Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Mom Faces Jail Time for Letting Son Play Outside



ParentalRights.org logoSonya Hendren of Sacramento, California, was arrested for letting her four-year-old son play outside. The mother was charged with felony child endangerment and child neglect when a neighbor saw the child outside alone and called Child Protective Services (CPS).
YIPES, Has the CPS gone too far??
Felony Charges for a child playing outside in a GATED community

More thoughts from the Parental Rights Organization to Consider:
-- December 15, 2015
Tomahawk Hendren was playing on a playground inside their gated apartment complex, approximately 120 feet from his front door. But that was too far from his mother, in the opinion of neighbor Sonja Horrell, who placed the call. “How would she feel if he was on an AMBER Alert?” Horrell reportedly asked. “Then what would she be feeling?”
Yet even Horrell did not expect such charges to be filed. “I thought she would just get a warning… and she wouldn’t let them be out alone again,” she told reporters later.
Instead, Hendren faces up to 6 months in jail and 3 years probation. She was offered a plea deal of 30 days in jail and 1 year of probation, but turned it down through her attorney, Sacramento-based Alin Cintean.
The prosecution will have to prove that Hendren willfully placed her son in danger if they want to make the child endangerment and neglect charge stick, Cintean says.
This is not the first time Tomahawk has played outside alone, but it is the first time it has gotten his mother into trouble. “She said he would occasionally go outside, within their gated apartment complex, only to return moments later to tell his mom he was okay,” according to a Fox40 News report. In some communities, letting a child play outside unattended could be a very dangerous decision – but that doesn’t sound like the case in this instance.
The Supreme Court in 1979 stated what was once (and still should be) obvious: “Simply because a decision of a parent…involves risks, does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision to some agency or officer of the state.” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
Whether or not it is safe for a child to play alone outside depends on a wide range of variables which generally parents are best able to gauge for their own families.
In short, CPS’s over-reaction violates Sonya Hendren’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing and care of her son. And it probably will make Sonja Horrell think twice before calling CPS again, too. Her effort to be a good neighbor has led to more than she bargained for.
But this trend toward overreach is only ramping up, not cooling down.
Background Checks for All Parents?
According to a report from HSLDA, Ohio state Senator Capri Cafaro has introduced a bill that would require school officials to conduct a background check on every family enrolling a child in a public or private school. The checks would be to determine whether there is an open or former CPS investigation involving that family. This removes the presumption of innocence while opening CPS records to school officials unnecessarily.
The bill is proposed in response to the tragic death of Teddy Foltz, a child kept from school by his abusive parents. In that case, local CPS workers were aware of the abuse and failed to act in the child’s defense. But a background check such as the proposed would have changed nothing in that instance, since the abusive parents did not register him for school.
The response of CPS workers and lawmakers to treat all parents as suspect is simply unacceptable. As I have quoted many times, the Supreme Court in that Parham decision declared, “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”
Children must be protected. But we cannot protect the children whose parents are negligent or abusive by treating all fit parents like criminals. To do so is to sacrifice the principles, freedoms, and ideals on which our nation was founded while distracting social services workers from areas of real need.
The Best Solution to Fight Overreach
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment is the best legal weapon parents can have today to turn back the tide of government overreach. With its passage we can halt the trend of lawmakers and agents to rob parents of the right to make healthy decisions for their children.
You can support this effort by sharing this article with family and friends and urging them to sign up at parentalrights.org/petition. That way they, too, can lend their voices to this vital effort when it’s time to contact lawmakers for parental rights.
You can also support us with a generous gift to parentalrights.org/donate.
However you choose to give – whether it’s your money, your effort, or your time – we thank you for standing with us to restore reason and balance to the laws impacting families in our society.
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research


Share This Online


Share



 

Donate

Volunteer
Join the Discussion

Facebook

Google+
P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org


 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector
Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer

Saturday, November 21, 2015

End of PARENTAL RIGHTS?? Thanks Scalia

The article below was a recent email from the Parental Rights Organization.

Gotta say, Protests won't do it. Complaining about the law and those involved in the legal arena won't do it. 

We ALL MUST keep in mind "It is not about Justice. It is about the Law." PLUS being that One Small Voice and Educating Yourself to counter those that are Acting in the Color of Law.

It's one case at a time, and one precious family at a time.
May you find strength in your Higher Power,
Granpa Chuck
National Coordinator
National Family Advocacy Team. (NFAT)
~~~~email from the Parental Rights Organization~~~~
Scalia Would End Parental Rights
-- November 19, 2015
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, were it left to him, would end the Court’s recognition of parental rights as constitutional rights.Based on remarks he presented to the Georgetown University School of Law this week,

According to an article at Education Week, Scalia told a group of first-year law students that “many important rights are not contained” in the Constitution. “For example,  
my right to raise my children the way I want. To teach them what I want them taught, not what Big Brother says. That is not there.”

Scalia warned that “the notion that everything you care a lot about has to be in the Constitution is a very dangerous notion.” From there he attacked the substantive due process theory on which fundamental parental rights currently rests. “[D]on’t get me started on substantive due process,” he offered.

At least Scalia is consistent. In his dissent in the Supreme Court’s most recent parental rights case, Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), he claimed that “I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon” parental rights (emphasis in original).

In that dissent Scalia admits that he believes parental rights are “among the ‘unalienable rights’ with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims ‘all men…are endowed by their Creator.’ And in [his] view, that right is also among the ‘othe[r] [rights] retained by the people’…” under the Ninth Amendment. Nevertheless, 
he would rob parents of constitutional protection on the basis that the right is implied rather than enumerated in the Constitution.

If this is the position of the Court’s bastion of conservatism, what hope do parents have with its more progressive members?

Scalia’s dissent is not binding. The plurality opinion in Troxel continues to recognize fundamental parental rights established in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). But they denied them the same strict scrutiny protection afforded other fundamental rights.

As a result, parental rights are subjected to the whims of judges on a case by case basis, with different standards applied all across the country.  
Judges must call them “fundamental,” but can treat them however they like.
This is why we need the proposed Parental Rights Amendment (PRA), which will soon be filed in Congress.  

The PRA will restore one high legal standard for parental rights in every courtroom in America, protecting “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children [as] a fundamental right.”
But we need your help to make it happen.

Will you please consider a special one-time gift of $35, $50, or even $150 to continue ParentalRights.org’s drive to protect parental rights?

We cannot afford for Scalia’s view to continue to spread unchallenged. We cannot afford to see parental rights left to the whims of the same Court that has done so much to erode them in the first place. Even worse, we can’t let them be pushed aside simply because they aren’t spelled out in the black and white of the Constitution’s text.

Your donation today will support our efforts to secure parental rights sponsors on both sides of the congressional aisle.
 With bipartisan support, we can answer Scalia’s challenge by putting parental rights into the text after all.

We must combat Scalia’s message with one of support for traditional parental rights. Can we count on your help today?
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

P.S. – If you can’t help today or if you plan to give again, consider “Giving Tuesday,” coming December 1. We know as parents you give every day – especially to your children. If you donate to charity this “Giving Tuesday,” consider helping us give back to you.



Share This Online


Share




Donate

Volunteer
Join the Discussion

Facebook

Google+
P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector
Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Update: Parental Rights Amendment Inclusive of Parents with Disabilities

The National Family Advocacy Team urges everyone raising children to share this latest article from the Parental Rights Organization.

ParentalRights.org logoRaising children is certainly a challenge for any parent. However, does the Child Protective AGENCY to be CONTINOUSLY reminded that they, the AGENCY are bound through "Reasonable


 
 Efforts" to do so??? (Learn more about "Making Reasonable Efforts"

So do read these comments and become a member of our Team for:
Our Families
Our Children
Our Future


Parental Rights Amendment Inclusive of Parents with Disabilities
-- October 27, 2015
From its conception it has been the aim of ParentalRights.org to protect in the text of the Constitution the rights of all parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. To that end we have just added a new section to the proposed language in order to address an ongoing weakness in the practice of parental rights law.
The new section provides that
 
“The parental rights guaranteed by this article
shall not be denied or abridged on account of disability.”
 
According to a study of the National Council on Disability:
  • parents with disabilities face child removal rates of anywhere from 40 to 80 percent depending on the nature of their disability – far above the national norm.
  • Those who are deaf or blind face “extremely high rates of child removal and loss of parental rights.”
  • The study concludes, “Clearly, the legal system is not protecting the rights of parents with disabilities and their children.”
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment offers the opportunity to address and correct this wrong, and the addition of this new language makes clear our intention to do just that.
 
This is more than an opportunity; it is an obligation.
 
During the 20th Century the Supreme Court developed a doctrine of “protected classes” – special classifications of citizens against whom the government is prohibited from discriminating under the Fourteenth Amendment. Religious groups, racial minorities, and women are all among these “protected classes,” identified through a line of civil rights and anti-discrimination acts dating back to 1964.
 
In its embarrassing eugenics-era Buck v. Bell decision, however, the Court made clear ahead of time that the disabled were not on that list. Their opinion would be horrifyingly offensive to our modern sensibilities:
 
“It is better for all the world,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for the 1927 Court, “if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
 
It is easy to dismiss this as a prejudiced view from a less sensitive time. Yet, even with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, this case still hangs over the disabled like the sword of Damocles. It is a precedent that has never been over-turned; the government still retains the power to make decisions for the disabled that it could never make for more mainstream members of society.
In a much different 1979 decision the Court wrote, “The law’s concept of the family… historically…has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children….
  • “Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child, or because it involves risks, does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.”
Sadly, this legal presumption of parental fitness often fails to serve the parent who suffers a disability.
  •  According to the NCD report, “fully two-thirds of dependency statutes allow the court to reach the determination that a parent is unfit…on the basis of the parent’s disability.”
The time has come to correct this wrong, and the proposed Parental Rights Amendment is just the vehicle by which to do it.
 
We have said consistently that as parents we are all in this together. This is one more opportunity to prove that point.
 
Certainly we are hopeful that many individuals and organizations of the disability community will take an interest in this addition and join our fight to preserve parental rights. Already we are thrilled to welcome the endorsement of the National Federation of the Blind.
 
But even if other disabled citizens do not join our effort we will stand for their rights alongside our own. Because knowledge of the errors of the past is not sufficient to prevent their repetition; when it comes our turn we must be faithful to set a different course.
 
We are proud to set that course today.
 
To read the entire Parental Rights Amendment as it is currently proposed, click here.
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

Share This Online


Share



 

Donate

Volunteer
Join the Discussion

Facebook

Google+

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Parental Rights: Geared up for ANOTHER Round

My staff asked me the other day "Why has the Supreme Court decision for Gay Marriage been affirmed while the Parental Rights Amendment to our Constitution still Stalled in the US Legislator??"

I told them "Good Question", but then reminded them of a checklist created in 1969>>> http://nfpcar.org/Eugenics/checklist.html << Many may want to check this out??

Anyways, those supporting the Parental Rights Amendment aren't giving up.

Below is the latest efforts>>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gearing Up for Another Round
-- September 29, 2015
ParentalRights.org logo
The next legislative session in most states will get started in January, 2016, and we are already working in many of them to introduce bills preserving parental rights.

A few states with year-round legislatures are still (and pretty much always) in session, but in most instances the business of 2015 is finished and the capitol halls are now quiet. But that doesn’t mean we’re not busy working on parental rights statutes right now.

In Colorado and Pennsylvania, our state leaders have already submitted model language to lawmakers who will introduce the legislation for next year. Efforts in other states are in various preparatory stages of the process as well.

Many states require the language to be pre-filed in November or December, making these next few weeks the crucial time to get lead sponsors identified and language finalized.

So although 2016 may seem a long way off, it is in fact already time to get those efforts off the ground.

A year ago parental rights were protected by state statute in 7 states: Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. During the 2015 session, Idaho was added to that list. Eight additional states saw legislation proposed that was not yet passed; in a majority of these states work is already under way to try again in 2016.
Currently, efforts have been planned (and may be under way) in the following states: Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, New Jersey, West Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and Missouri. Securing a win in every one of these would more than double the number of states with clear parental rights statutes in the nation.
But we are anticipating even more.

If you would be interested in spearheading an effort in your state, or in getting plugged in to an effort already underway, please let us know! We can provide language and resources you need for getting a bill introduced where you live.
Just email info@parentalrights.org for model language or additional information. Or use our online Volunteer Form to let us know of your interest, and our grassroots director will get in touch with you.

Together we are securing parental rights state by state while pressing toward the day when parental rights are secured in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Thank you for your perseverance – we could not do it without you!
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research
   





Share This Online


Share



 

Donate

Volunteer
Join the Discussion

Facebook

Google+
P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org
To share this email with a friend, click here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Saturday, August 29, 2015

TN-Featured NEW Blog: Tennessee Family Law

We are proud to list a New Blog Starting Today!!!

Title of the very first Post is:
The Constitutional Right to Parent and be free from interference from child protective services based on "distortion, misrepresentation, and omission."
 
By CONNIE REGULI, Attorney at Law
August 28, 2015
LAWCARE FAMILY LAW CENTER
I am often called upon to represent the rights of parents against the apparent unlawful interference by the state agency empowered to remove children through ex parte warrants and orders. 

The common practice of these agencies is to review a referral of child abuse and after an "investigation" (which is often lacking in substance) they may decide to remove the children from the parent and place them in foster care.
Chek it out>> http://update.tennfamilylaw.info/2015/08/the-constitutional-right-to-parent-and.html  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Connie has practiced law in Middle Tennessee for over twenty years. If you are facing divorce, termination of your parental rights, adoption, juvenile matters, estate planning - contact us at www.tennfamilylaw.com 615 661 0122
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher
Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer

 


Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Lighter side: How Do COURT RECORDERS Keep Straight Faces????

Product Details  These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget..
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________

ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death..
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
___________________________________________

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral...
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?

______________________________________
And last:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

more humor and good stuff--->> Happy People!!!




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reviewing this information.
Any comments would be Super.
Remember- If you don't know your Rights,
You have NONE
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Researcher, Editor, Publisher

 

 
 

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Medicare Fraud is a Never Ending Story

A most Sad issue since it is many of those in the Medical Industry that are doing it. By their fraudulent actions, many are being denied the medical care they need and/or the government debt is being increased. (Debt in America: Real Time)

Here are just a few for July 27, 2015

A Public Awareness Issue shared
by the National Family Advocacy Team.

OIG posts two reports and enforcement actions
07/27/2015
OIG.HHS.GOV
Today, OIG posts two reports and enforcement actions. As always, you can use the links provided to go directly to the new material.
------------

Reports

Medicare Contractors' Payments to Providers for Hospital Outpatient Dental Services in Jurisdiction K Did Not Comply With Medicare Requirements (A-06-14-00022) http://go.usa.gov/37peH
Medicare contractor payments to providers in Jurisdiction K (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) for hospital outpatient dental services did not comply with Medicare requirements. Of the 100 dental services in our stratified random sample, 85 did not comply with Medicare requirements. Using our sample results, we estimated that Medicare contractors improperly paid providers at least $2,276,853 for dental services provided during the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013.
###
Hospice of New York, LLC, Improperly Claimed Medicare Reimbursement for Some Hospice Services (A-02-13-01001) http://go.usa.gov/37peV
Hospice of New York, LLC (the Hospice), operating in New York State, claimed Medicare reimbursement for some hospice services that did not comply with certain Medicare requirements. Of the 100 beneficiary-months in our random sample for which the Hospice claimed Medicare reimbursement, 79 beneficiary-months complied with Medicare requirements, but 21 did not. We estimated that the Hospice received at least $1.3 million in improper Medicare reimbursement.

----------------

Enforcement Actions

  • Owner of Detroit Home Health Care Companies Sentenced to 80 Months in Prison for Role in $12.6 Million Fraud Scheme (July 24, 2015; U.S. Department of Justice) http://go.usa.gov/3wjCE
  • Stockton Oncologist Pays $736,000 to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations (July 24, 2015; U.S. Attorney; Eastern District of California) http://go.usa.gov/3wjCE
  • Board Certified Obstetrician And Gynecologist Agrees To Civil Fraud Settlement In Conjunction With Deferred Prosecution In Medicare And Medicaid Fraud Investigation (July 24, 2015; U.S. Attorney; Eastern District of New York) http://go.usa.gov/3wjCE
  • Dallas County Woman Admits Defrauding Medicaid (July 24, 2015; U.S. Attorney; Northern District of Texas) http://go.usa.gov/3wjCE
----------------
If we can be of any further assistance, please send an email to public.affairs@oig.hhs.gov .
OIG’s privacy policy can be found at http://oig.hhs.gov/notices/privacy-notice.asp
Integrity, Credibility, Impact



Nuff Said, yes?


~~~~~~~~~~







 


  • National Coordinator of the Family Survey Program
    When One Deals with the Child Protective AGENCY
    >>;LearnMore