Most of us are very busy raising our children, earning a living and undergoing various assaults along the way: illnesses, rising prices, mortgages and military service of loved ones in harm's way.
While we were all engaged in our economic endeavors, politicians have created a remarkably violative scheme to gain entry into our homes, conduct warrantless searches and extract payments while children are withheld.
The door bell rings and there is the ACS (or CPS) social worker we'll call "Sally".
"I am from the Product Acquisition Team from your local child protective industry."
This reveals that there is a quota for child removals. This quota is imposed from the highest levels of state government - the legislature, the executive branch and the judiciary. Although I will analyze next month how the trial judge implements this quota scheme, the highest levels of the judiciary refuse to hear appeals of child removals as well as any case that even remotely involves a child take-away (dependency) proceeding.
The lawyer who stands in the way of this quota scheme will be sanctioned to know better next time. So don't be surprised your attorney will be hesitant to represent you.
"An anonymous caller called and reported that you neglected or abused you kid. I was sent to investigate."
In the old days, a government investigation had to be preceded by probable cause that a crime was committed, a judge had to sign a search warrant and then the search could commence. Because child protection is a civil proceeding, Sally believes no warrant is necessary. Her judge will uphold her belief.
The 14th Amendment provides that a state may not arbitrarily take away a person's life, liberty (parenting) or property interest without due process of law. Procedural Due Process requires certain procedural fairness whenever a person acting under color of federal or state law moves to terminate a person's life, liberty or property interest.
Sally reflects not only an arbitrary deprivation of a person's right to his child, but also reveals the possibility of arbitrage all along the way. A neighbor can make the report. A judge can make the report or Sally can make her own report. An opposing parent who wishes to gain a tactical advantage in litigation can make the report. That parent can sleep with Sally, pay Sally tens of thousands of dollars or give Sally drugs or property. Nothing stops the attorneys in the case or the judge herself from being paid off.
"You have the right to cooperate with me. Resistance is futile. You have no other choice than to let me do my job and answer all questions I want to hear."
This is a larceny by extortion. The parent is under threat that her child will be removed to answer questions. Whether Sally accurately records what the parent says remains to be seen. Sally is acting as an extension of the court without a stenographer, without attorneys present and with no opportunity to challenge Sally.
"I will go down to the courthouse to have the judge sign a removal order... Better safe than sorry."
The key to the quota system's operation is the politically correct justification for child removal: it is better to be safe than sorry. So federal funding comes in and the child is removed without challenge.
"The judge will sign anything I put in front of him."
Substantive Due Process limits the power of the State from regulating or infringing on a citizen's right to make decisions in certain areas of human privacy such as being a parent to her children. Laws in these areas are subject to strict judicial scrutiny because they interfere with "fundamental rights of privacy." To be upheld, such laws must be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and the statute must be narrowly drawn.
However, this scheme is accompanied by the lack of means to enforce a person's substantive due process. Appellate courts will not entertain appeals and federal courts will dismiss family court based actions.
Equal protection provides a basis for challenging federal or state classifications which treat one group of persons as inferior or superior to others. Sally (as well as he entire chain of command) outranks the parent.
Besides violating the parent's liberty interest in being a parent to her child, this scheme eliminates one's right to access to the courts. The parent will not be able to get any of her papers rubber stamped by the judge.
"Sign forms agreeing to let me investigate: doctors, teachers and anyone else."
The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures, merely unreasonable ones. The 4th Amendment applies to the federal government and is applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment. It is a restraint on government action but it does not restrict private, unreasonable searches and seizures. Sally is announcing a state sponsored search without a warrant while ordering the parent to sign forms allowing the search..
This violates the 4th Amendment. Moreover, besides the illegal coercion via extortion taking place here, Sally will place in jeopardy any professional who refuses to cooperate with her. All Sally has to do is allege to the judge that a particular teacher or doctor refused to answer questions, the judge will complain of that person to his licensing committee, and that person will be under investigation which may lead to suspension or revocation of licensure.
Yet another major point here is that Sally is paving the way to a coerced, consent case. That means attorneys for the losing parent cannot suppress evidence obtained via consent and that orders issued in relation tot he various consents cannot be appealed either. Hence, public scrutiny of the court files becomes impossible.
"Sign forms for me to go to school with no parental interference."
Besides the obvious violations of privacy, Sally can either go to school or not go to school and say she did. Sally can falsify what people at the school said as there is no recording made of any of these visits. The signed forms can be altered to achieve any purpose Sally wishes to achieve.
"I can show up without prior notice."
This violates the constitutional requirement of prior notice of any action by the government. This also inhibits one's right to be heard in response to Sally's inquiries and notes taken.
"I can take your kid without a shred of any evidence of wrongdoing. You are completely at my mercy and I already don't like you."
This is a repeat violation of the 14th Amendment as well as the main indication that Sally will build a case against the parent.
"I can take your children away and you will never see them again. What do you think about that?"
This is a repeat violation of the 14th Amendment as well as a display of authority gained from the judge in prior cases.
"I will not be held accountable no matter how much I screw up because I am immune from prosecution."
Sally believes she is immune by a general notion of immunity, but she fails to realize that if she "screws" up, she can be sued in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
"The judge will simply rubber stamp anything I put in front of him."
This is the equal protection violation taking place as well as enormous violations of civil procedural and evidentiary rules. There are judges on the bench who will accept walk-in parties, issue orders on verbal assertions and act outside the restraints of the clerk's office.
"So you really don't stand much of a chance."
This is the due process violation taking place: both procedural and substantive due process.
"Where do we begin? I will look around your house to find any safety issues I can think of."
This is an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment. Watch how Sally will find problems that actually do not exist.
"I think you're a terrible parent. You beat your kid, don't you? I don't believe you."
This smacks of a RICO predicate violation because Sally is beginning to fabricate evidence intended to be used in a court proceeding.
"I'm going to take your kid and throw him into a foster home."
The judge will violate numerous areas of the law to allow Sally to achieve this stated goal.
"I'm going to make you submit to a series of tests: drug screens, psychological evaluations and parenting classes."
The government is enslaving the parent to do its bidding as well as placing the parent under risk of bogus drug findings, improperly performed psychological evaluations that will be used against the parent (the "recommendations fraud discussed October) and unfairly prejudicial punishments like having to pay for and attend "parenting classes".
"These service providers will help me build my case against you."
They certainly will and the judge will prevent challenges.
"No matter how hard you try, it will never be enough. I will just simply find something else to use against you and keep adding it on."
This becomes a tool to keep the case going for years and years. While the parent is suffering through the court case, the child is being traumatized by the separation from home. If there is a custodial proceeding, Sally can negate the custodial proceeding by taking everyone's attention away with a child abuse proceeding. Then, the custodial proceeding will be determined based upon the outcome of Sally's abuse proceeding.
"Well that's it for today. See you soon."
This indicates that Sally is busily engaged in numerous cases and has a few minutes to devote to each.
0 comments