my personal declaration.

Post and discuss legal documents of all kinds here.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

courtneymaude
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:10 pm

my personal declaration.

Postby courtneymaude » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:12 am

this is my declaration/on the record affidavit that I will be presenting to the court on thursday.. personal information such as childs name etc etc. have been removed. Let me know what you guys think!!!

DECLARATION of




1.name ,mother of

2.This declaration is being written in support of the return to mother,name.

3.Mother voluntarily surrendered her child to birth father, because of Domestic Violence in the home

4.Mother admits to incidents of domestic Violence committed on her by,

5.Mother also acknowledges that acts of violence committed against her took place in front of the child; there was no acts of violence perpetrated on by her or her former partner.

6. is not the biological father of child or mothers other child

7.Maine DHHS/CPS found former partner unsubstantiated of child abuse/neglect.

8. Maine DHHS/CPS found mother unsubstantiated of child abuse/neglect.

9.Maine DHHS/CPS filed no charges or made any petition with child abuse/neglect against mother to the District Court, Maine.

10.Mother voluntarily attended Domestic Violence groups and had one on one counseling with a licensed therapist.


11.October 4, 2010,mother voluntarily took a urinalysis test administered by ..... Result were negative.

12.On October 5, 2010 mother was informed by ,social work supervisor, Connecticut, child would not be returned to her physical custody reason given; former partner who committed domestic violence against mother had not been sentenced in Superior Court, Maine.

13.On October 15, 2010 mother was also informed by .... of Maine DHHS of the sentencing issue.


14.On October 15, 2010 caseworker... also stated that mother should proceed with a Protection Order of Abuse against her former partner .

15.On October 14, 2010 mother obtained a Protection Order of Abuse, which was granted individually and on behalf of her two children,....... District Court Maine.

16.On October 15, 2010 Maine DHHS caseworker stated that if mother did not follow through with PFA order or cooperate with court in the sentencing processes of her former partner, child, will not be returned to her.

17. Mother ultimately has no control over when her former partner, name is sentenced. She will testify for the state against her former partner if subpenaed in Superior Court, Maine and District Court, Maine.

18.Mother, should not be held accountable for the domestic violence actions of her former partner or by the courts progress pertaining to her former partners case and how his case affects the reunification process with son, .

19.Pertaining to paragraph 2 in the Reasons for Petition documents. It is stated that, “Mother signed safety plan that she would not allow her boyfriend into the home and then did not adhere to the safety plan.” Mother denies this allegation. Mother agreed to not have former boyfriend in the home WHILE CHILDREN WERE PRESENT. Mother followed plan and allowed local police officers from the Police department in the home to perform requested safety checks by Maine DHHS and also voluntarily allowed caseworker, ,Maine DHS, into home on several occasions to search home.


20.Mother will fully comply with all request and/or requirements made by Connecticut DCF and Maine DHHS, if said request and/or requirements are done by court order and the court has judicial findings that creates a need for such request and/or requirements.

21.There is no imminent risk or serious harm to child's life or health due to the fact that, 1. Former partner, , is currently incarcerated and has had bail revoked and 2. Mother was granted protection order of abuse, individually and on behalf of son, .



Additionally, in the opinion of Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. in the majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri In the Interest of: P.L.O. and S.K.O., minor children. SC85120 3/30/2004

"The mother voluntarily consented to the court's jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily transferred their custody to the division and never challenged the circumstances of their removal. Accordingly, she cannot now challenge whether an 'emergency' existed to justify removal of the children under (the statute in question) and this court need not address such a challenge."


I am therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that I strongly challenge that an emergency existed to remove my child, , and most certainly do withdraw my "voluntary" surrender of the custody of my child to his father name, Maine DHHS/CPS, Connecticut DCF/CPS.

Further, the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT in Smith et al. v. Williams-Ash No. 06-4638, Decided and Filed: March 26, 2008 said-

“We do not doubt that the Smiths, as any parents likely would, resented the safety plan from the beginning. But mere displeasure and frustration fails to negate their consent. Rather than remind Williams-Ash of what she already knew—that they disliked the plan—the Smiths needed to explicitly withdraw the consent they explicitly gave, thus requiring Children’s Services to either return the children or file a formal complaint against them. In light of their admitted failure to do so, the Smiths were not entitled to a hearing”

For this reason, I hereby rescind any and all signatures to "voluntary" service plans or any other "agreement" pertaining to medical and dental releases for Maine DHHS/CPS and Connecticut DCF/CPS. Such signature were obtained through duress, threat, and coercion. I had no way of knowing the long-range ramifications of doing so and now explicitly withdraw any consent I explicitly gave.

On August 2, 2010 the COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
In Re the Dep of D.F.M., Alyce Fabian Miller, Petitioner v. DSHS State of Washington, Respondent, No. 63624-3, determined that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children does not apply to placements of children in foster care with their birth parents. The court said “ The courts, not the administrative agencies or individual social workers, are the ultimate evaluators of a parent's ability to care for his child, and the ultimate decision-makers as to whether placement with a fit parent is in the child's best interest. When a fit parent is available but an ICPC home study is negative, and the court determines the parent is fit, the ICPC may become an obstacle to the court's ability to act in the best interests of the child”. The court then ruled that, “The ICPC does not require sister state approval of parental placements if the court determines the parent is fit”. Affirmed by Judge Anne Ellington. Concurred by Judge Linda Lau and Judge Stephen Dwyer.


In New York, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the 2001 ruling in Nicholson v. Scoppetta that child services can't take away the children of battered women. The case of Nicholson v. Scoppetta was filed in federal court in January, 2000, and was later certified as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all mothers who were victims of domestic violence and their children. After a two-month trial including numerous child welfare and domestic violence experts, the federal judge issued a decision in March, 2002, finding that the City had a policy of routinely charging mothers for "engaging in domestic violence," and removing their children, and that such a policy was unconstitutional. Since June, 2002, the City has operated under an order barring the City from continuing to remove children from victims of domestic violence and from charging them with child neglect.


It has been found that removing the child from the non-abusive parent can have an extremely detrimental effect on the child. Children who have been exposed to domestic violence often view "their immediate universe as unpredictable and unsafe" and removal may be more traumatic for them than for other children. These children are at a heightened risk for separation anxiety disorder and may experience self-blame and anxiety about the safety of their parent.


The New York State Court of Appeals held that simply showing that a child was exposed to domestic violence is insufficient to show neglect. Each case is fact specific and the petitioner must provide "particularized evidence" to prove that removal is in the best interests of the child. The "safer course" cannot be used to hide a lack of evidence or an impermissible presumption of removal in cases of domestic violence. If the parent is unwilling to consent and there is not an imminent risk to the child's life or health, a petition must be filed requesting removal and the court must weigh the risks of the child remaining in the home with the risks of removal. Following the precedent of Nicholson v. Scoppetta, the lower courts have made improvements in their decisions involving neglect petitions filed against victims of domestic violence. In re Eryck N,791 N.Y.S.2d 857 ., the children were exposed to domestic violence, and the mother had secured an order of protection which showed that there was no imminent risk to child's life or health. A finding of neglect “must be based on a preponderance of evidence”.


While the above mentioned court cases are not binding in the State of Maine or the State of Connecticut they do set judicial precedent. In the United States, which uses a common law system in its state courts and to a lesser extent in its federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

“Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.”

Therefore, mother is asking the court to show that there is imminent risk to child's life or health while in care of mother. If the court finds no imminent risk, mother request that child be placed into her physical custody and returned to reside with her.

Mother also request that the court send child home with supervision and/or support services and Maine DHHS, , will preside over said supervision and/or support services.

I am requesting a court order for the return of my child, name immediately.


I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

User avatar
LindaJM
Posts: 3171
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: my personal declaration.

Postby LindaJM » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:47 pm

21.There is no imminent risk or serious harm to child's life

Did you mean "risk OF serious harm"?

Additionally, in the opinion of Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. in the majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri In the Interest of: P.L.O. and S.K.O., minor children. SC85120 3/30/2004

"The mother voluntarily consented to the court's jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily transferred their custody to the division and never challenged the circumstances of their removal. Accordingly, she cannot now challenge whether an 'emergency' existed to justify removal of the children under (the statute in question) and this court need not address such a challenge."

I am therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that I strongly challenge that an emergency existed to remove my child, , and most certainly do withdraw my "voluntary" surrender of the custody of my child to his father name, Maine DHHS/CPS, Connecticut DCF/CPS.


I'm wondering why you cite a case in which it was ruled that mother /cannot/ challenge whether there was an emergency because that doesn't seem to support your statement that there was no emergency. I think that case says the opposite of what you want the judge to agree to.

(still reading the rest)
Sample Document Library

Please keep in mind that none of us are lawyers and we can't give legal advice. We are simply telling you what we would do in a similar situation. It is to your advantage to get a lawyer.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke ... so try to do something to change the system ...

User avatar
LindaJM
Posts: 3171
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: my personal declaration.

Postby LindaJM » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:58 pm

I liked the rest of the document - it is well-researched and written.

The only part I didn't understand is why you're asking for services at the end. Are you trying to compromise? You know that would put you and your child under their thumb for many months to come.
Sample Document Library

Please keep in mind that none of us are lawyers and we can't give legal advice. We are simply telling you what we would do in a similar situation. It is to your advantage to get a lawyer.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke ... so try to do something to change the system ...

Debski32
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:31 am

Re: my personal declaration.

Postby Debski32 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:22 pm

I understand that if you do not challenge NOW that there was NO emergency present when the child was removed then you will not be able to challenge it later.

I would not be asking for supervision or for services as this suggest there is still something left to be done before the child should be given back to you. If you do need something specific ie. continued therapy you may request that the court order the payment of those services without requesting those services. This way you are under no obligation to maintain the therapy but the state IS under obligation to pay for it if you do go. (using therapy as an example and u can substitute whatever service you would like to recieve)

The last part is very well written and supports your case. I hope you got your child back by now.

princehull
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: my personal declaration.

Postby princehull » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:31 pm

great letter! mind if I use portions of it?


Return to “Legal Documents”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest