Sunday, March 25, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Knowing you can Tape May win your case?
Just thought I would share an email of one who came to one of our web sites, Foster Parent Legal Solutions, and Learned that he could Tape a Conversation. Our Affiliation
Related Reading:
Related Reading:
Here is his email:
Hi there!
I was on the site http://www.foster-parents-
-My girlfriends ex husband in a mediator meeting for their children tells lies about us
-when
it
was my girlfriends turn to talk to mediator the mediator almost
threatened her and brought up DCFS and that she was a mandatory reporter
-DCFS knocks on door the same day but I was at work and she doesn’t answer if I’m not there.
-Called the DCFS agent back the next day which was Saturday and left a Voicemail
-She calls back for a meeting Monday
-She
arrives
and I do everything wrong just like all first timers. I let them in and
we did separate interviews and signed a document that we would go to
their counselors but she wouldn’t give me a copy of what I signed
-We
go
for drug testing and the clinic guy is staring at me,…..I asked him may
I help you and he said he had to watch. I said no I’m not a criminal
or under probation and I don’t think I could pee with you watching
anyways. He said it would count as a dirty test and I said take blood
then. He said they don’t do that and I said and I don’t pee in front of
guys. I walked out all pissed off as they yelled I was dirty. Called up
the agent and she said they don’t do blood tests
-I was freaked out by everything going on and hit the internet all night researching.
-http://www.foster-parents-
What I did next worked for me. I don’t know if it would work for everybody but it sure blew the doors of this workers case
-She
calls
for another meeting and I said hold on…..by law I have to tell you this
conversation is being recorded as will all phone calls and any visits
will be videotaped with multiple cameras and listen devices….she said
why? And I said I read up on you people and I will not let you run me
over and take my kids…..you’re going to do this my way so everything is
on the up and up. She stated she had to talk to her supervisor and she
would get back to me.
-About
a
week later she called my personal reference and he told her at the
advice of my attorney this call will be recorded as will all others and
she said she couldn’t talk to him and hung the phone up.
-2 weeks later I got a paper in the mail stating that our case was dismissed
It seems she was afraid of the truth
Legal Research - Ignorance is NO Excuse
Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE!
- Before you read this topic, Legal Research, as a Family Advocate, I recommend:
that you do not wait for others to assist you.
Instead you Must become an advocate for yourself and know the statutes, policies, etc. particular to your concerns to protect your Precious Family. Whether you seek the assistance of a lawyer or not.
Related Reading:
Legal Research
Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE!
( email from Author of"How to Win" Step-by-Step Self-Help Course )
Jurisdictionary
If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" then knowing how to find official law that will decide the outcome of your case is critical to winning!Fortunately, the "law of your case" is much simpler than you might imagine and easy to find! Most cases are won or lost on very few "laws", perhaps a single statute and 3-4 appellate court decisions interpreting how that statute applies to the facts.
If you had to go to court 30 years ago, before personal computers and the internet, you'd have to dig through the dismally dry and boring stacks of thousands of look-alike books in a law library (if you could find one nearby). Back then, winning a lawsuit required litigants to spend hour-upon-hour turning dusty pages, pulling down piles of books to spread on the library table next to their yellow pad in what was often a fruitless search for the legal support their arguments needed.
All that has changed, thanks to the internet and competition between legal research sites that is driving the price down to a reasonable level where pretty much anyone who needs to do on-line legal research can afford it.
But, will you know how?
My course materials on legal research include videos showing actual
screen-shots of on-line searches so an average 8th grader with
reasonable computer skills will be able to find constitutional
provisions, statutes, code, and appellate court opinions to support
pretty much any legal argument you can think of. These days it's sooo easy to do legal research on-line ... an average 8th grader can do it!
Instead of digging through thousands of books differing only by the numbers printed on their impressively formidable spines, you can log-on any of the growing number of competent legal databases and, with the flick of a few keyboard fingers find thousands of cases that deal with the issues of your case in seconds!
Google® can get you started ... for free!
But, don't rely on Google® as the final authority. Google®
will provide a good start in most cases, but before you go to court to
argue how the appellate opinion you found is the final say-so, you need
to dig deeper.My affordable, official, 24-hour step-by-step Jurisdictionary "How to Win in Court" self-help course explains legal research with examples you can try out for yourself. Once you finish the course you'll know how to find appellate decisions that favor your cause ... and you'll know how to cite them to the court in proper format. You’ll know how to tell the judge why you should win by citing authorities the judge is required by law to obey: court rules, cases, constitutional provisions, statutes and codes.
Clever argument is not enough.
You cannot win without finding and citing the legal authorities that control judges.Those who don’t know how to find and cite legal authority cannot control judges nor win on appeal so they lose needlessly!
In the heat of your lawsuit battles, you can be certain the other side will cite legal authorities favoring his case.
It's essential to winning!
You must do the same thing … if you want to win.
Related Reading: Legal Online Self Help
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Learn More>> Click Here
Another Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed.
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed.
Learn More>> Click Here
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck
Defend Yourself
http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/
http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Great Example of a Sworn Declaration
Comments From Me:
My attorney quit, and the hearing was
continued as everyone there was busy reading my
statement. The judge had not yet received his copy from the clerk, so glanced
through a copy someone had handed him. He kept asking me if I had formal legal
training, and if I had help writing it. I told him I took the 1st 5 wks in
Paralegal Studies, and that my Family Rights friends online gave me advice, but
that YES, I had written it myself. He then had me wait in courtroom while he
searched the courthouse for a new attorney for me! The County Atty told me in
private that my new atty was very good and used to be a Cty. atty himself! here
is the link to my document: https://skydrive.live.com/
This is a very good example of Sworn Declaration Since in contains all the elements needed to Defend Yourself
Related Reading:
Comments From Author of Declaration:
Cyndi Nielsen Cook
Please take a moment and view this document. This mom is fighting for her children and needs our help. Here is what she has to say about this document:
Here is the Sworn Declaration I submitted to the court 2 days before the permanency hearing was to have been. No one, not even my atty, knew I was going to do this.
My attorney quit, and the hearing was
continued as everyone there was busy reading my
statement. The judge had not yet received his copy from the clerk, so glanced
through a copy someone had handed him. He kept asking me if I had formal legal
training, and if I had help writing it. I told him I took the 1st 5 wks in
Paralegal Studies, and that my Family Rights friends online gave me advice, but
that YES, I had written it myself. He then had me wait in courtroom while he
searched the courthouse for a new attorney for me! The County Atty told me in
private that my new atty was very good and used to be a Cty. atty himself! here
is the link to my document: https://skydrive.live.com/
Please share with everyone and Thanks to everyone for the help through these groups.
Document Also shown below
Sworn Declaration:
IN THE JUVENILE
COURT FOR POLK COUNTY, IOWA
IN THE INTEREST OF:
CIERA JANE COOK,
A Minor Child
|
) )
)
)
|
Case No. JV230141
SWORN DECLARATION OF FACTS OF CYNTHIA D. COOK
|
________________________________________________________________________
To the Honorable COLIN J. WITT, District
Associate Juvenile Judge for Polk County, Iowa:
COMES NOW, the undersigned does on
oath depose and state the following:
1. I, Cynthia D. Cook, am the Mother of
Ciera Jane Cook, DOB 7/11/2005.
2. On March 8, 2011, an argument ensued
between myself and my fiancé, Steven Boeckholt.
3. I immediately walked my daughter
next door to my neighbor’s house, where she remained until Steve’s brother Don
Boeckholt arrived to pick her up and take her to his house to spend the night.
4. Steve left the house later that
night and did not return home.
5. On March 9, 2011, an arrest warrant
was issued for Steven for alleged domestic assault.
6. Steve was arrested on March 10, 2011
and remained in the Polk County Jail until the end of May. He was transferred
to NCF on a parole violation for being arrested.
7. The Polk County Attorney dismissed
all charges against him on May 18, 2011, stating that it was “not in the
interest of justice to pursue this charge”. They also cancelled the no contact order.
8. On March 10, 2011, I was contacted
by phone by Child Protective Services (CPS) worker Heather Hewitt. She asked to come to my home to meet with me.
I informed her that I was sick in bed, and my daughter Ciera was in the care of
my fiance’s brother and sister-in-law, Don and Sarah Boeckholt. My estranged husband, Gregory Cook Sr. then
spoke with her. I am unaware of the context of this conversation.
9. On March 10, 2011, at approximately
11:20 AM, I awoke to CPS worker Heather Hewitt standing next to my bed in my
upstairs bedroom of my home. She
introduced herself, and I stated I did not wish to speak with her.
10. HH told me that if I did not answer
a few questions, my child would be taken into DHS custody and placed in foster
care. I was coerced into speaking with her and did so under duress. ANY
type of communication, which
conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to
allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the
channel of consent. “Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not the
result of duress or coercion. Lack of intelligence, not understanding the right
not to consent, or trickery invalidate voluntary consent”. Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (1973). “Consent” that is the product of official
intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their
constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they
would prefer to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991). Coercive
or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is
compelled. Cassady v. Tackett, 938 F. 2d (6th Cir. 1991). Coercion can
be mental as well as physical. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US (1960)
11. The
evidence used to gain entry did not satisfy the standard of probable cause.
12. Ms. Hewitt had already confirmed
that my child was not at home, as stated in her assessment. Therefore, she was
fully aware that no exigent circumstances existed.
13. Police officers and social workers
are not immune from coercing or forcing entry into a person’s home without a
search warrant.
Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999).
14. On March 10, 2011, Heather Hewitt
was allowed entrance into my home by Gregory Cook Sr. Mr. Cook was only a guest in my house and was
not the adult in charge of the premises. We had not cohabitated since 2001, and
he had no authority to allow anyone into my home, or to give anyone permission
to go upstairs to my bedroom.
15. Ms. Hewitt was fully aware that Mr.
Cook did not live there and so states in her CPS Assessment Summary.
16. There
are two and only two recognized exceptions to the requirement of having a
warrant for the conduct of a child abuse investigation:
a.) The adult in charge of the
premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter
the home.
b.) The social worker possesses
evidence that meets two standards:
(1) it satisfies the
legal standard of establishing probable cause; and
(2)
the evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the
health of the children.
·
The
Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends
beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the
context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995). A police officer and a social worker may not
conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent
exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb
is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to
alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect
or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other
searches and seizures at a home. Good v. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd
Cir. 1989).
17. CPS
worker HH was in fact, acting under the authority or color of state law at the
time this occurred in her official capacity as a social worker for Iowa DHS.
18. Her
execution of Iowa Department of Human Services’ “customs” and/or “policies”
were the moving force behind her unconstitutional acts, and that personally,
her individual unconstitutional acts violated my clearly established
constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have known. Davis
v. Scherer (1984).
19. Before leaving my house, Heather
Hewitt informed me that the case would be unfounded and that my daughter could
return home. I told her I had already
arranged for Ciera to stay at the Boeckholt’s through March 13, 2011, so that
she could attend their daughter’s birthday event at the indoor waterpark.
20. Page 9 of the CPA clearly states
that the allegations are NOT CONFIRMED in the Findings. This was later changed verbally by
Heather Hewitt, based on false statements and lies nunc pro tunc.
21. Page 10 of the CPA lists the abuse
type as Denial of Critical Care and Failure to Provide Proper Supervision. “A
reasonable and prudent person” would do just as I did by removing her from the
situation.
22. On March 11, 2011, Heather Hewitt
informed me by phone that my child should stay with Don and Sarah. I told her
that I had already arranged for that.
She did NOT explain to me that this was the “safety plan”, or even what
a “safety plan” was.
23. I was
coerced into signing a "voluntary" Safety Plan. The CPS worker, Shannon Nichols,
threatened me that if I did not sign the "voluntary" service plan that
my child would be TPR'ed. According to Amanda C., by and through Gary Richmond, natural parent and
next friend, appellee, v. Kelly Case, appellant. N.W.2d Filed May 23, 2008. No. S-06-1097
this is unauthorized practice of law and acting under the Color of Law.
24. On March 12, 2011, I was informed by Sarah
Boeckholt that the CPW HH had told her that my child could not return
home. Heather Hewitt did not inform me
of this herself.
25. There was no court order for this, nor
did exigent circumstances exist as stated by Ms. Hewitt in her initial
assessment.
26. Child removals are “seizures” under
the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is
unconstitutional without a court order or exigent circumstances. Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000). Social workers and police cannot lawfully seize a child
without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe the child was
in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the
child prior to arriving at caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse
while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated
the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, (5th Cir.
2000). For purposes of the
Fourth Amendment, a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable
person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields
to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched
by police. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed
under arrest. California v. Hodari,
499 U.S. 621 (1991).
27. The assessment by Heather Hewitt
does not specify what exigent circumstances existed or what immediate danger to
life or health my child was in to justify an emergency situation. None of the
following apply:
Iowa Code Section 232.2(6) Life or health -
adjudicatory harms defined:
(a) Actual harm
(b) Likelihood
of future injury
(c) Emotional
abuse or neglect
(d) Substance
Abuse (in utero, passive smoke)
28. In the opinion of Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. in the majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri, In the Interest of: P.L.O.
and S.K.O., minor children. SC85120 (3/30/2004): "The mother voluntarily consented to the
court's jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily transferred their custody
to the division and never challenged the circumstances of their removal.
Accordingly, she cannot now challenge whether an 'emergency' existed to justify
removal of her child under (the statute in question) and this court need not
address such a challenge."
29. I am therefore establishing ON THE
RECORD that I strongly challenge that an emergency existed to remove my child,
and most certainly do withdraw any "voluntary" agreements I was
coerced into entering into.
30. On March 11, 2011, I provided a
urine sample for drug testing at the place specified by CPW HH. This test was
negative for all substances
31. On March 10, 2011, Ms. Hewitt asked
me if my fiancé Steven Boeckholt used meth.
I told her he did not, to the best of my knowledge, and that drugs were
not allowed in my house.
32. CPS assessment states “Threats
of Maltreatment: Domestic violence and substance abuse alleged.” And that “Cynthia is
not considered to be protective.” as reasons for removal.
33. The PRC Conference Plan, dated March
16, 2011, states “Cyndi made certain Ciera was safe”. My child was never in any imminent
danger, and this shows that I am protective. The mere possibility or risk of
harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would
justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman
v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991
34. The CPA falsely states that I have
mental health stability issues. I was under the care of my family physician for
mild situational depression, and on prescription medication for it. The issue was under control, and by no means
made me unable to properly care for my child.
35. Therapist Penny Peterson at CFI
diagnosed me in August, 2011 with anxiety and situational depression “due to
the removal of her child by DHS”.
36. The CPA falsely states that there
are domestic violence issues in the home. My child herself states that Steve
was never mean to us, and that she did not witness any violence.
37. CPS worker HH states that my child
witnessing domestic abuse constitutes as neglect/denial of critical care and is
basis for her removal. In
a landmark class action suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
New York, U.S. District Judge Jack Weistein ruled on Nicholson v. Williams,
Case No.: 00-cv-2229, the suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s
Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered
mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands
or boyfriends. Judge Weistein ruled that
the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped.
38. The CPS Assessment report falsely
states that I told her I used meth once a week for the past several months. I did NOT make this statement to anyone, and
my UA on March 11, 2011 was negative. Court
orders obtained based on knowingly false information violates Fourth
Amendment. Brokaw v. Mercer
County, (7th Cir. 2000).
39. On March 12, 2011, I signed over
temporary legal guardianship of my child to Don and Sarah Boeckholt, for a period
not to exceed 6 months.
40. CPS removed my child after I
informed Ms. Hewitt of this fact, which she failed to disclose to the court
during the removal hearing. This is a lie of omission. A lie of omission
is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of
omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of
simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the
other person's (the judge's) capacity to make an informed decision.
Affidavit
re: Child Custody.
Iowa
Code Section 598B.209 requires that in the petition or first pleading in a
child custody proceeding (including a child in need of assistance case), the
court is to be advised of certain information concerning the child’s prior
custodians and residences and whether there exists any pending custody actions
concerning the child.
41. No reasonable efforts were made to
prevent removal. The Application for Order of Temporary Removal dated March 17,
2011, and the CINA Removal Order dated March 24, 2011, states that the
following reasonable efforts were made:
a. Previous CINA on sibling.
This refers to my now 21 yr. old son. He was placed in foster care as a
teenager due to behavioral problems. He was doing very well after a while
there; he had a job, was doing well in high school and preparing to graduate
and attend college. The foster parents and I agreed that it would be
detrimental to my son if we were to move him, and that it was best that he
remain in their home. MY PARENTAL RIGHTS
WERE NEVER TERMINATED.
b. Requested drug screens. As of the date of this order, I had
complied with the requested drug screen on March 11, 2011, the results of which
were negative for all substances.
c. Child Protective Assessment. The CPA contains false allegations
and lies. It is entirely based on
fabricated evidence, false allegations, and hearsay.
d. Safety Plan.
I was unaware of what a “safety plan” was at this time. It was never
explained to me.
Absent
extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial
association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate
pre-deprivation procedures. An ex parte
hearing based on misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and
an opportunity to be heard. Procurement
of an order to seize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or
omission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Parents may assert their children’s Fourth
Amendment claim on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own
Fourteenth Amendment claim. Malik
v.Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services, (10th Cir. 1999)
42. The CINA Adjudication Order dated
April 19, 2011, states that the reasonable efforts that were made as:
a. Suitable Person Placement. This service was never offered by
DHS. I temporarily placed my child with friends before CPS became involved. I
do not see how this can be considered a reasonable effort to eliminate or
prevent the removal of my child.
b. Substance Abuse Evaluation. This service was never offered. When
I was informed I was required to have one done, I specifically asked Heather
Hewitt for a referral for an SAE. She told me to “look in the Yellow Pages”.
c. Paternity Testing.
I do not see how this can be considered a reasonable effort.
d. Treatment for Mother. This service was never offered by
CPS. I sought out this service myself and had been involved in treatment for
alcohol related issues since April 7, 2011.
e. Judicial
determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of
the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to
finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that
reasonable efforts are not required, must be explicitly documented, made on
a case-by-case basis, and stated in the court order. A transcript of the court proceeding is the
only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these
determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro
tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable.
45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d).
The court, after hearing the evidence, must be satisfied that reasonable
efforts . . . have been made. Review and
approval of the [state] agency's report and recommendation alone are not
sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act; the court must make a
determination that the agency's efforts were, in the judgment of the court,
reasonable for preventing placement. With regard to emergency situations, if
the agency's judgment was that services could not have prevented removal of the
child, the court at the time of the adjudicatory hearing must find that the
lack of preventive efforts was reasonable.
43. The reasonable efforts claimed to
have been made by CPS were inconsistent in the various court documents, which
was not questioned before making a determination.
44. CPS was never required to provide
specific and detailed documentation to prove that R.E. were in fact made. 42 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(d)
requires documentation of judicial determinations concerning both reasonable
efforts and contrary to the welfare findings. They are to be explicitly
documented on a case by case basis and so stated in the court order. Facts
substantiating the legal conclusion must be stated in the order. Lack of
compliance results in denial of federal funds for the child’s foster placement.
The
juvenile court is required to make factual findings to support its conclusion
that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid or eliminate the need for
removal of the child from the home. It is not sufficient to merely conclude
that reasonable efforts have been made without more. In Interest of B.L.,
491 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa App. 1992).
45. I asked Heather Hewitt and Shannon
Nichols for several specific services, none of which they provided:
a. Asked HH for SAE referral on March
14, 2011 – was told to “look in yellow pages”
b. Asked both HH and SN for help with
transportation:
i.
Assistance
getting my driver’s license reinstated – I did this on my own
ii.
Rides
to and from required meetings, court, visits, appointments, etc. – was told to
call Don and Sarah for a ride or ride the bus
iii.
Help
paying for gasoline – SN finally gave me a $50 gas card on July 5th,
2011. I received NO help before then.
iv.
Help
paying for car repairs – was told there were no funds for this.
v.
SN
gave me bus tokens on April 19, 2011, knowing that my house was over 2 miles
from the nearest bus stop, so this did not help me.
c. Asked SN for mental health
evaluation referral – was told to “look online” or “move in to the House of
Mercy where they cover all of that”. She did finally send requested information
in a letter dated June 6, 2011, at which time I had already found it on my own.
d. Asked SN with help to keep my Title
19 so my treatment and therapy would be paid for – was told “that was not her
department and she couldn’t help me”. I had no other insurance and had to pay
for these out-of-pocket.
e. Asked SN for temporary financial
assistance to pay rent and utilities – was told that I should look into moving
into the House of Mercy instead of trying to keep my home.
f. Asked SN for permission to provide
random UA’s at a location closer and more accessible to my home due to my
transportation issues. She denied this request without valid reason.
g. Federal law for Reasonable Efforts
state that they provide services to prevent removal or make reunification
possible when requested. IN
THE EVENT OF 'EMERGENCY REMOVAL' of a child from his
home - a "safeguard' to
parents and children that due process will be guaranteed by
informed, unbiased judiciaries, who are to mandate accountability for 'reasonable efforts', that 'Child
Protection' agencies be mandated to prove compliance with 'reasonable efforts' and not
merely accept a preprinted form submitted by Child Protection agencies, for
a 'rubber-stamped approval' by the court , thereby denying the parent and
child due process rights to present evidence to the contrary.
46. The Application and the Order for
Temporary Removals both contain false statements about my alleged ongoing and
history of meth use. I never stated that I actively used the drug, and I have
absolutely NO history of meth whatsoever.
47. At the court hearing on March 24,
2011, proof was given to the court that I have no history of drug use. The
records were to have been changed to reflect this fact.
48. Although evidence to the contrary
was submitted to the court, “Meth use by mother” is still being used as the
main reason for taking my child.
49. On March 17, 2011, CPS worker
Heather Hewitt falsified the Affidavit in Support of Placement.
50. HH perjured herself by signing under
sworn oath that she had performed child abuse registry and criminal background
checks on Don and Sarah Boeckholt, and that there were NO confirmed or founded
child abuse reports, and NO criminal history in the State of Iowa.
51. Both Don and Sarah have criminal Child
Endangerment and drug convictions from a few years ago, which was to be changed
in the court records. Their child had also been removed by CPS and placed in
foster care for a time.
52. In spite of Don and Sarah’s prior
criminal history with drugs and their DHS involvement. DHS worker Shannon Nichols had arranged for
them to become certified foster parents in order to receive Federal Title IV funds
as payment for caring for my child, which is against State and Federal Laws.
53. Assistant Polk County Attorney Faye
Jenkins falsified information in a sworn statement to the court, which she
claims to have verified, to support removal of my child in the Petition for
Child in Need of Assistance, stating that I claimed I had not used meth for
approximately a month, hearsay regarding a March 2011 police report that I was
frequently drunk and on drugs, that I was in prison for drug related offenses,
that I was involved with Juvenile Court with respect to another child “because
of her sobriety issues”, that I have a history of violence, and that Mr.
Boeckholt has a “propensity for violence”, all of which can be proven false.
54. The CINA petition dated March 17,
2011 uses these lies as reason for removal of my child with no proof except the
falsified sworn statement of Assistant Polk County Attorney Faye Jenkins, and
also of CPS worker HH.
55. Effective July 1, 2000, the
application and subsequent order must also establish that the temporary removal
is the result of a determination that the child remaining in the home would be
contrary to the child’s welfare. Iowa Code Section 232.78(6)(a).
56. It
is no longer sufficient to merely recite those conclusions, rather facts to
support the conclusions must accompany the application.
At a minimum, the court order should incorporate the facts stated in the
application for removal which justify the findings. 45 C.F.R. Section
1356.21(c), 42 U.S.C. Section 472(a)(1).
57. The
“Contrary to the Welfare” finding in the March 17, 2011 temporary removal order
is based on falsified information and hearsay with no proof. It falsely states
that “mother admits to DHS that she uses meth, minimizes her usage, and is
involved in a violent relationship”.
58. Iowa
Code Section 232.78(7) requires that the court make a
finding in any ex parte temporary removal order or removal order following
adjudication that the temporary removal is the result of a determination that
the child remaining in the child’s home would be contrary to the welfare of the
child. 45 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(c) which implements 42 U.S.C. 472(a)(1)
provides that “the contrary to welfare finding must be made in the first court
ruling that sanctions (even temporarily) the removal of the child from the
home.” The comment at page 4055 of the federal register indicates the first
order includes ex parte orders. Mere use of boilerplate language is not acceptable.
42 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(d) requires documentation of judicial
determinations concerning both reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare
findings. They are to be explicitly documented on a case by case basis and so
stated in the court order. Facts substantiating the legal conclusion must
be stated in the order. Lack of compliance results in denial of federal funds
for the child’s foster placement. Iowa Code Section 232.78(7) further
requires that the contrary to the welfare “grounds must be explicitly
documented and stated in the order.”
59. The
CINA petition also falsely states that “Mother has a history of drug and
alcohol abuse, and that her usage places the child at risk”.
60. A
history of alcohol abuse by a parent was not alone enough to show imminent
danger to justify a removal of the child from the home under Iowa Code
Sections 232.96(10) and 232.95(2)(a). In Interest of D.R.R., 498 N.W.2d 920,
922 (Iowa App. 1993).
61. I was assigned a court-appointed attorney,
Victoria Meade, on March 17, 2011.
62. Ms. Meade has been very inadequate
in representing me throughout this entire proceeding.
63. My May 2011 request to the court to fire
her and be appointed a new attorney was denied due to my lack of preparation to
address the court when asked why I felt she was not acting on my behalf.
64. After the court hearing on March 17,
2011, Victoria Meade informed me that because Don and Sarah Boeckholt have way
more money than I do, they can keep my child forever if they so desire.
65. On several occasions, I have
requested Ms. Meade to demand that CPS provide the required proof of reasonable
efforts. She has repeatedly refused to
do this, stating that “they don’t HAVE TO make reasonable efforts, least of all
prove it, because they have my child and that’s all that matters”.
66. Attorney VM then told me, “You need
to shut up and do what they say if you ever want to get your daughter back.”
67. I asked Ms. Meade if we should request a new
judge, to which she replied, “I have to work with this judge and DHS for the
rest of my career, and I DON’T want to piss them off.” This seems like a
conflict of interest.
68. VM has never informed me of any of
my rights, including the right to appeal the outcome of any hearing.
69. Attorney VM has never explained to
me the reasons for each hearing, nor prepared me to testify or respond to
questions.
70. VM has not called any witnesses on
my behalf, cross-examined any of the State’s witnesses, questioned any of their
actions, prepared me for court hearings, or tried to defend my rights and prove
my innocence in any way whatsoever throughout this entire proceeding.
71. Ms. Meade’s lack of effective
representation of me has prolonged reunification with my child, and could have
prevented me from a possible appeal of any future decisions.
72. Visits with my child have been
supervised, for 2 days a week, 2 hours in length since four weeks after she was
taken from me. These visits have not increased in length or frequency, nor will
DHS worker Shannon Nichols allow unsupervised visits.
73. The FTM Facilitation notes dated
April 8, 2011, state that “Shannon will wait to expand family interactions
after I had begun treatment and after verification that Steve and I had not been
breaking the no-contact order”, which was cancelled May 18, 2011.
74. SN refuses to extend visits in spite
of what progress has been made.
75. FSRP worker Amber Olson has
recommended unsupervised visits since October, stating that she sees NO DANGER
whatsoever during our visits.
76. DHS worker SN finds a new excuse NOT
to allow this every time it is mentioned. She obviously does NOT want
reunification to occur.
77. DHS worker Shannon Nichols reported
that a urine drug test I gave on April 14, 2011, and a hair sample test I gave
on December 5, 2011, were both positive for meth. This is absolutely
impossible, since I only used meth once over a year ago.
78. The prescription opiates which I DID
use for a month prior to testing DID NOT show up in this test.
79. I believe the results of these tests
were altered or falsified.
80. DHS worker SN has only provided
computer generated print-outs as proof of the alleged positive drug test
results.
81. The
name and title of the person who “confirmed” the false drug test results is not
given on the “reports”. I was denied the right to face my accuser and to
cross-examine or question them.
82. In
Crawford v.Washington, 541
U.S. 36 (2004), the Court held that the prosecution cannot admit a
testimonial out-of-court statement unless it shows that the declarant is
unavailable and that the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine
the declarant. If it is determined that the out-of-court statement is not
testimonial, its admissibility is governed by the rules of evidence and due
process reliability requirements.
83. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07-591, June 25, 2009) U.S.
[2009 D.A.R. 9363],
the U.S. Supreme Court – by a 5-4 vote – held that a drug analyst’s affidavit
discussing the nature of the substance tested and its weight was a testimonial
statement for purposes of the Sixth Amendment, and as such, absent a showing of
unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination, a defendant is
entitled to confront the analyst at trial. The majority found this to be a
“rather straightforward application” of Crawford v. Washington
(2004) 541 U.S. 36.
84. After the falsified drug test
results in April, I arranged for my future UA’s to be done at UCS for a small
fee, which I would pay for myself. DHS
worker SN would not allow this, demanding I do my testing at the DHS approved
testing site ONLY. She gave no rational explanation for this.
85. Mid-Iowa Family Therapy FSRP worker
Amber Olson, who supervised our visits, falsely reported to DHS that I “smelled
like alcohol” during several of my visits with my child.
86. DHS worker SN stated that their
agency did not have access to a breathalyzer machine, nor the funds to purchase
one.
87. In June, 2011, I purchased a portable
breathalyzer machine at Walgreen’s. This would prove or disprove any future
allegations.
88. At the June FTM DHS worker SN
instructed me to return the test and get my money back. She stated she would
have the FSRP worker cut my visit short and send me to the DHS testing site
instead. There was no rational explanation for this.
89. At the FTM on April 8, 2011, DHS
worker stated that any mental health issues I may have were being covered in
outpatient treatment at United Community Services. She decided this after
reading my treatment plan following my SAE.
90. At our court hearing in July 2011, SN used the
fact that I was not in participating in mental health therapy as reason for not
extending visits or returning my child home.
91. I spoke with SN on July 5, 2011, and
informed her I had left a message for an appointment for an evaluation at CFI
and was waiting for a call back.
92. SN instructed me NOT to get a mental
health evaluation, but to start attending weekly therapy sessions without a
professional determination as to whether it was necessary or not.
93. I have been attending weekly therapy
at Children and Families of Iowa since July 16, 2011.
94. I graduated outpatient treatment at
UCS on June 20, 2011. My treatment
counselor Jim Koutec had told me that Aftercare was voluntary, NOT required.
DHS worker Shannon Nichols told me that SHE was requiring me to attend,
contrary to what the professional counselor had required.
95. I have addressed my issues with the
alleged domestic assault by confronting Steven Boeckholt at individual
counseling sessions with him at MECCA in January 2012. I did this on my own.
96. DHS worker SN withheld exculpatory
evidence in court as to my successful completion of treatment. She used my not
attending voluntary aftercare as a new reason not to extend visits or return my
child home.
97. I have been attending aftercare
group weekly at MECCA since October 2011.
98. I was first made aware that Shannon
Nichols was assigned as my case worker at the PRC Conference on March 16, 2011.
99. SN stated that she “knows me from
somewhere”. At that time I thought she also looked familiar, but I was unable
to place where I knew her from.
100.
In
June 2011, I remembered how I knew SN from before: I worked at the Bavarian Inn at both the
front desk and as bartender from 2006 to 2009. SN went by a different surname
at that time, which I knew and she admitted. She was a frequent guest at the motel,
and a regular patron at the Red Baron Lounge, where I provided her customer
service. She used to work part-time at a nearby business. My former manager
verified that this was the same person.
101.
I
informed my attorney VM that Shannon and I had previous interactions several
years ago, and requested a new DHS worker due to a possible conflict of
interest.
102.
Attorney
VM, DHS worker SN, DHS Supervisor Stephanie Reinhart, and myself, met at the
end of June to discuss this matter.
103.
DHS
worker SN denied knowing me, and of ever being a guest at the motel and a
customer at the lounge.
104.
Ms. Reinhart backed her statements, saying
that Shannon would never go to a bar or drink alcohol. I was denied a new DHS
worker.
105.
DHS
worker SN and others continued to take the false statements and lies that Don
Boeckholt told them about me, as fact without proof, and refused to hear or
believe my side of what happened.
106.
During
a May 2011 visit at McDonald’s, my child told me that “Uncle Don is nice, but
Sarah is mean”, referring to the Boeckholts.
I informed FSRP worker of this. Don stated at the May FTM that my child
said this because Sarah had given her a time-out.
107.
On
June 13, 2011, my daughter arrived at a visit at a local park with a black eye.
She had been out of state on vacation with the Boeckholts for two weeks prior,
during which time I had not seen her.
108.
I
asked both her and FSRP worker Reagan how this injury occurred. My child said
she was afraid to tell me, however, FSRP worker stated that her and the Boeckholt’s
5 year old daughter had been playing rough.
109.
My
child sat on my lap for approximately an hour, seeming rather lethargic. She
then wanted to go back to the Boeckholt’s, so we ended the visit early. My
child has NEVER been afraid to tell me anything before in her life.
110.
I
called Don Boeckholt later that day and asked how my child got a black eye. He
told me she ran into a table, which was a different story than the FSRP worker
had told me.
111.
I
left two voicemail messages with DHS worker SN, informing her of the possible
physical abuse of my child. I demanded an investigation. She did not return my
phone calls.
112.
I
called GAL Paul White to inform him of this. He was not in the office so I
explained the situation to his secretary. She said it was not the GAL’s concern
and that I should call my own attorney, not him.
113.
I
called CPS to report the suspected abuse. The person who took my call said they
would NOT investigate since I had been founded of neglect and my child had been
removed from my care. She said I was trying to start trouble and hung up on me.
114.
I
called Don Boeckholt and asked him what happened. He became very defensive,
even though I was not accusing anyone of anything at this time, and hung up on
me. I repeatedly tried to call him back and left four voicemails on his cell
phone. I did not leave voice messages any of the other times I called. I
recorded all of these calls on a micro-recorder.
115.
The
incident was never investigated, except to just ask the Boeckholts what
happened. This satisfied DHS worker SN.
116.
At
the June FTM, Don informed everyone that he and Sarah were no longer willing to
care for my child, stating that I had called over 30 times, leaving threatening
messages. He said I was drunk, even though I had been sober since April 10,
2011.
117.
Polk
County Sheriff Sargent Richard Blaylock will verify that I sometimes appear and
sound intoxicated whenever I get upset, even though I am not.
118.
Don
Boeckholt falsely stated on several occasions that I am “inappropriate when
talking to my daughter on the phone”. I began recording all interactions with
my child at that point.
119.
I
offered to play the recordings of my calls to Don, and the messages I left him,
at the FTM. DHS worker SN, DHS FTM Facilitator Scarlett Lunning, attorney VM,
and GAL Paul White all refused to allow me to play the recordings, stating that
they believed Don.
120.
My
child was removed from the care of Don and Sarah Boeckholt on July 1, 2011 at
their request, and placed with strangers in foster care.
121.
I
am not allowed to know who she is with, where she is, what school she attends,
or how to contact my child, nor have I been allowed any phone contact with her
since then.
122.
Relative
placement with my brother, John Nielsen, and his soulmate, Linda Smith, was,
and still is, possible, but DHS worker SN placed costly and lengthy stipulations
on them before she would allow them custody of my child, none of which the Boeckholts were required to do before they
were approved. It would take over a month and several hundreds of dollars in
lost wages and transportation, even though they were prepared to take her
immediately.
123.
DHS
worker SN placed the stipulations on my brother based on the illegal disclosure
of confidential employment information regarding my brother.
124.
SN
got this information from an “anonymous informant”, and it would have been made
public information if my brother were to care for my child,
125.
DHS
worker SN falsely reported at the July FTM that my brother stated he no longer
wanted to take my child because I “was screaming at him and acting crazy and he
didn’t want to deal with me either”.
126.
I
was present at my brother’s apartment when this alleged phone call took place
between my brother and SN. He did not
make the statements SN claims.
127.
On
July 12, 2011, my adult son, Dylan Gogerty, called to tell me he was at the Red
Lobster restaurant with his grandparents and that his sister, my child, was
there eating dinner with Don and Sarah Boeckholt. This is AFTER they threw her
out. DHS worker SN stated that they are still allowed to see my child, even
take her places, because she developed a strong bond with them. I do not want
them to have any contact with my daughter.
128.
DHS
worker SN reported that I missed a random UA on July 14, 2011, when in fact my
number was called on July 18, 2011. I provided a UA on that date, for which I
showed my copy of the receipt from the testing site. SN reported that she
talked to someone at the test site, and that my receipt was fake.
129.
I
provided the original carbonless copy which I was given at the time, and it was
NOT fake.
130.
SN’s
statement is hearsay, and no information was even given as to who told her
this. There was no opportunity to question or cross-examine this mysterious
“witness”.
131.
Treatment
counselor Lexie Galloway from United Community Services was subpoenaed by the
State to testify to the validity of a document on September 29, 2011. She
stated that I had revoked my permission for disclosure of information on August
10, 2011. She disclosed information regarding my treatment on August 15, 2011
to DHS worker SN, which is in violation of HIPAA. I filed a complaint with the
US Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, on October
3, 2011.
132.
At
our last court hearing on September 29, 2011, Your Honor instructed the “Family
Team” to schedule a FTM to accommodate my work schedule, so that I would not
risk losing my job by taking time off. I informed all those involved of my
schedule, but as of the end of November, they could not agree on a date and
time when they could all attend. I even suggested weekends or evenings, and
offered to host the meeting at my house.
133.
After
over two months of them not being able to decide a date, I finally told them to
just schedule it and I would be there, no matter when it was to be held. I had
to take time off from work to attend the meeting on December 8th,
2011, in spite of your honor’s instructions.
134.
DHS
worker Shannon Nichols is demanding full disclosure of my therapy sessions and
my aftercare sessions, which is in violation of HIPAA. She has given not having
this information as yet another reason to refuse unsupervised or extended
visits.
135.
I
have authorized SN to be informed of my attendance, my participation, and my
progress of addressing certain issues, which should be sufficient without
knowing every detail of what is said. My therapist stated that therapy will not
be effective if I am afraid to discuss anything with her for fear of DHS
misinterpreting my words and using them against me. She stated that I need to
feel safe when talking with her.
136.
DHS
worker SN has tried to coerce me into signing full disclosure of all
information by not allowing unsupervised or extended visits with my child.
137.
DHS
worker SN has tried to coerce me into signing full disclosure of all
information by telling me at the January 13, 2012 FTM that she is recommending
my parental rights be terminated at the February 2012 TPR hearing if I don’t
sign a release.
138.
GAL
Paul White has tried to coerce me into complying with DHS worker SN’s
unreasonable demands by stating that he is recommending my parental rights be
terminated at the February 2012 TPR hearing.
139.
On
September 29, 2011, Your Honor also instructed DHS worker Shannon Nichols to
arrange for me to provide a hair sample for drug testing, and to make sure I
provided 3 to 4 UA’s per month.
140.
My
number came up on October 4, 2011, so I went to the DHS testing site. I
provided 16 inches of hair for testing, but was told they were waiting for
Shannon to call with an authorization number so they could send the sample to
the lab.
141.
My
code number was not called again for many weeks. DHS worker SN would not reply
to the messages I left her, both voicemail and text, so I asked FSRP worker
Amber Olson if she would have me go provide a UA.
142.
On
November 29, 2011, and was informed by the testing site employee that my number
had expired at the beginning of October. He also told me that my hair sample
provided on October 4, 2011, had to be thrown out because SN had failed to call
with the necessary authorization number.
143.
On
November 29, 2011, I provided a UA, which was negative for all drugs. I requested FSRP worker Amber Olson to call SN
since I could not get her to return my messages.
144.
SN
texted me on December 1, 2011, and told me to go provide another hair sample. I
tried to comply on December 2, 2011, but was told SN still had not provided an
authorization number. I finally provided another hair sample on December 5,
2011.
145.
SN
did not provide me with a new code number until December 8, 2011 at the FTM.
146.
At
the FTM on December 8, 2011, DHS worker SN stated that she had indeed allowed
my code number to expire without providing me with a new one, thus making it
impossible to provide the required UA’s for over 2 months.
147.
SN
informed me that the “system” won’t call a number more than 2-3 times per
month, so she would text me to go drop a UA weekly, AND also that I still must
drop when my number came up. This would make my total drops 6 to 7 per month. I
told her at the FTM this would be difficult to do so often due to my work
schedule.
148.
DHS
worker SN and attorney VM both instructed me to take my employer’s truck on
company time while I was making deliveries, even if it was off my scheduled
route, to drop my UA. They told me to park the truck on Merle Hay Road with my
flashers on, since the truck is too big to fit in the parking lot, and go in
and drop. I told them that in order to do this, I would be risking my job, my
CDL, creating a traffic hazard on a busy street, AND breaking the law. They
both said I would have to do this if I ever want my daughter back.
149.
DHS
worker SN does not maintain contact with me. We are supposed to have a monthly
one-on-one meeting.
150.
We
met on August 3, 2011, then not again until December 12, 2011. SN did not
attempt to schedule any meetings or to contact me in any way.
151.
SN
does not attempt to call or text me, nor does she return my phone calls and messages.
I have a record of every phone call and text message I have placed to her.
152.
At
the January 12, 2012 FTM, DHS worker SN claimed that I still have not signed a
release of information at MECCA. I had made sure MECCA had this on file when I
was there only one hour prior to this meeting.
153.
FSRP
Amber Olson stated my child is in no danger with me, and once again recommended
unsupervised visits, which SN denied.
154.
This
case is currently under investigation by the Iowa Ombudsman’s Office.
155.
My child has been wrongfully and unlawfully removed
from my physical custody without Constitutional DUE PROCESS, or even the
pretext of Reasonable Efforts having been offered AS MANDATED BY 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (15) and 672 (a) (1),
156.
This removal meets the definition of KIDNAPPING
according to18 USC Sec.1203 since she is being held- "...in
order to compel a third person .... to do or abstain from doing any act as an
explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or
attempts or conspires to do so..."
157.
The
parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell
v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985)
158.
A parent's right to care and
companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed
protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution. In re: J.S. and
C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
159.
Further, the UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT in Smith
et al. v. Williams-Ash No. 06-4638, Decided and Filed: March 26, 2008 said:
“We do not doubt that the Smiths, as
any parents likely would, resented the safety plan from the beginning. But mere
displeasure and frustration fails to negate their consent. Rather than remind
Williams-Ash of what she already knew—that they disliked the plan—the Smiths
needed to explicitly withdraw the consent they explicitly gave, thus requiring
Children’s Services to either return the children or file a formal complaint
against them. In light of their admitted failure to do so, the Smiths were not
entitled to a hearing.”
160.
For this reason, I hereby rescind
any and all signatures to "voluntary" safety and service plans or any
other "agreement". Such signatures were obtained through duress,
threat, and coercion. I had no way of knowing the long-range ramifications of
doing so and now explicitly withdraw any consent I gave.
161.
I am requiring the Court and the Iowa
Department of Human Services to return my child to my physical custody
immediately.
162.
Judges must maintain a high
standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting
litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92
S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
163.
State Judges, as well as Federal,
have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of
federal constitutional rights. Gross
v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
I
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, and that this Declaration was executed at Des Moines,
Iowa.
Respectfully submitted this ________
day of February, 2012
____________________________________
Cynthia D. Cook
729 Sandahl Avenue, Apt. 1
Des Moines, IA 50316
Phone 515-777-4618
Email: cook.cynthia66@gmail.com
Sworn and subscribed before me on
this _______ day of ________________________ 2012.
By:______________________________________________
Notary Public
_________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)