Whatever Dan. Your argument is irrelevant regardless of what kind of spin you want to put on it, anyone can write proposed legislation and submit it to the legislature. No one has any experience writing proposed legislation before writing the first one. Your point makes no sense.
The American government is subservient to the people, not the other way around. Once the people are barred from proposing legislation, we no longer have a republic. It isn't the sole domain of the legislators, people like you have a complete misconception (or ignorance) of what this republic is all about.
The children come first. The goal is reunification.
Moderators: family_man, LindaJM
And more importantly, why would you argue this issue anyway? Is it your intent to do what you can to try to stop me or talk me out of it? Is it a problem for you that I'm doing what I can to write proposed legislation to protect children and families from CPS and other government atrocities? How are you benefiting if I don't?
Why do you persist in criticizing those who work in other ways to reform CPS? What does that do for you or the cause?
Why do you persist in criticizing those who work in other ways to reform CPS? What does that do for you or the cause?
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Bob_Lynn wrote: And more importantly, why would you argue this issue anyway?
YOU keep raising the issue, Bob.
Yesterday you wrote, "This is about the 5th time I asked you to work with me/us to reform CPS..."
Stop asking me and I'll stop answering you.
Bob_Lynn wrote: Is it your intent to do what you can to try to stop me or talk me out of it?
You can do whatever you want, Bob.
Just stop asking me to help you do it.
Bob_Lynn wrote: Is it a problem for you that I'm doing what I can to write proposed legislation to protect children and families from CPS and other government atrocities? How are you benefiting if I don't?
You can do what you want, Bob.
Leave me out of it and stop asking me to help you.
Bob_Lynn wrote: Why do you persist in criticizing those who work in other ways to reform CPS?
You've asked me FIVE times to help you with your proposed legislation.
All I'm doing is telling you why I choose not to.
Bob_Lynn wrote: What does that do for you or the cause?
I'd prefer if you'd stop hounding me about something I OBVIOUSLY have no intention of doing.
"This is about the 5th time I asked you to work with me/us to reform CPS..."
Learn to take "no" for an answer, Bob.
And don't ask me again.
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Bob_Lynn wrote: Whatever Dan. Your argument is irrelevant regardless of what kind of spin you want to put on it, anyone can write proposed legislation and submit it to the legislature. No one has any experience writing proposed legislation before writing the first one. Your point makes no sense.
My point makes perfect sense.
"The proof of success in writing legislation occurs when it's voted into law."
Bob_Lynn wrote: The American government is subservient to the people, not the other way around. Once the people are barred from proposing legislation, we no longer have a republic. It isn't the sole domain of the legislators, people like you have a complete misconception (or ignorance) of what this republic is all about.
I didn't say you should be barred from proposing legislation.
You can do whatever you want, Bob.
"This is about the 5th time I asked you to work with me/us to reform CPS... "
Just stop asking me to help you do it.
I see Dan, so you claim you criticize and mock what I'm trying to accomplish because I asked for your help (too many times?). So what about when you criticized and mocked what I'm trying to accomplish before I asked for your help? What were your reasons for doing that?
For reference, see (starting on page 2):
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php ... c&start=25
Note in the above thread, I didn't start by asking for your help, you began criticizing and mocking me immediately.
Also, were you asked for help before you mocked and criticized the Greg Hanson letter? If not, why did you criticize and mock that? How did that benefit you?
PS - You don't need to use large print in reply, I may be old but I can read the smaller print quite well, thank you.
For reference, see (starting on page 2):
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php ... c&start=25
Note in the above thread, I didn't start by asking for your help, you began criticizing and mocking me immediately.
Also, were you asked for help before you mocked and criticized the Greg Hanson letter? If not, why did you criticize and mock that? How did that benefit you?
PS - You don't need to use large print in reply, I may be old but I can read the smaller print quite well, thank you.
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Bob_Lynn wrote: I see Dan, so you claim you criticize and mock what I'm trying to accomplish because I asked for your help (too many times?). So what about when you criticized and mocked what I'm trying to accomplish before I asked for your help? What were your reasons for doing that?
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=3957
LindaJM
Tue May 02, 2006 8:31 pm
New Forum Administrator
Today I promoted Good Dad from moderator to forum administrator. I want him to have the ability to delete members who won't stop fighting.
Bob_Lynn wrote: <<<snip>>>
Also, were you asked for help before you mocked and criticized the Greg Hanson letter? If not, why did you criticize and mock that? How did that benefit you?
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=3957
LindaJM
Tue May 02, 2006 8:31 pm
New Forum Administrator
Today I promoted Good Dad from moderator to forum administrator. I want him to have the ability to delete members who won't stop fighting.
Sorry Dan, I didn't realize you consider my questions "fighting", I don't see it that way. I'm merely trying to discuss an issue with you, no name calling, just trying to understand your logic.
I take it that your reply to me with the big bold letters should not be considered "fighting" but you purport my questions posed to you to be "fighting". Or is it that you don't have any reasonable answers to any of my questions and this is your way of copping out?
Of course if you believe this post also constitutes "fighting", you certainly can ignore it or just cut and paste Linda's post once more.
I take it that your reply to me with the big bold letters should not be considered "fighting" but you purport my questions posed to you to be "fighting". Or is it that you don't have any reasonable answers to any of my questions and this is your way of copping out?
Of course if you believe this post also constitutes "fighting", you certainly can ignore it or just cut and paste Linda's post once more.
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Bob_Lynn wrote:Sorry Dan, I didn't realize you consider my questions "fighting", I don't see it that way. I'm merely trying to discuss an issue with you, no name calling, just trying to understand your logic.
I take it that your reply to me with the big bold letters should not be considered "fighting" but you purport my questions posed to you to be "fighting". Or is it that you don't have any reasonable answers to any of my questions and this is your way of copping out?
Of course if you believe this post also constitutes "fighting", you certainly can ignore it or just cut and paste Linda's post once more.
From: Dan Sullivan
To: good dad
Subject: Bob Lynn and Greegor won't stop fighting.
LindaJM
Tue May 02, 2006 8:31 pm
New Forum Administrator
Today I promoted Good Dad from moderator to forum administrator. I want him to have the ability to delete members who won't stop fighting.
---------------------
Bob Lynn won't stop fighting.
And Greegor wants to fight with me over what was posted on another website in 2002 and 2004.
See their posts from last night and this morning....
http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=100
I'm not getting dragged into any of it.
These people are ignoring Linda's post only hours after she warned what would happen to people "who won't stop fighting."
Best, Dan
Sorry Dan, I don't stoop to immaturity and I'm not intimidated by threats of censorship or any other kind of threats. If I have something to say, I will say it. I don't consider anything I've posted to you recently as "fighting", as I said, I'm trying to ascertain your logic regarding why you criticize and mock those who are fighting for this cause.
You claim to support this cause but (some of) your actions don't support that claim, in fact they support just the opposite. So I wanted to know what is your purpose for these actions, in your own words, if you care to explain without copping out in such a juvenile manner. Why you may believe that what you're doing helps the cause in any way. Again, no name calling, I'm being quite benign. This is merely a discussion in the "Round Table" forum set up just for that purpose.
If I'm going to be banned from this forum for silly reasons, then so be it. Unfortunately many people frequent this site and some (maybe many) of them may suffer for it as a result because I believe I can help many with the knowledge and expertise I've accumulated since my children and grandchild were seized by these animals. Perhaps I'm wrong, those who have the power to ban posters will have to make that decision and live with it. I absolutely refuse to stoop to censorship, especially when what I'm asking is relevant (in my opinion). Censorship is one of the atrocities that brings us to this forum. Many of us have been censored by CPS in many ways during our victimization. It is our inalienable right to have freedom of speech and expression. It is up to the administrators of this forum if they agree or not.
Again, I asked for the reasons for your actions that served to hurt our cause. It's obvious to me that you have no answer or you don't want to reveal your true purpose. That's fine and I will accept your non-answer for what I strongly believe it is. That's all. Thank you.
Note, I am currently trying to help a person in this forum get a TPR reversed, so if I'm banned, I just want to be sure I can continue to contact that person. Thank you.
You claim to support this cause but (some of) your actions don't support that claim, in fact they support just the opposite. So I wanted to know what is your purpose for these actions, in your own words, if you care to explain without copping out in such a juvenile manner. Why you may believe that what you're doing helps the cause in any way. Again, no name calling, I'm being quite benign. This is merely a discussion in the "Round Table" forum set up just for that purpose.
If I'm going to be banned from this forum for silly reasons, then so be it. Unfortunately many people frequent this site and some (maybe many) of them may suffer for it as a result because I believe I can help many with the knowledge and expertise I've accumulated since my children and grandchild were seized by these animals. Perhaps I'm wrong, those who have the power to ban posters will have to make that decision and live with it. I absolutely refuse to stoop to censorship, especially when what I'm asking is relevant (in my opinion). Censorship is one of the atrocities that brings us to this forum. Many of us have been censored by CPS in many ways during our victimization. It is our inalienable right to have freedom of speech and expression. It is up to the administrators of this forum if they agree or not.
Again, I asked for the reasons for your actions that served to hurt our cause. It's obvious to me that you have no answer or you don't want to reveal your true purpose. That's fine and I will accept your non-answer for what I strongly believe it is. That's all. Thank you.
Note, I am currently trying to help a person in this forum get a TPR reversed, so if I'm banned, I just want to be sure I can continue to contact that person. Thank you.
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Bob_Lynn wrote: I'm trying to ascertain your logic regarding why you criticize and mock those who are fighting for this cause.
You claim to support this cause but (some of) your actions don't support that claim, in fact they support just the opposite.
Again, I asked for the reasons for your actions that served to hurt our cause.
Only today I discovered that Dan tried,
apparently unsuccessfully, to ridicule one
of my family's court pleadings about 8
months before I was even here.
Dan posted this in FightCPS wanted others in
this site/blog to join him in ridiculing me. I
see that he was dissapointed that nobody
joined in his sick game.
NOW Dan is trying to pretend that he is not
the instigator of fights.
I post this here to make it plainly obvious
that Dan very actively was trying to
pick a fight with me long before I was
even HERE!
In this interaction Dan tried to pretend
that his was CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Clearly there was nothing constructive
about it, and Dan was just doing the
very same sort of JUDAS ACT that has
endeared him to several others,
advising me to just submit to DHS
on point after point, without question.
Dan even acts as if CPS is going to
eagerly sign some agreement that
he suggested we write and propose.
We couldn't get them to give us
even the things required by law but
Dan thinks they'll be eager to sign
something to OUR advantage??
Round Table Section Message thread title: An actual Motion - seriously
Dan Sullivan
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1468
Location: Long Island, New York
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject: My response to the Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was from 2002.
The little girl has still not been reunited with her mother.
-------------
Hey Greg,
Before I actually read your motion I recommended that you have an attny read it and cut it down to the meat (it was obviously far too long).
Well now I've read the whole thing and you asked for criticism and
suggestions, so...
I've already lopped off what I believe are the non-significant parts.
You decide on the rest.
______________________________________
> COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
> and inquisitive services.
Of course it's inquisitive. It's an investigation.
Lose "inquisitive."
> The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has (attempted to) IMPOSE a
> Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the
> FORMATION of the Service Plan.
> Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
There has never been a domestic violence problem in our home. There is no credible evidence of DV. DV counseling is not approp or necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------
> Employment
> The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment.
Get a job Greg.
That's what CPS wants you to do before they give the child back?
Do it!
> Vocational Rehab
If you can't find employment in your present field, find something
new.
Get a job Greg, any job. Get the little girl back to her mother.
Lose this part.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Parenting Classes
> The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes.
Greg will attend parenting classes if the child will be returned to
the family at the completion of the course.
Get this in writing, signed by CPS, and the contract reviewed by an
attny.
Reunification date specified!
> DHS has ordered that the mother (Suzy Q. Mother) and future
> stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
> the Department of Human Services (DHS).
> The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
> Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
> contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.
She should do it anyway, WITH you, to get her daughter back.
Again, get a signed agreement with what you have to do and with the reunification date in writing.
--------------------------------------------------
> PLEASE CLARIFY
> 1A. Do you order imposed parent education?
Sure they do.
And drop all the pro-spanking sh-t. You sound like a lunatic.
> 2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?
This is a stupid question. You know they do.
> 2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
> psychological evaluation would not bias the results?
Good question. Water under the bridge at this point.
Drop it.
> 2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
> amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
> provision of the service plan?
DHS wants it to come out their way. That's why.
And of course it's biased.
Get an independant evaluation done.
Lose this part.
----------------------------------------------------
> 3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
> access to any materials used against them in court?
Subpoena ALL the records!
List everything you want.
Inform the judge that ALL the records you need and have a right to
have NOT been given to you. Cite the approp Iowa law.
> There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three
> years, but DHS chooses to believe a (single) mislead (mistaken,
> misinterpretted ) comment from a 7 year old.
> No injuries to the child were (ever) alleged (by anyone).
-----------------------------------------------
> The same cannot be said for this last
> year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
> result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
> of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
> letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.
ONE medical visit?
If it's an insignificant ailment don't even mention it.
Did you send registered letters? Forget e-mls.
Lose this part.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents.
When and where? and where is this documented?
Keep in mind even horribly abused children want to go home.
> The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
> return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
> this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
> danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
> Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
> disbursed.
Are you nuts?
How would the taxpayers paying for the storage of crap that you
obviously aren't using otherwise you wouldn't be putting it into
storage be any part of family preservation?
Have a freakin yard sale like everybody else.
Or ask CPS if they have any space in their building they're not using, maybe they'll let you store your stuff there for free.
Lose this part.
------------------------------------------------------------
> The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
> efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
> court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
> PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
> the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
> contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
> REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism
> or delay.
> REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN
> 3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
> any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.
> 4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.
You probably won't get away with this.
Take pictures of everything, before and WHILE the house is being
inspected.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
> Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and
> more.
Are you out of your mind?
The little girl's child support will be used to pay for storing your
sh-t?
Do you really want to tell the court her money's gonna be spent on
YOU?
Get a job and spend your own money on a storage locker.
Or sell it at a yard sale, but get a job anyway.
Lose this part.
---------------------------------------------------------
> 10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
> toward unsupervised visits and reunification.
Has any professional stated that you (Greg) should not have
visitation?
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg, someone makes a report (it doesn't matter who) about the mother and her little girl, and what does CPS find?
A guy who moved in with them who doesn't work. Who filled the house with what? Tons of old computer sh-t? Other crap? So much you have the stones to ask that DSS PAY to store it for you? You gotta be sh-ttin me.
Even if there's nothing abusive or neglectful in that, CPS is gonna
invent something because they look at you as an anchor around the mother's neck.
They believe YOU are keeping HER and her little girl from making a
better life for themselves.
YOU and the mother have to demonstrate to the court that you're both working on making a better life for the child.
Clean the house so it's as BEYOND CLEAN AND ORDERLY!
(read the book, "It's Here... Somewhere," by Alice Fulton and Pauline Hatch)
Get a job.
Take whatever classes/courses are appropriate.
Stop talking about spanking!!! THIS makes you sound like a raving
maniac.
What would you EVER want to spank a 7 year old little girl for
ANYWAY?????
You want the child back? and you have to take a psych exam? tell em what they want to hear.
You're sorry for what happened, you're getting your life together,
you're gonna do what's best for the mother and little girl.
You're gonna be a major POSITIVE influence on the family, NOT a
negative influence (like the ex-husband).
You know Greg, that's what you should be thinking anyway. Forget
telling them what they want to hear. Change your mindset. Turn over a new leaf. Get on with your life, stop stagnating in it.
Look at what happened, look at what's going on. It's time to shake off whatever's got you stuck where you are and get on with getting that little girl back to her mother (where she belongs). If you can't or won't pull yer head out of your ass, freakin LEAVE!!! Whatever it is that you do for the mother can't even come close to what the mother needs to do for that little girl, and what the little girl needs from her mother.
You want to be a Constitutionalist?
Fine.
A defender of the Bill of Rights?
Good.
Do it after the mother gets her little girl home.
If this mother gets TPR'd, one day when she comes to her senses she's gonna look around at all the sh-t that you brought into her house, look at her little girl's empty bedroom (that you probably started to fill up with more of your crap), and decide to do a Loreena Bobbit on you as you sleep.
And don't think the mother hasn't got it in her. Right now she may
not, and she probably doesn't because if she did she would've thrown you out already. But have that mother lose her child over you and the pain inside her is gonna grow until it takes over completely. And then Greg, either she's gonna have a nervous breakdown, OR it's maxipad time for you.
Posting that Motion was the first time I got an eyeful of what the
situation was all about.
It's all about you.
The little girl's been gone a year and CPS has what? 15 or 18 months to return the child to the mother or TPR?
The clock is startin to tick REAL LOUD Greg, or can't you hear it?
You've got some set of stones.
Call CPS now, tell them you'll do whatever it takes to get the girl
back, OR get the f-ck OUT!
It's not your child, it's not your wife, and it's not even your
family.
I like the part where you wrote that you brought more "earned savings" into the house when you moved in than the father paid in child support in all of 2000.
You figured no one would realize that if the father didn't pay any
child support that year and you moved in with anything you could make that statement.
And even if he paid $2000 in child support and you came with $5000 it still doesn't give you the right to sit around at their house forever unemployed.
Forget about losing the little girl, how much ass-sittin do you think
the money you came with buys you?
I'll make it easy on you. Time's up!
Now ask yourself what you give to the mother that could ever make up for losing her little girl (besides the big indentation where you sit on the couch).
Here's that answer. NOTHING.
And don't come back with all the "I've got this Constitutional right
and that Constitutional right.."
It's not about YOU!
It's about what's best for the little girl, and it's pretty obvious
from what you wrote in the Motion, YOU don't make the list.
Do the right thing Greg, and do it BEFORE it's too late.
There's no way this little girl's going back to the mother because you did a half-assed smoke and mirror show on the Judge.
He's seen it all before.
BTW YOUR name came up 28 times in your motion and you referred to the little girl about half that.
Sorta puts it in perspective.
Don't ya think?
All the best for the little girl and her mother,
Dan Sullivan
apparently unsuccessfully, to ridicule one
of my family's court pleadings about 8
months before I was even here.
Dan posted this in FightCPS wanted others in
this site/blog to join him in ridiculing me. I
see that he was dissapointed that nobody
joined in his sick game.
NOW Dan is trying to pretend that he is not
the instigator of fights.
I post this here to make it plainly obvious
that Dan very actively was trying to
pick a fight with me long before I was
even HERE!
In this interaction Dan tried to pretend
that his was CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Clearly there was nothing constructive
about it, and Dan was just doing the
very same sort of JUDAS ACT that has
endeared him to several others,
advising me to just submit to DHS
on point after point, without question.
Dan even acts as if CPS is going to
eagerly sign some agreement that
he suggested we write and propose.
We couldn't get them to give us
even the things required by law but
Dan thinks they'll be eager to sign
something to OUR advantage??
Round Table Section Message thread title: An actual Motion - seriously
Dan Sullivan
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1468
Location: Long Island, New York
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject: My response to the Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was from 2002.
The little girl has still not been reunited with her mother.
-------------
Hey Greg,
Before I actually read your motion I recommended that you have an attny read it and cut it down to the meat (it was obviously far too long).
Well now I've read the whole thing and you asked for criticism and
suggestions, so...
I've already lopped off what I believe are the non-significant parts.
You decide on the rest.
______________________________________
> COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
> and inquisitive services.
Of course it's inquisitive. It's an investigation.
Lose "inquisitive."
> The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has (attempted to) IMPOSE a
> Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the
> FORMATION of the Service Plan.
> Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
There has never been a domestic violence problem in our home. There is no credible evidence of DV. DV counseling is not approp or necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------
> Employment
> The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment.
Get a job Greg.
That's what CPS wants you to do before they give the child back?
Do it!
> Vocational Rehab
If you can't find employment in your present field, find something
new.
Get a job Greg, any job. Get the little girl back to her mother.
Lose this part.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Parenting Classes
> The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes.
Greg will attend parenting classes if the child will be returned to
the family at the completion of the course.
Get this in writing, signed by CPS, and the contract reviewed by an
attny.
Reunification date specified!
> DHS has ordered that the mother (Suzy Q. Mother) and future
> stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
> the Department of Human Services (DHS).
> The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
> Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
> contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.
She should do it anyway, WITH you, to get her daughter back.
Again, get a signed agreement with what you have to do and with the reunification date in writing.
--------------------------------------------------
> PLEASE CLARIFY
> 1A. Do you order imposed parent education?
Sure they do.
And drop all the pro-spanking sh-t. You sound like a lunatic.
> 2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?
This is a stupid question. You know they do.
> 2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
> psychological evaluation would not bias the results?
Good question. Water under the bridge at this point.
Drop it.
> 2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
> amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
> provision of the service plan?
DHS wants it to come out their way. That's why.
And of course it's biased.
Get an independant evaluation done.
Lose this part.
----------------------------------------------------
> 3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
> access to any materials used against them in court?
Subpoena ALL the records!
List everything you want.
Inform the judge that ALL the records you need and have a right to
have NOT been given to you. Cite the approp Iowa law.
> There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three
> years, but DHS chooses to believe a (single) mislead (mistaken,
> misinterpretted ) comment from a 7 year old.
> No injuries to the child were (ever) alleged (by anyone).
-----------------------------------------------
> The same cannot be said for this last
> year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
> result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
> of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
> letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.
ONE medical visit?
If it's an insignificant ailment don't even mention it.
Did you send registered letters? Forget e-mls.
Lose this part.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents.
When and where? and where is this documented?
Keep in mind even horribly abused children want to go home.
> The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
> return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
> this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
> danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
> Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
> disbursed.
Are you nuts?
How would the taxpayers paying for the storage of crap that you
obviously aren't using otherwise you wouldn't be putting it into
storage be any part of family preservation?
Have a freakin yard sale like everybody else.
Or ask CPS if they have any space in their building they're not using, maybe they'll let you store your stuff there for free.
Lose this part.
------------------------------------------------------------
> The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
> efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
> court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
> PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
> the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
> contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
> REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism
> or delay.
> REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN
> 3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
> any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.
> 4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.
You probably won't get away with this.
Take pictures of everything, before and WHILE the house is being
inspected.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
> Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and
> more.
Are you out of your mind?
The little girl's child support will be used to pay for storing your
sh-t?
Do you really want to tell the court her money's gonna be spent on
YOU?
Get a job and spend your own money on a storage locker.
Or sell it at a yard sale, but get a job anyway.
Lose this part.
---------------------------------------------------------
> 10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
> toward unsupervised visits and reunification.
Has any professional stated that you (Greg) should not have
visitation?
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg, someone makes a report (it doesn't matter who) about the mother and her little girl, and what does CPS find?
A guy who moved in with them who doesn't work. Who filled the house with what? Tons of old computer sh-t? Other crap? So much you have the stones to ask that DSS PAY to store it for you? You gotta be sh-ttin me.
Even if there's nothing abusive or neglectful in that, CPS is gonna
invent something because they look at you as an anchor around the mother's neck.
They believe YOU are keeping HER and her little girl from making a
better life for themselves.
YOU and the mother have to demonstrate to the court that you're both working on making a better life for the child.
Clean the house so it's as BEYOND CLEAN AND ORDERLY!
(read the book, "It's Here... Somewhere," by Alice Fulton and Pauline Hatch)
Get a job.
Take whatever classes/courses are appropriate.
Stop talking about spanking!!! THIS makes you sound like a raving
maniac.
What would you EVER want to spank a 7 year old little girl for
ANYWAY?????
You want the child back? and you have to take a psych exam? tell em what they want to hear.
You're sorry for what happened, you're getting your life together,
you're gonna do what's best for the mother and little girl.
You're gonna be a major POSITIVE influence on the family, NOT a
negative influence (like the ex-husband).
You know Greg, that's what you should be thinking anyway. Forget
telling them what they want to hear. Change your mindset. Turn over a new leaf. Get on with your life, stop stagnating in it.
Look at what happened, look at what's going on. It's time to shake off whatever's got you stuck where you are and get on with getting that little girl back to her mother (where she belongs). If you can't or won't pull yer head out of your ass, freakin LEAVE!!! Whatever it is that you do for the mother can't even come close to what the mother needs to do for that little girl, and what the little girl needs from her mother.
You want to be a Constitutionalist?
Fine.
A defender of the Bill of Rights?
Good.
Do it after the mother gets her little girl home.
If this mother gets TPR'd, one day when she comes to her senses she's gonna look around at all the sh-t that you brought into her house, look at her little girl's empty bedroom (that you probably started to fill up with more of your crap), and decide to do a Loreena Bobbit on you as you sleep.
And don't think the mother hasn't got it in her. Right now she may
not, and she probably doesn't because if she did she would've thrown you out already. But have that mother lose her child over you and the pain inside her is gonna grow until it takes over completely. And then Greg, either she's gonna have a nervous breakdown, OR it's maxipad time for you.
Posting that Motion was the first time I got an eyeful of what the
situation was all about.
It's all about you.
The little girl's been gone a year and CPS has what? 15 or 18 months to return the child to the mother or TPR?
The clock is startin to tick REAL LOUD Greg, or can't you hear it?
You've got some set of stones.
Call CPS now, tell them you'll do whatever it takes to get the girl
back, OR get the f-ck OUT!
It's not your child, it's not your wife, and it's not even your
family.
I like the part where you wrote that you brought more "earned savings" into the house when you moved in than the father paid in child support in all of 2000.
You figured no one would realize that if the father didn't pay any
child support that year and you moved in with anything you could make that statement.
And even if he paid $2000 in child support and you came with $5000 it still doesn't give you the right to sit around at their house forever unemployed.
Forget about losing the little girl, how much ass-sittin do you think
the money you came with buys you?
I'll make it easy on you. Time's up!
Now ask yourself what you give to the mother that could ever make up for losing her little girl (besides the big indentation where you sit on the couch).
Here's that answer. NOTHING.
And don't come back with all the "I've got this Constitutional right
and that Constitutional right.."
It's not about YOU!
It's about what's best for the little girl, and it's pretty obvious
from what you wrote in the Motion, YOU don't make the list.
Do the right thing Greg, and do it BEFORE it's too late.
There's no way this little girl's going back to the mother because you did a half-assed smoke and mirror show on the Judge.
He's seen it all before.
BTW YOUR name came up 28 times in your motion and you referred to the little girl about half that.
Sorta puts it in perspective.
Don't ya think?
All the best for the little girl and her mother,
Dan Sullivan
-
thiasmommy
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:58 pm
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Greegor wrote: Only today I discovered that Dan tried,
apparently unsuccessfully, to ridicule one
of my family's court pleadings about 8
months before I was even here.
You weren't on fightcps.com before April 15th, 2006, Greegor?
Greegor wrote:Dan posted this in FightCPS wanted others in
this site/blog to join him in ridiculing me. I
see that he was dissapointed that nobody
joined in his sick game.
I asked no one to ridicule you, Greegor.
And there was nothing in what was posted that showed I was dissappointed about anything.
Greegor wrote:NOW Dan is trying to pretend that he is not
the instigator of fights.
I post this here to make it plainly obvious
that Dan very actively was trying to
pick a fight with me long before I was
even HERE!
I posted the Motion and my response to demonstrate how to negotiate with CPS regarding a service plan.
And you were on fightcps.com long before April 15th, 2006.
Greegor wrote: In this interaction Dan tried to pretend
that his was CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Clearly there was nothing constructive
about it, and Dan was just doing the
very same sort of JUDAS ACT that has
endeared him to several others,
advising me to just submit to DHS
on point after point, without question.
That's not true.
For domestic violence counseling I wrote the mother should respond with, "There has never been a domestic violence problem in our home. There is no credible evidence of DV. DV counseling is not approp or necessary."
For Greg taking parenting classes I wrote " Greg will attend parenting classes if the child will be returned to the family at the completion of the course. Get this in writing, signed by CPS, and the contract reviewed by an attny. Reunification date specified!"
For the mother taking parenting classes I wrote that the mother should "get a signed agreement with what you have to do and with the reunification date in writing."
For a psych eval for Greg I wrote that they should "Get an independant evaluation done."
For access to the records used against the mother in court I wrote, "Subpoena ALL the records! List everything you want. Inform the judge that ALL the records you need and have a right to have NOT been given to you. Cite the approp Iowa law."
For a court ordered home inspection I wrote "Take pictures of everything, before and WHILE the house is being inspected."
Greegor wrote:Dan even acts as if CPS is going to
eagerly sign some agreement that
he suggested we write and propose.
Why would I want Lisa to write an agreement and proposal if my advice was "to just submit to DHS on point after point, without question?"
That makes no sense unless I did make suggestions how to negotiate with CPS to fix the service plan.
See above.
Greegor wrote:We couldn't get them to give us
even the things required by law but
Dan thinks they'll be eager to sign
something to OUR advantage??
So the agreement I suggested WAS to Lisa's advantage... so your claim, Greegor, that my advice was "to just submit on point after point, without question" is obviously a fabrication on your part.
This is the same way you destroy CPS' credibility... WITH THE FACTS.
-
dasuberding
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:26 pm
dasuberding wrote:Look who's back...things were getting peaceful here...must of been on vacation.
No he was suspended for "fighting", so he's back for more, aren't we lucky?
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow
Dan wrote
> For Greg taking parenting classes I wrote "
> Greg will attend parenting classes if the child
> will be returned to the family at the completion
> of the course. Get this in writing, signed by CPS,
> and the contract reviewed by an attny.
> Reunification date specified!"
That would be GREAT for us, but the
agency and court feel absolutely no
compulsion to do so.
What is it you think would drive them
to sign such a thing?
The goodness of their hearts?
Did you think that we hold some great
power over them?
> For Greg taking parenting classes I wrote "
> Greg will attend parenting classes if the child
> will be returned to the family at the completion
> of the course. Get this in writing, signed by CPS,
> and the contract reviewed by an attny.
> Reunification date specified!"
That would be GREAT for us, but the
agency and court feel absolutely no
compulsion to do so.
What is it you think would drive them
to sign such a thing?
The goodness of their hearts?
Did you think that we hold some great
power over them?
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Greegor wrote:Dan wrote
> For Greg taking parenting classes I wrote "
> Greg will attend parenting classes if the child
> will be returned to the family at the completion
> of the course. Get this in writing, signed by CPS,
> and the contract reviewed by an attny.
> Reunification date specified!"
That would be GREAT for us, but the
agency and court feel absolutely no
compulsion to do so.
So your original claim that the advice I posted was "to just submit to DHS on point after point, without question" has been upgraded to "GREAT for us!"
This reversal in your opinion has to be because I listed all of my suggestions that completely disproved your original claim.
-
Momof31995
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:58 pm
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Momof31995 wrote:how long can this possibly go on?
is it really productive?
how ridiculous for supposedly grown men to argue like little boys.
agree to disagree and move on!
Greg made claims about what I posted and I disproved those claims with the facts.
This is exactly how someone should disprove what CPS claims about a family.
This is not little boy stuff.
It is EXTREMELY productive.
I hope you can see why.
Best, Dan
Mom of 3, when you had a case, were you
able to dictate terms to the agency?
Were they eager to please you or
give you a fair shake? Sign your "contract"?
I have tried to avoid personal attacks
even though some mighty large ones
are being thrown at me.
Some before I was even ON this blog/site.
Another Parents Rights group provided legal
pro forma for parents to counter propose
their own "reunifiucation plan".
Has anybody here filed one of those and
how has their motivation to accept it been?
able to dictate terms to the agency?
Were they eager to please you or
give you a fair shake? Sign your "contract"?
I have tried to avoid personal attacks
even though some mighty large ones
are being thrown at me.
Some before I was even ON this blog/site.
Another Parents Rights group provided legal
pro forma for parents to counter propose
their own "reunifiucation plan".
Has anybody here filed one of those and
how has their motivation to accept it been?
I think everyone here knows full well that you don't dictate terms to CPS, they dictate terms to you. If you are very lucky and have a decent attorney, your attorney might be able to negotiate terms with CPS but in the vast majority of (if not all) cases, everything CPS does is either on their terms or via court order.
I'd like to know how many people here have drafted a contract, put it under CPS' nose, asked them to sign it and successfully got their agreement.
I can tell you I drafted a notarized letter with a signature line for any CPS official, gave it to the director of CPS and told him he can sign it if he likes. At least he took it and read it, as for signing it, well, use your imagination.
Of course, I never expected him to sign it.
I won't go into what it said, it's now evidence in our lawsuit.
I'd like to know how many people here have drafted a contract, put it under CPS' nose, asked them to sign it and successfully got their agreement.
I can tell you I drafted a notarized letter with a signature line for any CPS official, gave it to the director of CPS and told him he can sign it if he likes. At least he took it and read it, as for signing it, well, use your imagination.
Of course, I never expected him to sign it.
I won't go into what it said, it's now evidence in our lawsuit.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow
-
Dan Sullivan
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
- Location: Long Island, New York
Bob_Lynn wrote:I think everyone here knows full well that you don't dictate terms to CPS, they dictate terms to you.
I'm not talking about "dictating terms" to CPS.
A CPS proposed service agreement can be agreed to in it's entirety by the family regardless of the inappropriate or unnecessary services it may contain with the hopes that on completion the children will be returned. (I do NOT recommend doing this)
Or the family can either attempt to negotiate an appropriate and necessary list of services WITH CPS OR they can decline to sign the agreement because CPS won't remove the inappropriate and unnecessary services and while the negotiations are going on the family could start their own appropriate services and possibly have the Judge return their children because THEY took the initiative and responsibility BEFORE a court order became necessary. It should be noted that florida999 used the second method successfully just a few weeks ago and had their children returned in three months. (I recommend the family take the initiative with their own services. Each case is different so how the course of action is implimented varies based on the situation)
Or the family can decline to sign CPS' original agreement and do nothing while their children languish in CPS' custody. If CPS' original service agreement becomes court ordered the family could chose to not comply and then they would be in violation of a Court Order. All the while their children remain in CPS' custody.
It should always be recognized that the longer children remain in CPS' custody the harder it is to get them back.
I certainly don't know everything but I never heard of a case where the CPS victims negotiate an agreement with CPS, they dictate all the terms, take it or leave it. We were handed a BS agreement that we had to sign in order to get our children back. I wanted to sign it with "UNDER DURESS" under my signature but my attorney advised me not to otherwise we would not get our children back.
I specifically asked the CW in front of several witnesses if everyone had to sign such an agreement to get their children back and she said absolutely, yes. The agreement was full of garbage clauses that are in complete violation of civil rights. We signed it of course, because it amounted to nothing more than ransom to get our children back. There was no negotiating any of the terms. Another piece of evidence in our lawsuit.
I specifically asked the CW in front of several witnesses if everyone had to sign such an agreement to get their children back and she said absolutely, yes. The agreement was full of garbage clauses that are in complete violation of civil rights. We signed it of course, because it amounted to nothing more than ransom to get our children back. There was no negotiating any of the terms. Another piece of evidence in our lawsuit.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests