. I was the homeroom mom and involved in several other aspects of my children’s lives. After four years it is unreasonable that SOB suddenly develop a concern for my ability to care for my children.

70. Page Six: “SOB told me the house is always dirty and me does not always bathe the kids when they needed to be bathed.” These allegations are in no way true and are very contradictory to a character reference that SOB wrote stating: “I’ve known me for several years. In that time I’ve got to know her pretty well. She’s a devoted mother, her children always come first. She’s very organized and thrifty.“ The facts giving rise to this statement are set forth in the Character Reference, presented to the court in the cause, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as Exhibit C. It would also be directly contradictory to a Character Reference written by SOB’s mother MOM that states: “I have known me for about 21/2 years. She takes good care of her home and children.” The facts giving rise to this statement are set forth in the Character Reference, presented to the court in the cause, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as Exhibit D. The house was in a clean and orderly manner and my children were bathed and clean on a consistent basis.

71. Page Six: “SOB said when me is in her right mind she does great with the children.” I have always been in my “right mind.” SOB is not capable of defining or determining when I am or not of sound mind.

72. Page Six: “SOB told me he has tried to get me to take medication but she feels she is too smart and powerful.” SOB is not a doctor, nor a psychiatrist, and is unable to prescribe medication or to “try and get” me to take medication. Doing so would constitute as adult abuse.

73. Page Six: “SOB told me when she got out of the hospital in nothere she was on medication and it seemed to help her a lot.” I was not on medication when I was discharged from the hospital in nothere.

74. Page Six: “SOB told me that me had gone to Counseling and received therapy from ***.” I saw *** for individual counseling, as did William Bryant in approximately 2003. We also saw *** together for couples counseling.

75. Page Six: “SOB told me {me} was having a break-down last year, so he called *** and *** had refused to see me until she gets on medication and sees a psychiatrist.” SOB is unable to determine whether I am having a “break-down”. *** reported that SOB called her and made several erroneous reports regarding me. *** at no time spoke with me. This again was an attempt made by SOB to continue to control me and abuse me further. SOB often throughout our relationship put me down and called me names, such as “crazy.”

76. Page Six: “SOB told me he tried to sit me down to come up with a plan for the kids, but he was never able to.” It is unclear what “plan” is being referred to or why he was never able to have this discussion. SOB and I both had a discussion and made an agreement of the care of the children prior to me leaving the house.

77. Page Seven: “SOB told me he asked her several times what her plans were.” It is unclear what “plans” are being referred to.

78. Page Seven: “SOB told me that last week me came over at 2:00a.m. in the morning wanting to get back together.” This is untrue. I did not have keys to my house as SOB changed all the locks in an attempt to keep me out of my house. I was invited to come over one evening by SOB and I did stay the night in our house.

79. Page Seven: “SOB told me he asked her were she was staying and she would not tell him.” I would not tell SOB of my friend’s address because he made several threats to my friend and I feared what SOB might do if he knew my friend’s address.

80. Page Seven: “I explained to SOB that he would need to make other arrangement because the POA he gave his parents was not valid, and that even a valid POA was not sufficient to keep ME from taking the child with her, if she so desired. SOB told me he was not able to make further arrangement for his son until he returns to ***” acknowledged that this was not a valid POA. was aware that I was granted a Domestic Violence Order of Protection against SOB and was given temporary custody of my son baby. had no reason to believe that my son baby was in any danger and the possibility of harm was not present as she did not attempt to remove him from the grandparents home. also did not include him in this affidavit as he is not listed as a party nor is there a sworn statement from in regards to baby. advised SOB on what would be sufficient and how to keep me from taking my son and committed conspiracy to violate my civil rights. Under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 It is unlawful for two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. and SOB engaged in an act together and conspired to violate my civil rights.

81. Page Seven: “SOB told me he almost rather CYFD take custody because of me’s mental stability, and because he does not know where me is staying with or who the kids will be around.” SOB was accurate in saying that I was mentally stable, however SOB’s lack of knowledge of my whereabouts or who the children would be around are of no concern to SOB as long as my children remained safe as they always had while in my care. The real concern was that SOB would lose control over me. By this statement SOB and entered into an agreement for CYFD to take my son baby with no probable cause and no evidence that any statutory definition of abuse or neglect had been met, and further and SOB conspired together to keep me from my children.

82. Page Seven: “On May 10th, I met with baby and baby at CYFD.” did not inform my children of their Miranda Rights and because had no reason to believe that informing me of her intentions of interrogating my children would hinder the investigation and further failed to inform me that she would be interrogating my children, and failed to grant me a chance to be present, violating my parental rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.

83. Page Seven: “baby told me that her mother spends a lot of time on the computer.” I spent time on the computer because I was researching baby’s illness and trying to find the best treatment possible for her. I also spent time on the computer because my business *** in part ran a website. I did not neglect my children while on the computer and made sure their needs were met prior to working on the computer.

84. Page Seven: “baby told me that her grandmother told her that her mom lives in a car.” This is further evidence that SOBmom attempted to interfere with my children’s and my family bond by making ridiculous and slanderous allegations, as I was not living in a car.

85. Page Seven: “I asked baby how she would feel about going home and she told me not good because her dad would come over and fight a lot with her mom and this is what they usually do.” baby is the correct spelling of my daughter‘s first name. ????????????????????? I don’t know what else to say. My ex and I argued but there was no physical violence except for a handful of times and the children did not witness this (except once) as my ex drug me out of the house or I tried to flee and then it occurred (the relationship did not escalate to violence until I started attempting to leave, as most abusive relationships do). The arguing was not frequent, not in front of the children at least.

86. Page Seven: “baby told me that last November her mom and dad were hitting and pushing each other and he mom told her to call 911. baby said she called 911 but there was no answer.” It is unclear what was meant by “he mom.” It was not last November, but at one point during our relationship I did attempt to leave SOB. SOB blocked our way and would not allow me to leave. I had baby in his car seat not yet buckled up when SOB grabbed the car seat from me and swung him around in an attempt to keep him from me. baby came back into the kitchen where we were and I directed her to call 911, at that time SOB asked “You want to play that game?” and grabbed his cell phone and called his brother who was an OFFICER at the time. I took the phone from baby and hung it up. In the following days I called the crisis line to get assistance in leaving the relationship and was told that if SOB is not allowing me to leave to call the POLICE. baby is how my daughter’s first name is spelt, not baby.

87. Page Seven: “baby told me that her mom gets mad “a lot” baby was 7 at the time interrogated her. A seven year old’s perspective and memory is not accurate. She also lived with my ex for a period of time and who knows what he told them. I know he did tell her a bunch of bull. I did not get mad a lot. She blames me for a lot of things like her “dad“ leaving. Me not being there to protect them from being taken. I don‘t know what to say in response to these????????????????????????????
baby is the correct spelling of my daughter’s first name.

88. Page Seven: “baby said she is scared when her mom is mad because she yells and hits a lot.” I have never hit baby, baby, or baby. I have raised my voice in heated arguments between SOB and myself, but this did not occur “a lot.” The correct spelling of my daughter’s first name is baby. ???????????? I just don’t know what to say. I am not comfortable saying that my daughter is a liar, but she has been manipulated by them and I just don’t know how to word all that.

88. Page Seven: “baby told me that SOB had hit her in the side of the head In April because she had told her to go on the house and she did not listen.” SOB did not tell her to go on the house, but rather in the house. SOB did hit her when she refused and baby reported this to me. This incident did not happen in April but on May 8th. I spoke to SOB about it and made it clear that it was not appropriate, he then reassured me that it would not happen again. This is the first and only time I was aware that something like this had happened, I had no reason to believe SOB would strike the children. I spoke with baby and reassured her it would not happen again and made arrangements for the children to go to SOBmom house that day. Even though baby reported this to SOB was never alleged to have abused the children. Baby is the correct spelling of my daughter’s first name.

89. Page Seven: “baby told me that she worries about her sister, baby, because her mom tells her that baby is sick in the head.” baby was diagnosed with bipolar. baby was hospitalized twice. Baby inquired why her sister had to go to the hospital if she was not hurt. It is difficult to explain to a young child what mental illness is. I explained it in terms that baby could understand.

90. Page Seven: “baby told me that she would like to go live with her mom or dad (William).”?????????????????????

91. Page Seven: “Baby told me that her mom yells a lot and calls her dad names.” ????????????????? SOB would do things like call me names and when I said something in return he would say see kids your mom is mean or one time he pushed me and I pushed him back and although the kids were not in the room he yelled see kids your mom hits me. The kids heard us arguing occasionally but it wasn’t like it was an everyday occurrence, heck he wasn’t even home half the time (gone to work).

92. Page Seven: “Baby told me that her mom told her that she has gone away because she does not feel well.” This is not true. ???????????????

93. Page Seven: “Baby said she feels bad when her mom and dad yell and call each other names and this happens a lot.” ????????????????????????????? AH! I just don’t know what to say. The relationship was unhealthy but the house was pretty stable the kids didn’t see chaos all the time or violence or anything like that. I am a protective mom and anything they see or hear is traumatic. Because it was unhealthy is why I made the decisions I did to get on my feet to get out.

94. Page Eight: “On May 11, 2005, SHERIFF from the Sheriff’s department called to report that me was being arrested on 2 outstanding warrants.” I was not arrested on 2 outstanding warrants. I was arrested on one warrant for a failure to appear on a traffic violation. See Declaration of Facts.

95. Page Eight: “SHERIFF informed me he was giving custody of baby to CYFD.” SHERIFF WALDO CASARES demanded that my son baby, who was in my care be released to the grandparents. He threatened that if I did not release my son to the grandparents that CYFD would take custody of my son as well. I explained I had a pending DVO against both SOBdad and SOBmom and was granted a DVO against SOB who’s residence was the same as the grandparents and I had concern for my son’s safety. He continued to demand repeatedly that I give my son to the grandparents. I asked if I could make other arrangements for my son and he refused. LAWYER then came out of his office as this took place in front of his entrance and said that he could take care of this and SHERIFF interfered with me obtaining representation by saying that lawyer could do nothing. I asked SHERIFF if I could retrieve my son after I was bailed out several times and he said yes every time. SHERIFF went and talked to the grandparents who both arrived within minutes of my arrest and called CYFD not allowing me to hear what was being said. SHERIFF , , THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel CYFD, SOBmom and SOBdad all under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 conspired to violate my and my son’s civil rights. See Declaration of Facts.
96. Page Eight: “SHERIFF later called back and informed me that he had released baby to his grandparents, SOBmom and SOBdad because they had a POA.” This was not a valid POA as SHERIFF already learned on the 10th of May 2005 while assisting me.

97. Page Eight: “After staffing; however, the Department agreed that baby was still not safe, because me could simply come to the grandparent’s home and take him with her.” CYFD could not determine that baby was not safe because I simply could come and take him with me, but are required to determine by statutory definitions that baby was harmed or neglected, which he was not and therefore had not basis for taking custody of my son.

100. Page Nine: “Based on my investigation to date, I believe it would be contrary to the welfare of the children to remain in the home because me does not currently have stable housing or the necessary mental stability to care for her children.” never once came to my house to see our living situation. Stable housing is not a statutory definition of neglect nor abuse. is not a psychiatrist and lacks the ability to determine my mental status.

101. Page Nine: “me stated that she had left her kids with SOB so he could learn his priorities with his family.” I did not say this and this was not the reason I left the house.

102. Page Nine: “Even after me learning that SOB was going out of town she did not make appropriate arrangement for her children, stating there was not much she could do because she still needed time, and because “she needed to get away by her self to get her sanity back.” SOB did not inform me until Sunday May 8th that he would be leaving for engineer school. I did make appropriate arrangements for my children as that night they spent with SOBmom, and the following day I planned to pick the children up. I did not state there was not much I could do. I did not state that I still needed time. I did not ever state that I needed to get away by myself to get my sanity back. These statements are distorted and manipulated from conversations had with the SOBs.

103. Page Nine: “The POA that SOB gave his parents was not sufficient to prevent me from taking baby from his grandparents’ home.” The document that was attempted to be used as a POA was a tool advised by UNDER SHERIFF, and used by SOB to keep me from my son and to deprive my son and me of our civil rights. There was no need to keep me from my son as my son was never in any danger.

104. Page Ten: “I made the following efforts to avoid removal of the children from the home: I inquired about possible relatives who could care for the children. me stated that there were not any relatives available because she does not associate with her family.” Under the ASFA TITLE I SEC. 101 (15)(B) reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families-- (i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child’s home; and (ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child’s home. There were no reasonable efforts prior to my children being removed from the home. It clearly defines reasonable effort to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the children from the child’s home and to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child’s home, not to a relatives home. There were no reasonable efforts made to return my children to their home after they were illegally taken into custody.

105. Do I mention that SW’s sister was the notary?

I still have case law and other stuff to put in. I’m exhausted.

Do I do an objections to EVERYTHING? The orders? The treatment plan? EVERYTHING? I’d like to finish this as soon as possible and then work on the Declaration of Facts together as it will pull everything together, hopefully as there is a lot to explain and it is somewhat complicated to sort through.

Thanks to anyone who reads this. I am starting to sink and any feedback means a lot.

[Marina]

It looks great. As far as I can tell, you are getting there.

If you underline or use bold print for the main word or idea in each point, it may be easier to read, and easier for you to proofread.

Or have a one-word title at the beginning. Like:

Reporting
Prevention Services
Intake
Screening
Probable cause
Imminent danger
Removal hearing

Also, in quoting case law, I am not sure what the rules are, but for us reading it, it would be helpful to know if the case is from your state or another state. If it is from your state, you might have to state which locality it is from.



etc.

[fightingfor3]

OH YEA! You have no idea how worried I was that I was completely off track and in over my head! I have been trudging along on this non stop since I first started asking you questions. I've been staying at work working on this and have not made it home earlier than 12 a.m most nights. I was afraid that it was all pointless because I had done it wrong somehow.

I read on the link you gave how they include case law, but I know if I just leave the citation they will never look into it. I will try and make it easier to read. It helps so much hearing someone else's perspective because it all makes sense to me but I don't know how effective it is to the reader.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I know it takes so much of your time to answer my questions and to look these lengthy things over! You have no idea how much I appreciate it. I don't have any family (besides my children) and limited support and none in the legal realm and this has meant so much to me.

[Dazeemay]

I had to be out of town for a few days and I just got back.


At a quick glance anytime a caseworker or social worker fabricated anything you can put the federal law that states they are not protected under the immunity law.