Please read this Affadavit I am thinking about filing
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:11 pm
I am going to post the affadavit I am thinking about filing. If you are familiar with this process please help me know what else needs to be entered here. I deleted all names
AFFIDAVIT OF
Illinois
Will County )
)
)
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Firstname Lastname, who, having been first duly sworn by me, deposes and says that:
1. I, hereby state that on September 3rd, 2009, I contacted DCFS and Catholic Charities concerning the fact that my daughter was made a ward of the state of Illinois unbeknownst to me. .
2. I thought this OBVIOUSLY was a mistake and I was unaware of any event that led to this case. My daughter was visiting her father for the summer in the state of Illinois. Before this visit we were residing in . Being unaware of my rights, I continued to speak to Ms. of Catholic Charities and other DCFS workers in the state concerning the circumstances in which my daughter was taken. Also, I spoke with the State’s Attorney that is prosecuting the case. I was informed that I was notified by publication in which my name was improperly spelled. Also, I still have not received a copy of this alleged publication notice.
3. After receiving the available information concerning her placement with her paternal family, I inquired about what was necessary to get my daughter back. This is when I was informed that in order for her to be returned to Minnesota, it would require an Interstate Compact. When I inquired about how long this would take, I was told anywhere from 3-6 months minimum. During my first court date which was October 13, 2009, I asked the judge would moving back to Illinois expedite this case so that my daughter could be returned rightfully to me, her biological mother? I was told that this could help speed up the process. Then Catholic Charities were granted discretion over visitation with my daughter.
4. On November 4th, 2009, at 1:00pm I met with Ms. and her supervisor Ms. . At this meeting we discussed the things that were necessary for me to get my daughter back as being the non-offending parent, having had physical custody of my daughter until June 8th, 2009 and also upon the fact that my daughter was going to be reunited with me either by me relocating back to Chicago or by her return to Minnesota after the visit with her father. I was informed that I would need to prove that I had a safe place for my daughter to return to. Also I needed to show that I had the necessary resources and assistance to help with the care of my daughter. This was shown due to my residing at 6. On November 16th, 2009 Ms. came and investigated the apartment and found that it was habitable and safe for my daughter. This was the only thing I was told to adhere to so that my daughter could be returned to me.
5. On December 8th, 2009, when going to court, it was requested that Judgegrant Catholic Charities the right to place my daughter with her mother. In Judge ’s words she stated that with me gaining my mobility back that she did not know if I could deal with the a four year old child. During that time I expressed the fact that I have taken care of my daughter for the last 4 years and that even in my disability I have been an effective caregiver. This is when Judgeexpressed that she “wasn’t” saying that I can not take care of my daughter cause of my disability. To further keep my daughter from me, they then decided that my daughter father needed to be there to assert his rights. He is currently incarcerated in the Adult Detention Facility. At this point my public Defender stated that I wanted to spend Christmas with my daughter. The judge said that would be okay and that Catholic Charities could approve overnight and unsupervised visits. The case was continued to January 5th, 2010.
6. A visitation schedule was set up that my daughter could visit with me overnights starting December 11th, 2009. My daughter was brought to my home with only a pair of underclothes for her overnight visit. After leaving it was alleged that my daughter said that she did not want to come to my house anymore. On Monday December 14th, 2009, I was called by Ms. and told that because of this my visits were cut back and that I was only allowed to see my daughter for 4 hours, once a week. On December 18th, 2009 after the visit which was 4 hours and supervised by , Catholic Charities case assistant, my daughter expressed a desire to stay with me. She expressed a desire not to go back to her aunts house and to stay at home with me.
7. 7. It is my belief that this delay of reunification is a violation of my right to due process and my civil rights. As a woman whom is disabled, I should be afforded the same rights to take care of my child with resources and support as any other mother is afforded. This right is guaranteed to me by the Americans with Disabilites Act of 2008. Also by interpretation of the constitution I am guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty includes my daughter. Also, I believe that as a non-offending parent , since I am not involved in the matter which brought my daughter to the states attention, I believe that she should be returned and this case should be closed. To continue to keep this case open is to imply that I somehow am a threat or danger to my daughter.
AFFIDAVIT OF
Illinois
Will County )
)
)
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Firstname Lastname, who, having been first duly sworn by me, deposes and says that:
1. I, hereby state that on September 3rd, 2009, I contacted DCFS and Catholic Charities concerning the fact that my daughter was made a ward of the state of Illinois unbeknownst to me. .
2. I thought this OBVIOUSLY was a mistake and I was unaware of any event that led to this case. My daughter was visiting her father for the summer in the state of Illinois. Before this visit we were residing in . Being unaware of my rights, I continued to speak to Ms. of Catholic Charities and other DCFS workers in the state concerning the circumstances in which my daughter was taken. Also, I spoke with the State’s Attorney that is prosecuting the case. I was informed that I was notified by publication in which my name was improperly spelled. Also, I still have not received a copy of this alleged publication notice.
3. After receiving the available information concerning her placement with her paternal family, I inquired about what was necessary to get my daughter back. This is when I was informed that in order for her to be returned to Minnesota, it would require an Interstate Compact. When I inquired about how long this would take, I was told anywhere from 3-6 months minimum. During my first court date which was October 13, 2009, I asked the judge would moving back to Illinois expedite this case so that my daughter could be returned rightfully to me, her biological mother? I was told that this could help speed up the process. Then Catholic Charities were granted discretion over visitation with my daughter.
4. On November 4th, 2009, at 1:00pm I met with Ms. and her supervisor Ms. . At this meeting we discussed the things that were necessary for me to get my daughter back as being the non-offending parent, having had physical custody of my daughter until June 8th, 2009 and also upon the fact that my daughter was going to be reunited with me either by me relocating back to Chicago or by her return to Minnesota after the visit with her father. I was informed that I would need to prove that I had a safe place for my daughter to return to. Also I needed to show that I had the necessary resources and assistance to help with the care of my daughter. This was shown due to my residing at 6. On November 16th, 2009 Ms. came and investigated the apartment and found that it was habitable and safe for my daughter. This was the only thing I was told to adhere to so that my daughter could be returned to me.
5. On December 8th, 2009, when going to court, it was requested that Judgegrant Catholic Charities the right to place my daughter with her mother. In Judge ’s words she stated that with me gaining my mobility back that she did not know if I could deal with the a four year old child. During that time I expressed the fact that I have taken care of my daughter for the last 4 years and that even in my disability I have been an effective caregiver. This is when Judgeexpressed that she “wasn’t” saying that I can not take care of my daughter cause of my disability. To further keep my daughter from me, they then decided that my daughter father needed to be there to assert his rights. He is currently incarcerated in the Adult Detention Facility. At this point my public Defender stated that I wanted to spend Christmas with my daughter. The judge said that would be okay and that Catholic Charities could approve overnight and unsupervised visits. The case was continued to January 5th, 2010.
6. A visitation schedule was set up that my daughter could visit with me overnights starting December 11th, 2009. My daughter was brought to my home with only a pair of underclothes for her overnight visit. After leaving it was alleged that my daughter said that she did not want to come to my house anymore. On Monday December 14th, 2009, I was called by Ms. and told that because of this my visits were cut back and that I was only allowed to see my daughter for 4 hours, once a week. On December 18th, 2009 after the visit which was 4 hours and supervised by , Catholic Charities case assistant, my daughter expressed a desire to stay with me. She expressed a desire not to go back to her aunts house and to stay at home with me.
7. 7. It is my belief that this delay of reunification is a violation of my right to due process and my civil rights. As a woman whom is disabled, I should be afforded the same rights to take care of my child with resources and support as any other mother is afforded. This right is guaranteed to me by the Americans with Disabilites Act of 2008. Also by interpretation of the constitution I am guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty includes my daughter. Also, I believe that as a non-offending parent , since I am not involved in the matter which brought my daughter to the states attention, I believe that she should be returned and this case should be closed. To continue to keep this case open is to imply that I somehow am a threat or danger to my daughter.