The children come first. The goal is reunification.

[Dan Sullivan]

You must always fight for your rights, whether the lower courts recognize it as a defense or not, the higher courts do.

That would be in an appeal to a higher court after the lower court made an unfavorable decision against the family, correct, Bob?

You're assuming the lower court made an unfavorable decision after you asserted your rights. Maybe there is a family court somewhere that actually follows constitutional law

But you wrote "every CPS is different, every caseworker is different and every judge is different and none of them operate within any standards and none of them operate within the law."

So how could anyone get a favorable decision?

The only issues in a Family Court are the custody of the children and the allegations that caused them to be removed.

Wrong, those aren't the only issues, in any and every court, RIGHTS are key issues. Custody of children are RIGHTS and allegations are accusations that require DUE PROCESS which are also RIGHTS.

As I said, and I believe Bob has also admitted, the proper forum for raising the Constitutional rights issue is in an appeal AFTER the family has suffered an unfavorable decision in Family Court.

You're twisting the issue as usual. You FIRST raise constitutional issues in the FIRST court, which in this case may be the family court and is ALSO THE PROPER FORUM as every court is. By the time you appeal, you have already LOST in the lower court, possibly because you FAILED to assert your constitutional rights.

Even if someone asserted their rights in Family court and they lost, wouldn't the appeal be base on the denial of their constitutional rights?

You're implying that you should wait until the appeal process to assert your rights, which in my opinion, is very DANGEROUS advice and may cause you to lose your children to the state. So you're wrong again, I never agreed to your twisted strategy.

I didn't imply anyone should wait for the appeals process to assert their rights.

And the premise is the family has already lost their children.

So you're wrong again, I never agreed to your twisted strategy.

It's not my strategy.

The appeal would be base on a denial of constitutional rights, correct?

[Dan Sullivan]

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... cript.html

Read it, you might learn something.

Bob Lynn wrote, "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

Are lawyers taught that the primary defense is Constitutional law when their client is in a criminal or civil action?

Or is that simply one of your opinions?

[Bob_Lynn]

Even if someone asserted their rights in Family court and they lost, wouldn't the appeal be base on the denial of their constitutional rights?

That would be part of the appeal and any other question of law.

I didn't imply anyone should wait for the appeals process to assert their rights.

Well I guess you had me and a few others here fooled. So then, why do you argue the point in the first place? And in fact belittle those who advise that rights should always be asserted in any and every court?

The appeal would be base on a denial of constitutional rights, correct?

Among other things, you appeal a question of law, the Constitution is law.

[Bob_Lynn]

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

I already did, did you read it?

Are lawyers taught that the primary defense is Constitutional law when their client is in a criminal or civil action?

How should I know? I never went to law school.

Or is that simply one of your opinions?

I never said that about lawyers, like I said, I wouldn't know what they're taught but obviously, they're taught how to make money first and foremost.

[Frustrated]

All that talk just makes me SHIVER*** (Fear) because it is bringing up bad memories about CPS what they do to Families.

Shiver***don't want to bring up about CPS over and over...

[Dan Sullivan]

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

I already did, did you read it?

You failed to post the link to this statement of your's "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."

Are lawyers taught that the primary defense is Constitutional law when their client is in a criminal or civil action?

How should I know? I never went to law school.

Obviously.

Then how could you claim that the primary defense of criminal and civil chargers is Constitutional law?

Or is that simply one of your opinions?

I never said that about lawyers, like I said, I wouldn't know what they're taught but obviously, they're taught how to make money first and foremost.

Then who is your statement "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law." referring to?

Who is supposed to use Constitutional law as the primary defense?

[Dan Sullivan]

I didn't imply anyone should wait for the appeals process to assert their rights.

Well I guess you had me and a few others here fooled. So then, why do you argue the point in the first place? And in fact belittle those who advise that rights should always be asserted in any and every court?

I'm not arguing the point.

I'm discussing the issue.

And I've never belittled anyone for asserting their rights.

[Bob_Lynn]

Then how could you claim that the primary defense of criminal and civil chargers is Constitutional law?

Very easily, if the Constitution is the primary law and trumps all other laws, you don't have to be a rocket scientist or even a lawyer to figure it out.

Then who is your statement "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law." referring to?

Anyone charged.

Who is supposed to use Constitutional law as the primary defense?

Anyone charged.

[Bob_Lynn]

And I've never belittled anyone for asserting their rights.

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

Sarcasm and belittling implied.

[Dan Sullivan]

Then how could you claim that the primary defense of criminal and civil chargers is Constitutional law?

Very easily, if the Constitution is the primary law and trumps all other laws, you don't have to be a rocket scientist or even a lawyer to figure it out.

It doesn't state in the Constitution that someone can't sell illegal drugs from their home... so if CPS removes children from a home because it's used for illegal drug sales is the Judge required to return the children because it's not in the Constitution?

[dasuberding]

Bob's right!

[Bob_Lynn]

It doesn't state in the Constitution that someone can't sell illegal drugs from their home... so if CPS removes children from a home because it's used for illegal drug sales is the Judge required to return the children because it's not in the Constitution?

It also doesn't doesn't state in the Constitution that a serial killer should go to jail and be executed, should he then be set free because it's not in the Constitution?

What are you talking about? You apparently have no clue what the Constitution is all about, do you? Did you read it? I gave you the link. Do you know what DUE PROCESS is?

[Dan Sullivan]

It doesn't state in the Constitution that someone can't sell illegal drugs from their home... so if CPS removes children from a home because it's used for illegal drug sales is the Judge required to return the children because it's not in the Constitution?

It also doesn't doesn't state in the Constitution that a serial killer should go to jail and be executed, should he then be set free because it's not in the Constitution?

Someone might get that impression because you wrote,

"Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."

Apparently that isn't true in the serial killer case you mentioned, correct, Bob?

Would it be true in the case of children being removed by CPS because someone was selling drugs from their home?

Would Constitutional law be the primary defense in that case?

[good dad]

Would it be true in the case of children being removed by CPS because someone was selling drugs from their home?

Would Constitutional law be the primary defense in that case?

If they came in without a search warrant and against the wishes of the parents, constitutional law would be a valid defense..

AGREE TO DISAGREE AND MOVE ON DAN

[Bob_Lynn]

Someone might get that impression because you wrote

Someone? Only "someone" like you who is apparently hell bent on insisting that the family court is not the proper venue to assert one's civil rights and that one should only assert their rights during the appeals process. "Someone" who doesn't understand the basics of DUE PROCESS and the Constitution.

[Bob_Lynn]

If they came in without a search warrant and against the wishes of the parents, constitutional law would be a valid defense..

In fact, constitutional law is a valid defense in any child custody issue, not just a 4th Amendment question, because such an issue always potentially infringes on constitutional rights.

[good dad]

I was just giving an example off the top of my head..

I try not to get involved in this crap..

[Bob_Lynn]

Understood Good Dad, I want to make it absolutely clear that Constitutional law is and should always be a critical part of one's defense in any court and I take a strong exception to those who would advise against such a defense, especially lawyers and purported "advocates".

[Momof31995]

Being proactive in some cases works but what about when CPS says the services you got werent good enough because they werent their courses or their therapists? what then? then you are forced to jump through their hoops which in our case led to more hoops and more hoops until we asserted our rights and stood upto them.

they wanted us to take DV classes we said ok to get our kids back just to find out there are no DV classes offered here. End results we took no classes.

Drug testing (we never took drugs) so we complied. No positive tests.End results the drug factor was never mentioned again.

we were ordered to take Psych evals. we did the shrink said i was too emotional.End results Nothing this got us no where and no closer to getting our kids back.

We were ordered to take a parental safety assessment.we did the counselor stated i was not emotional enough and cold and detached. End Results NOTHING but more counceling ordered.Which we do every other week with the kids.

We were ordered to do a bonding assessment.Never happened because once again no one in our area does this.

why order services that cant possibly be fulfilled and then when you go to court DCFS makes it look like you arent complying.

we have Administrative case reviews every 6 months with DCFS and twice they have made our case worker change the service plan because what we were being marked unsatisfactory for was actually services the case worker was supposed to set up and never did.So then it would be changed to unsat on her part.

these case plans were never submitted to the courts only the caseworkers court report. until we started taking the caseplans to our attorney to be submitted in court with our objections and corrections. then we won in court having reasonable efforts on our part and NO reasonable efforts on the agencies part.

Make the case worker do their job and suddenly we are good enough to get our children back. there are plenty more people out there who will let them get away with the bullshit claims.Why bother with people who will give them one hell of a fight?this seems to be the way CPS workers think.

[Dan Sullivan]

these case plans were never submitted to the courts only the caseworkers court report. until we started taking the caseplans to our attorney to be submitted in court with our objections and corrections. then we won in court having reasonable efforts on our part and NO reasonable efforts on the agencies part.

Reasonable efforts.

Like taking necessary and appropriate services.

And not taking unnecessary and inappropriate services.

How much faster would children be returned if the parents insisted on only necessary and appropriate services and they never signed the CPS plan to begin with?

Proactive with reason.

Best, Dan

[Bob_Lynn]

This is another very good point Momof31995. CPS wants the family to fail, this is why if you jump through their hoops which they try to make impossible, even if you happen to succeed, they will only give you more hoops to jump through. These "hoops" are not about getting your family's act together, they're all about getting you to fail them so they can drag you into court to tell the judge you're not complying.

So why in hell should you create your own hoops to jump through as advised by Dan? In the first place, they won't likely be acceptable because they're not the ones CPS wants and in the second place, see above.

And I'm not the one who first made this observation, this has been posted on AFRA for years.

[firemonkey]

06/02/06

[Momof31995]

No i dont have my kids home with me yet.They are still in foster care until June. We only see them fri-sun.

In september of last year they were going to ask for TPR because we werent jumping through their hoops fast enough.When our attorney asked for a Trial the DCFS attorney had to do her homework and found that the contracting agency wasnt doing their job right and told them there was no way they were getting a TPR.

Soon after that once again they decided that since they lost in court yet again it was time to screw with our visits.I got active then and called the state advocacy office and reported every little thing that was wrong in our case.their investigation was what turned our case around and now in March they finally gave the ok for the kids to return home.

It wasnt because we kept jumping through hoops it was because we decided its tim to stand up for our rights and our childrens rights.

I truly believe we got too smart for them and now they dont want to deal with us anymore but they have to hold this one last bit of power by deciding when they will return our kids.

[firemonkey]

[gideonmacleish]

Someone might get that impression because you wrote

Someone? Only "someone" like you who is apparently hell bent on insisting that the family court is not the proper venue to assert one's civil rights and that one should only assert their rights during the appeals process. "Someone" who doesn't understand the basics of DUE PROCESS and the Constitution.

There's a big legal problem with waiting until the appeals process to argue Constitutional violations. If there was no objection to that effect in the original hearing, you may find it difficult to get your appeal heard. I'm beginning to believe the best tactic in many of these cases is a combination of both of your approaches. State your objection, citing case law that affirms your objection. Get it on the record. IF the judge overrules your objection, begin complying with the court order until/unless you can obtain an injunction or have the ruling overruled in a higher court. Because your objections are on the record in court transcripts, the appeal process will be simpler.

Make sense?