Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Second Opinion? We're Taking Your Child - Opinion from Parental Rights.org

It is most refreshing to get similar reactions and conclusions from varying and reliable sources. Those of Parental Rights are one of my valued sources. If you agree, do pass on. 
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 Granpa Chuck
My Affiliation
to me
ParentalRights.org logo

Sign the Petition Donate Volunteer Learn More View Online

April 30, 2013

Second Opinion? We're Taking Your Child
One would think having the approval of a doctor and even clearance from the local police would be enough to protect a parent from having their baby taken away over cries of “medical neglect.” In this case, one would be wrong.

Anna and Alex Nikolayev of Sacramento lost custody of their 5-month-old son last week when they decided to seek a second opinion before having the baby undergo heart surgery. Though a second doctor found it safe to release the boy into their custody, and though an investigating officer also cleared the family to go home, the child was taken the next day.

Timeline of Events
Little Sammy has had a heart murmur since birth, which the parents have been closely monitoring along with a doctor at Sutter Memorial Hospital. So when Sammy developed flu-like symptoms a couple of weeks ago, his parents took him to Sutter again as a precaution. During his stay, a couple of incidents occurred that concerned the parents (such as administrating an anti-biotic to fight his virus). So when Sammy was put in the pediatric intensive care and talk turned to heart surgery, the parents wanted a second opinion.

Unable to secure release from the doctors at Sutter Memorial, the parents took Sammy from the hospital anyway – prompting an automatic call to Child Protective Services and the Sacramento Police – and drove straight to neighboring Kaiser-Permanente Hospital.

Doctors there determined that Sammy was healthy enough to go home with his parents. The doctor noted in his report that he saw no cause for concern in leaving Sammy in Anna and Alex’s care. (Corrective heart surgery is in Sammy’s future; the parents do not dispute this fact.)

Police met the family at Kaiser, checked out the smiling baby, read the doctor’s report, and agreed that Sammy was in no danger. The Nikolayev family was free to go.

That was April 23, 2013. The following day, a CPS worker and Sacramento Police arrived at the family’s home and removed the baby, carrying him back to Sutter Memorial, where he was held in “protective custody.” Though the parents got to visit Sammy to feed him three times a day for one supervised hour, they had to wait until Monday for a hearing.

By then, coverage had gone international, with media outlets in Germany and in the family’s native Russia paying close attention. Ominously, local ABC station KXTV reports, “CPS said they were overwhelmed with the amount of attention by the media into the case, and could therefore take longer than usual to render a decision on Sammy's fate.” (emphasis added)

How Would the PRA Help?
Traditionally, the Supreme Court has recognized the “fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child,” found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process” clause. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) This protection, however, has been lost on Sacramento CPS. It is also being weakened through judicial erosion in the courts.

Passage of the Parental Rights Amendment will provide parents an explicit constitutional protection; otherwise, they’ll have to rely on the courts, hoping they will continue to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as they traditionally have (but increasingly no longer do). And the PRA will allow organizations like CPS to know exactly what the rules are that they must follow.

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

These two sentences would make clear that CPS cannot take a child away unless it is prepared to prove that the child was in danger caused by abuse or neglect. In this case, it would increase the chances that common sense would prevail and baby Sammy would have gotten to stay home safe and sound with his mom and dad.

Action Items
Yesterday the county and the family's lawyers reached an agreement to return Sammy to his parents' care, but with stipulations limiting their choices in medical treatment. (See video here.) CPS will continue to be a part of Sammy's life at least until the next hearing, set for May 28. While we rejoice in the reunification of this family, we grieve over the unnecessary loss of liberty this couple has suffered for no reason. We must make sure such abuses do not continue unchecked. Here is how you can help:

1. Share this email and the story of Sammy with everyone you know. Encourage them to support the Parental Rights Amendment and to sign on here.

2. Donate to support ParentalRights.org as we fight to protect the rights of parents like Anna and Alex. Help us make stories like Sammy’s a thing of the past.

3. Stay vigilant. Word is that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be back in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month. Watch for alerts letting you know when and how to focus your energies on stopping that dangerous treaty. Click here for the current appeal to call your senators today.


Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

P.S. – Due to the timely nature of this breaking news story, the Common Core article scheduled for today will be sent on Thursday of this week.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Good News for Montana-Creation of Ombudsman Office

April, 17, 2013

The OMBUDSMAN Bill in Montana HB-76 Passed it's final vote today 38-12.
Comments added by a contributor: “This is the first Bill passing, after over 1,200 complaints were received from families that CPS in Montana wronged, stole their children and made monetary profit by doing so.”
·         Has Montana created a bill that will represent a True, Unbiased, and Third Party?
Only time will tell since the Ombudsman Offices created in other states certainly haven’t been helpful for the most part. 

Think about it. How many Acts, Statutes, etc. have been created with good intentions, but unfortunately, haven’t been followed and/or the general public isn’t even aware of these statutes? 

For starters in our Family Law Arena, it is highly recommended that we do our homework and start here>> State Statute Index of Summaries.

Needless to say, many in CPS are opposed to this bill.

FYI, here is the bill in its entirety with amendments. Plus one may want to use some of these ideas for their state to either amend or establish an Ombudsman Office.

My primary concern, of this bill, is that will $500,000, initially proposed be enough funding?? After all, I am sure that the agency budget is much, much more: 

2013 Montana Legislature
NEW SECTION.  Section 1.  Office of child and family ombudsman established. (1) There is an office of the child and family ombudsman.
(2) As used in this part, "ombudsman" means the office of the child and family ombudsman.
(3) The ombudsman is allocated to the department of justice for administrative purposes only as prescribed in 2-15-121.
NEW SECTION.  Section 2.  Purpose and intent. The legislature finds that:
(1) an independent, impartial, and confidential ombudsman can serve to protect the interests and rights of Montana's children and families; and
(2) an independent, impartial, and knowledgeable ombudsman can work collaboratively with the department to strengthen the department's child and family services.
NEW SECTION.  Section 3.  Appointment -- term. (1) The governor, with the consent of the senate, shall appoint an individual who is a resident of this state and is qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of the ombudsman as provided in [section 6].
(2) The appointment must be made from a list of at least three persons prepared and submitted by a committee consisting of:
(a) two attorneys appointed by the Montana bar association;
(b) two district court judges appointed by the chief justice of the Montana supreme court;
(c) one medical doctor appointed by the Montana medical association;
(d) one psychologist appointed by the Montana psychological association;
(e) one social worker appointed by the Montana chapter of the national association of social workers;
(f) one person appointed by the governor as a representative of private children's agencies;
(g) one person appointed by the governor as a representative of the general public; and
(h) one person appointed by the director of the department.
(3) The ombudsman holds office for a term of 5 years and continues to hold office until a successor is appointed.
NEW SECTION.  Section 4.  Staff. The ombudsman may select, and the department of justice shall hire as provided in 2-15-121, necessary staff to carry out the provisions of [sections 1 through 8]. Staff must be under the supervision of the ombudsman.
NEW SECTION.  Section 5.  Independence. The ombudsman acts independently of the department of public health and human services in the performance of the duties of the office.
NEW SECTION.  Section 6.  Duties. The duties of the ombudsman are to:
(1) ensure that each child under the jurisdiction of the department, and in appropriate cases an individual interested in the child's welfare, is apprised of the child's rights under the law;
(2) take all possible action, including but not limited to programs of public education and advocacy, to pursue the legal, civil, and special protections of children;
(3) help interested parties obtain any information pertaining to the case work and procedures of the department that they are entitled to under the law;
(4) review complaints and investigate, in accordance with the powers provided for in [section 7] and with procedures adopted and made publicly available by the ombudsman, those complaints that indicate, in the opinion of the ombudsman, that a child might be in need of assistance from the ombudsman;
(5) investigate, in accordance with the powers provided for in [section 7] and with procedures adopted and made publicly available by the ombudsman, the circumstances relating to the death of any child who has received services from the department;
(6) when the ombudsman's investigation related to a complaint or a death appears to warrant it, share the relevant findings, subject to the disclosure restrictions and confidentiality requirements provided in [section 7], with individuals or entities that are legally authorized to receive, inspect, or investigate reports of child abuse or neglect;
(7) provide training and technical assistance to guardians ad litem and special advocates appointed by a district court to represent children in proceedings before that court;
(8) periodically review the procedures used by the department with a view toward the rights of children;
(9) recommend to the department changes in its procedures and support the department's implementation of the changes with appropriate training or technical assistance; and
(10) annually submit to the governor and the legislature a detailed report analyzing the work of the ombudsman and any recommendations resulting from it.
NEW SECTION.  Section 7.  Powers of ombudsman. (1) The ombudsman has, subject to subsection
(2), the power to:
(a) communicate privately with any child under the jurisdiction of the department;
(b) inspect, copy, or subpoena department records, including case notes, correspondence, evaluations, videotapes, and interviews pertaining to any child under the jurisdiction of the department who is alleged to be abused or neglected;
(c) request that individuals or entities outside the department that are legally authorized to receive, inspect, or investigate reports of child abuse or neglect provide information related to a complaint or death that the ombudsman is investigating;
(d) file amicus curiae briefs on behalf of a parent or child;
(e) take appropriate steps to see that persons are made aware of the services and procedures of the office of the child and family ombudsman, its purpose, and how it can be contacted; and
(f) apply for and accept grants, gifts, and bequests of funds from other states, federal and interstate agencies and independent authorities, and private firms, individuals, and foundations for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the ombudsman.
(2) The ombudsman is subject to the disclosure restrictions and confidentiality requirements provided in 41-3-205.
NEW SECTION.  Section 8.  Special revenue account. (1) There is a child and family ombudsman account in the state special revenue fund established pursuant to 17-2-102.
(2) Funds received pursuant to [section 7(1)(f)] must be deposited in the account and expended in accordance with the provisions of the grant, gift, or bequest.
Section 9.  Section 41-3-205, MCA, is amended to read:
41-3-205.  Confidentiality -- disclosure exceptions. (1) The case records of the department and its local affiliate, the local office of public assistance, the county attorney, and the court concerning actions taken under this chapter and all records concerning reports of child abuse and neglect must be kept confidential except as provided by this section. Except as provided in subsections (7) and (8), a person who purposely or knowingly permits or encourages the unauthorized dissemination of the contents of case records is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2)  Records may be disclosed to a court for in camera inspection if relevant to an issue before it. The court may permit public disclosure if it finds disclosure to be necessary for the fair resolution of an issue before it.
(3)  Records, including case notes, correspondence, evaluations, videotapes, and interviews, unless otherwise protected by this section or unless disclosure of the records is determined to be detrimental to the child or harmful to another person who is a subject of information contained in the records, may be disclosed to the following persons or entities in this state and any other state or country:
(a)  a department, agency, ombudsman, or organization, including a federal agency, military enclave, or Indian tribal organization, that is legally authorized to receive, inspect, or investigate reports of child abuse or neglect and that otherwise meets the disclosure criteria contained in this section;
(b)  a licensed youth care facility or a licensed child-placing agency that is providing services to the family or child who is the subject of a report in the records or to a person authorized by the department to receive relevant information for the purpose of determining the best interests of a child with respect to an adoptive placement;
(c)  a health or mental health professional who is treating the family or child who is the subject of a report in the records;
(d)  a parent, guardian, or person designated by a parent or guardian of the child who is the subject of a report in the records or other person responsible for the child's welfare, without disclosure of the identity of any person who reported or provided information on the alleged child abuse or neglect incident contained in the records;
(e)  a child named in the records who was allegedly abused or neglected or the child's legal guardian or legal representative, including the child's guardian ad litem or attorney or a special advocate appointed by the court to represent a child in a pending case;
(f)  the state protection and advocacy program as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 15043(a)(2);
(g)  approved foster and adoptive parents who are or may be providing care for a child;
(h)  a person about whom a report has been made and that person's attorney, with respect to the relevant records pertaining to that person only and without disclosing the identity of the reporter or any other person whose safety may be endangered;
(i)  an agency, including a probation or parole agency, that is legally responsible for the supervision of an alleged perpetrator of child abuse or neglect;
(j)  a person, agency, or organization that is engaged in a bona fide research or evaluation project and that is authorized by the department to conduct the research or evaluation;
(k)  the members of an interdisciplinary child protective team authorized under 41-3-108 or of a family group decisionmaking meeting for the purposes of assessing the needs of the child and family, formulating a treatment plan, and monitoring the plan;
(l)  the coroner or medical examiner when determining the cause of death of a child;
(m)  a child fatality review team recognized by the department;
(n)  a department or agency investigating an applicant for a license or registration that is required to operate a youth care facility, day-care facility, or child-placing agency;
(o)  a person or entity who is carrying out background, employment-related, or volunteer-related screening of current or prospective employees or volunteers who have or may have unsupervised contact with children through employment or volunteer activities. A request for information under this subsection (3)(o) must be made in writing. Disclosure under this subsection (3)(o) is limited to information that indicates a risk to children, persons with developmental disabilities, or older persons posed by the person about whom the information is sought, as determined by the department.
(p)  the news media, a member of the United States congress, or a state legislator, if disclosure is limited to confirmation of factual information regarding how the case was handled and if disclosure does not violate the privacy rights of the child or the child's parent or guardian, as determined by the department;
(q)  an employee of the department or other state agency if disclosure of the records is necessary for administration of programs designed to benefit the child;
(r)  an agency of an Indian tribe, a qualified expert witness, or the relatives of an Indian child if disclosure of the records is necessary to meet requirements of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act;
(s)  a juvenile probation officer who is working in an official capacity with the child who is the subject of a report in the records;
(t)  a county attorney, peace officer, or attorney who is hired by or represents the department if disclosure is necessary for the investigation, defense, or prosecution of a case involving child abuse or neglect;
(u)  a foster care review committee established under 41-3-115 or, when applicable, a citizen review board established under Title 41, chapter 3, part 10;
(v)  a school employee participating in an interview of a child by a social worker, county attorney, or peace officer, as provided in 41-3-202;
(w)  a member of a county interdisciplinary child information team formed under the provisions of 52-2-211;
(x)  members of a local interagency staffing group provided for in 52-2-203;
(y)  a member of a youth placement committee formed under the provisions of 41-5-121; or
(z)  a principal of a school or other employee of the school district authorized by the trustees of the district to receive the information with respect to a student of the district who is a client of the department.
(4)  A school or school district may disclose, without consent, personally identifiable information from the education records of a pupil to the department, the court, a review board, the office of the child and family ombudsman, and the child's assigned attorney, guardian ad litem, or special advocate.
(5)  Information that identifies a person as a participant in or recipient of substance abuse treatment services may be disclosed only as allowed by federal substance abuse confidentiality laws, including the consent provisions of the law.
(6)  The confidentiality provisions of this section must be construed to allow a court of this state to share information with other courts of this state or of another state when necessary to expedite the interstate placement of children.
(7)  A person who is authorized to receive records under this section shall maintain the confidentiality of the records and may not disclose information in the records to anyone other than the persons described in subsection (3)(a). However, this subsection may not be construed to compel a family member to keep the proceedings confidential.
(8)  A news organization or its employee, including a freelance writer or reporter, is not liable for reporting facts or statements made by an immediate family member under subsection (7) if the news organization, employee, writer, or reporter maintains the confidentiality of the child who is the subject of the proceeding.
(9)  This section is not intended to affect the confidentiality of criminal court records, records of law enforcement agencies, or medical records covered by state or federal disclosure limitations.
(10) Copies of records, evaluations, reports, or other evidence obtained or generated pursuant to this section that are provided to the parent, the guardian, or the parent or guardian's attorney must be provided without cost."
NEW SECTION.  Section 10.  Appropriation. (1) There is appropriated from the general fund to the department of justice $250,000 for the biennium beginning July 1, 2013. (My concern? Is this really enough money when comparing to the funding of CPS?)
(2) The appropriation must be used for the purposes described in [sections 1 through 8].
NEW SECTION.  Section 11.  Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 8] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 52, chapter 2, and the provisions of Title 52, chapter 2, apply to [sections 1 through 8].
NEW SECTION.  Section 12.  Effective date. [This act] is effective July 1, 2013.
- END -

Latest Version of HB 76 (HB0076.01)
Processed for the Web on December 10, 2012 (12:09pm)
New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.
See the statusof this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.
Prepared by Montana Legislative Services
(406) 444-3064
Sincerely hope that this has been helpful?
Myself and my affiliates have a common goal in mind for the Preservation of Our Families.
A Statement for Your Consideration

“We are joining forces with all persons affected by Parens Patriae to include parents, extended family, foster parents and father's and mother's rights groups. While this is a difficult endeavor due to various divisions, the focus will be on challenging the system with the unified goals and commonalities that each is suffering under in family courts and through CPS.”
(See Definition: Parens Patriae)
Here is a link to my Affiliation. So check it out.. And if you find it useful, please support the efforts of a small group, that is just a Speck on this Gigantic Planet

Monday, April 15, 2013

Shaken Baby Syndrome: Unsettling Science

Thought I would share this article, since as a Family/Child Advocate and keeper of the webfiles for NFPCAR, myself and many others have shared and supported many loving parents who were falsely accused  of Shaken Baby Syndrome

What is even more upsetting is that the symptoms, which could be "other" medical issues, have not been explored by the Medical Professionals as much as they should.

As a result, those allegedly accused of SBS are being found guilty and much of the Medical Proof is being discarded relating to other Medical possibilities.

Hey, I am not a doctor, but merely a scientist, but in exploring the answers, one must look at ALL sides of an issue, Without BIAS.
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
Check Out>>My Family Rights Affiliation

Read the Article
Here is the Title: Unsettling Science: Experts Are Still Debating Whether Shaken Baby Syndrome Exists

Posted Dec 1, 2011 5:50 AM CDT
By Mark Hansen

 Link:  http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/unsettling_science_experts_are_still_debating_whether_shaken_baby_syndrome_

You can read this article, But I think even More Informational is a comment made on this article. 
Here is the comment:
3.Steven Gabaeff, M.D. Dec 4, 2011 8:07 PM CDT
You, the author, are being duped by the pro SBS leaders. The so called leaders are deeply invested in SBS both financially, professionally and psychologically. The prospect of being wrong implies they have been the linchpin to the destruction of thousands of families. They have mental health issues to begin with and cannot be trusted to be fair. There is a mountain of evidence that SBS as described, both from before and after Guthkelch and Caffey, never existed. Guthkelch himself has denounced the SBS proponents on NPR this year at age 95. Contrary to Levin’s statement that babies have never been shaken, babies have been shaken and that has been captured on nanny cams and the shaking, severe and protracted, did not show either RH or SDH as a result ever, not once! Isn’t that telling? 

Use the link below to download the 2 videos that exist.

Here is the link to the shaking videos with no injuries…


Extract the files from the downloaded zip folder and start the PowerPoint file and press the slide show button in PowerPoint to watch.

A study by Lee looked at 1258 fathers, 26 of the worst abusers identified in that study were witnessed to shake their kids by mothers they lived with, and none had RH or SDH. Note how infrequent shaking is in general. Note how emergency physicians virtually never see babies who have been shaken who are brought in to be checked by concerned parents who have been warned over and over about shaking. I have never seen a case and the only one I know of was a mother who witnessed her husband shake a 5 week old. The child was examined immediately in an ED and there were no findings at all. There has never been a witnessed shaking that led to either finding.

Loving parents for all intents and purposes do not abuse their kids; this was made up to account for cases like Audrey Edmunds; a women who never hurt a child according to all reports. Furthermore, there is no scientific research to prove that happens among loving caregivers. The notion of parents flipping from loving to monstrous is fundamentally absurd. However, it is essential for the child abuse MD’s to speculate that people snap in every case. Of a thousand loving caregivers the odds of ‘snapping’; this made up event that is not seen among loving parents followed for years in other studies, is virtually zero. The real probability could be as high as 1 in 1,000,000 and even then with no witnessed events, it is still hypothetical. Yet it remains the key piece with Edmonds and thousands of other improbable abusers who are falsely accused based on nonspecific and nondiagnostic findings. The findings are used to prove abuse but even the child abuse MD’s now admit they are nonspecific. This is the sine qua non of the conviction; a speculative, extremely low probability event that is the essential component of the fabricated accusations, passed off as 95% likely by prominent SBS advocates whose business is >> 90% prosecuting innocent families. Their statements of certainty that this occurs would mean that 950 of 1000 previously loving parents would abuse their children every year. That would be millions of cases. It is an absurd presumption and has no place in the court room when those odds might be described as the polar opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt; they really are “fundamentally implausible”. Without a witness to abuse, presuming abuse in loving families is as farfetched as an accusation can be.

There is a gigantic business of prosecuting families, getting government funding and generating convictions to get more funds. DA’s, police, child abuse MD’s are all the beneficiaries of false convictions. They are not in the business of preventing child abuse they are in the business of generating convictions for child abuse. Currently I am seeing about 75 cases a year and >> 90% are innocent people being falsely prosecuted and convicted in about ½ of the cases. 
They are convicted when child abuse MD’s and their colleagues within institutions operating in a framework well defined by Irving Janis at Yale in the 1970’s, as “group think”, use medical problems and accidents to misdiagnose abuse. I take the time to study these families and read the letters written by those who know them, and for loving caregivers the letters paint a picture of caring people, with zero history of violence or impulsive behaviors. The probability of these people snapping is effectively zero, ruling them out as abusers. The child abuse MD’s believes all these people are liars when they tell the story of an accident or a prodrome of illness leading to a medical encounter. It is easy for an authority figure to accuse anyone of a fictitious event that is witnessed by nobody and a behavior, the type of which they or no one else has ever seen in the accused. The child abuse MD’s can literally say anything and because of the titles they have, these non-evidenced based opinions are given undeserved weight.  Judges, police, DA’s and social workers must stop just believing these child abuse specialists. They must go beyond relying on these people and explore the issues via legal documents like Tuerkheimer or medical research that my article references; studies predating the fabrication of SBS that show the dogmatic pillars of child abuse pediatrics are wrong. They must try to decide for themselves how improbable the majority of allegations proffered are. Disproven dogma, not science, is being used to inflict the most dreadful of problems on innocent families and in many cases stealing children from parents and destroying families. I know about abuse. I have held dead abused babies in my arms. When it real it is easy to see. When it is conjured up via the misdiagnosis of accidents and medical problems, it is equally obvious. The denialists in this calculus are those that refuse to acknowledge how often medical problems and accidents are misdiagnosed as abuse and the 1000’s of cases that could be accidents or medical problems that are dismissed with certainty that they can be “abuse and only abuse.”

Here is a link to an article that summarizes the evidence against SBS.


Read this summary of the medical history and evidence base (you can download the references) showing how awful what they are doing is.

“He said she said” is not the approach to this issue. Their science is based on children precategorized as abused by their colleagues, the very findings they say diagnoses abuse. This is circular logic. RH and SDH are nondiagnostic findings but if every child with RH and SDH is precategorized as abused and put into an “abuse group”, how reliable is the conclusion that all children who are abused have RH and SDH. And when the dogma was finally shown to be unreliable after 25 years of analysis, the American Academy of Pediatrics decided by a committee made up people like the very people cited in this article, the ardent proponents of SBS, to stop linking their “beliefs” in abuse to any specific medical findings to “provide more clarity in the courtroom.”  Diagnoses like abusive head trauma or nonaccidental trauma were invoked that suggest both mechanism and intent to abuse when there is zero ability to infer that from the nonspecific findings they rely on. The purpose was to win more cases with even less reliable evidence then before and it continues to work. The scientific debate has been controlled by those with the power to dictate policies and publicity and is linked to the prosecution machine that operates in this area of the law. Hopefully that will change.

I have been in Emergency Medicine for 35 years and I am not a naïve do gooder. I have seen it all, plus. The child abuse establishment has seduced the media and the legal system using their undeserved fame and ill-gotten stature to influence the courts and the media. They intimidate colleagues and those that disagree, relying on the emotions the child abuse invokes. Yet a false allegation is child abuse and people need to come to grips with this since now false allegations most likely out number the number of cases of real abuse that makes it to court. This is the biggest medical fraud in history.
(End of Comment)


Wednesday, April 10, 2013

CA Judge’s Bench Book – A Smoking Gun

In many discussions, I’ve directed many to our NFPCAR legal webpage referring to Judge’s Bench Book. Also, in this post I have added an image of the section that directs the judges in CA as to what they are supposed to do… And yes it is pretty clear!!!
(Link to Judge's Bench Book Information: http://www.nfpcar.org/Legal/bench/index.htm )

For those who are not familiar of what these are, here is a brief introduction:

“..Simply put,  the best way to say it would be that Judges Bench Books are the instruction manuals on how a Judge can or should rule and/or preside over a case.   The biggest benefit to providing access to the Bench Books is it gives people a chance to have "inside information" to help them better anticipate what they're facing, and possibly help them defend themselves better.  It also shows/proves any incentive that the Judges may have for ruling a certain way.”

Please note, most of this information was put together by Gina, one of our members, who has been a great researcher… I do encourage anyone and/or everyone to send me information on their favorite subject, etc. to add to our NFPCAR site.

Here is Just one of the Issues Relating to Social Security Funding:

The Anatomy of Child Welfare Fraud:
Part 1 - Targeted Case Management

View Now


Monday, April 8, 2013

Legislative Process at the Federal Level

This is a brief video presentation of the Federal Legislative Process.

Keep in mind that the Federal Government creates Acts, Statutes, etc. However, it is the responsibility of the States to:
  1. Interpret these Acts, Statutes, etc.;
  2. Develop Statutes for their States based on these Interpretations.
....And most important, many don't realize that State are Sovereign to the Federal Government, and actually don't have to accept the Federal Acts, Statutes, etc. if they feel is not the Best Interest for their citizens in their state. Remember- "Dissent is Patriotic"
Keep in mind, today it cost us Tax Payers 100 million/week to run Congress--------So, Did We the People get our Money's worth this week?? 

Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants all legislative powers to a bicameral Congress: a House of Representatives and a Senate that are the result of a “Great Compromise” seeking to balance the effects of popular majorities with the interests of the states. Our system currently provides for a two-year term of office for House members from the 435 population-based districts. In the Senate, voters of each state elect two Senators, who serve 6-year terms that overlap (such that only one-third of the chamber is up for election in any given election cycle).

Section Length
1. Overview of the Legislative Process 5:10
2. Introduction and Referral of Bills 3:19
3. Committee Consideration 3:40
4. Calendars and Scheduling 2:36
5. House Floor 3:54
6. Senate Floor 4:18
7. Executive Business in the Senate 1:40
8. Bicameral Resolution 3:30
9. Presidential Actions 1:59

Related link: State Statute Summaries Index relating to Family Court.

Note: When you click on View, this is introductory information comparing states. To see the State Statute Summaries, you need to Download the PDF file. (Note: Will be taken directly to Agency page and dates of updates may be newer than shown on this page.)
Download PDF File of ALL Introductions to Summaries (Rev. 2 -- 02/04/2013)
Adoption ~ Best Interest of the Child ~ Case Planning ~ Child Abuse & Neglect ~ Child Welfare Law & Policy ~ Central Registry ~ Domestic Violence ~ Emancipation ~ False Allegations ~ Family Preservation ~ Fathers ~ Foster Care Givers ~ Guardianship ~ Immunity ~ Infant ~ Mandatory Reporters ~ Parental Drug Abuse ~ Permanency ~ Placement with Relatives ~ Reasonable Efforts ~ Reinstatement of Parental Rights ~ Reunification ~ State Guides & Manuals Search ~ Termination of Parental Rights ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
  Also, a Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", 4th Ed.

 Learn More>> Click Here
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck