Families has the RIGHT to Ask for Qualifications

General chat area for anything that doesn't fit in elsewhere.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
Frustrated
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Families has the RIGHT to Ask for Qualifications

Postby Frustrated » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:30 am

As per CPS Manual, Parents has the Right to ask for CPS Worker's Qualifications, Education Skills, and so forth.

If the Worker refuses, you can write a letter to her Supervisor stating that you were denied of the Worker's Qualifications.

Everyone has the Right to question the Worker's Qualifications on the Job.

Just as you would to ask Doctor's Qualifications and where they get their Schooling.

Everyone has that RIGHT to know.

You would be surprised that most Workers are underquaified, and not even Schooled properly or even without an Education.

CPS Psch. Doctors, CPS Therapists, you can also ask of their Qualifications. I found out one Therapist was not even Licensed, and she had no Schooling whatsoever. Would that be dangerous of this so called Therapist counselling your small Child? :shock:
It is easy to steal from poor people. But don't do it. And don't take advantage of those poor people in court. The Lord is on their side. He supports them and he will take things away from any person that takes from them.~ Proverbs 22:22

jackiew75
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: NH

Postby jackiew75 » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:33 am

This is for all states?

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Families has the RIGHT to Ask for Qualifications

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:34 am

Frustrated wrote:Everyone has the Right to question the Worker's Qualifications on the Job.


That's correct and there are many other rights people have that are summarily trampled on by CPS. You have to qualify all CPS workers at the Hearing or during discovery, on the court record. If any of them are unqualified it should be used as one reason to have the case dismissed. Attorneys often don't practice due dilligence and this important defensive point goes by the wayside. And that's the gamble people take when they use an attorney.
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

jackiew75
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: NH

Postby jackiew75 » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:43 am

Does this apply to anyone else working with DHS/CPS?

I think in our case, they attempted to cover their tracks by forwarding the information to several different people to make an administrative finding against my husband. The actual worker says that he did not make the finding but that someone else looking over "all the evidence" made the finding.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:51 am

Yes it applies to everyone that has anything to do with your case. No one has the right to make any statement on the record unless that person is properly qualified. Even if they are qualified, you have to distinguish between fact and hearsay and object to all hearsay statements.
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

jackiew75
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: NH

Postby jackiew75 » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:18 am

Bob_Lynn wrote: Even if they are qualified, you have to distinguish between fact and hearsay and object to all hearsay statements.


Whoa... fact and hearsay... I thought that those were all acceptible in family court? And what do judges think about down right lies?

Ok, so here is an example...

I moved back to NH last Feb 26th, DHS made MANY statements that they had me served papers to go to court which is just not true.... Nobody seems to interested to hear otherwise.

Another example....

Apparently, DHS in Oregon contacted NH DCYF on March 8th, 2006 and made the direct statement, " Mr. xyz's sperm was found in his daughters urine. He was arraigned and found guilty". When in fact my husband was NEVER arraigned on any of this and not only that, there were no DNA tests back at that point to make a statement like the one made. And to top that off, the reports we have from the forensic crime lab stated that they found no sperm in any of the samples taken from our daughter.

I am not sure why this has not come out yet. We had one preliminary hearing where the kids were returned per the judge and then the 1st day of the adjudication hearing... there are two more days of this hearing scheduled. When does somebody get to the point where the statements just dont match up to the facts?

User avatar
Frustrated
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby Frustrated » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:19 am

I don't know if it all applies to ALL STATES. Check under CPS Manual under your State and you will see these information in CPS Manual. But most of them have such clause/rights.

Even here in Canada, under Child and Family Services Handbook, we have the Right to question CPS Employees of its Qualifications.

Yes it applies to everyone working on your Case.

CPS Investigators
CPS Therapists
CPS Psch. Doctors
CPS Workers
Social Workers

and so forth....

Some CPS Workers and Investigators are not even qualified because some of them got out straight from High School and not even to College. :roll: Some Workers are under the age from 25 to 21. Some even 19 yrs old? We even got one Member that had a CPS Worker who is only 19 yrs old, fresh out of High School.

Here we have Kids working on our Cases? That is why we have that RIGHT to find out because our Family Life is hanging on the Line.
We don't want underqualified, undereducacted, Kids ruining our Lives?

It is unamerican, unprofessional, and not business-like.
It is easy to steal from poor people. But don't do it. And don't take advantage of those poor people in court. The Lord is on their side. He supports them and he will take things away from any person that takes from them.~ Proverbs 22:22

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:42 pm

jackiew75 wrote:Whoa... fact and hearsay... I thought that those were all acceptible in family court? And what do judges think about down right lies?


Anything is acceptable if it's not challenged. It's up to those defending allegations to challenge everything challengeable.

The first and primary challenge is jurisdiction. If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, everything else is irrelevant. A court that does not have subject matter jurisdiction cannot proceed with the case. This is similar to the issue on qualifying everyone.

Once jurisdiction is established, IF it's established, then you challenge hearsay with fact and support fact with Constitutional law and constitutionally compliant case law.

If you can't find an attorney to do that to protect your rights, do it yourself.

None of the above is legal advice, just opinion.
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

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:26 pm

Here is a thought.

It is a violation of judicial ethics for judges to accept awards. This is written into Judicial Ethics.

The Court Improvement Program is an entitlement grant award from Social Security, presumable based on the number of children placed in foster care and for adoption. The highest court in each state receives the funding, but it is distributed to local family courts, according to caseload I presume.

It seems every parent should have a motion filed, for the judge to recuse himself based on this violation of ethics, and ask for a judge from another jurisdiction, or ask the court to agree not to receive CIP funding for your child's foster care or adoption.

In denying such a motion, a court would be saying that,

No, we will continue to accept bribes, and we will accept bribes for your child. We are in it for the money.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:39 am

Although I won't disagree with you Marina, it's more important and more relevant to challenge jurisdiction for the court's failure to defend Constitutionally protected rights, which virtually always happens in CPS cases.

Don't forget that once challenged, the burden of jurisdictional proof is then shifted to the court. When a court disregards such a challenge, any and all court orders must then be immediately appealed.
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

jackiew75
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: NH

Postby jackiew75 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:27 pm

I am just assuming, and I know I shouldn't after what we have been through that the judge has agreed on the jurisdiction facts. He even made the statement that we willingly left Oregon for NH so this is where this will all take place even though... NH is doing the leg work for Oregon.

As far as the judge, I have been told on numerous occasions to thank our lucky stars that he is who we have. We have been told that he is very fair and appropriate with his rulings. I can only believe that this is true considering he, the judge, had the children returned home to me immediately and my husband can have unlimited supervised visits.... We understand he put his neck on the line.... After all, who wants to send children back into the home and have something else terrible happen to the children?

I am still trying to have faith. Today was my b-day... the second one in a row where we have been dealing with this. Needless to say, not much in the mood to celebrate.

Thanks for the input though!

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:48 pm

jackiew75 wrote:I am just assuming, and I know I shouldn't after what we have been through that the judge has agreed on the jurisdiction facts. He even made the statement that we willingly left Oregon for NH so this is where this will all take place even though... NH is doing the leg work for Oregon.


I think you misunderstand jurisdiction, it's not necessarily about location or even venue, I'm talking about subject matter jurisdiction. I'll quote from the LIFE website.

Denial of basic civil rights is a violation of Due Process. Due Process is a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles established in a system for jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights.

Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court are for “Subject Matter” (the power to deal with the matter to be tried), “Relationship” (the power to deal with the defendant) and “Competence” (the power of the Court to act pursuant to the Laws of the State).


It doesn't matter if the judge agrees on jurisdiction, it's up to you to challenge it if you don't agree. Again, if the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed.

You can get more information from the section called The Family Court Hearing - A Constitutional Defense.

http://www.life-vs-cps.com/index_files/Page357.htm
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


Return to “Round Table”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests