Texas Considers a Bill of Rights for Foster Children

Texas Considers a Bill of Rights for Foster Children: The Texas Legislature is
considering a “foster children’s bill of rights.” Senate Bill 805 has passed the Texas
Senate, and a companion bill, House Bill 1752, is pending in the Texas House. The bill
compiles 50 existing statutory rights and rolls them into one comprehensive list. The bill
would mandate that a simplified version of this list be clearly explained, printed and
given to each foster child. It would be translated if necessary, or communicated in any
way that’s successful for a child with a disability. The legislation asserts a foster child’s
right to a safe, healthy and comfortable home that’s free of abuse, discrimination or
harassment. It would mean a foster child has the right to adequate amounts of healthy
food and appropriate medical care. The bill would allow children to attend religious
services of their choice, give them certain rights to privacy and allow participation in
extracurricular activities.
Compliance with ICWA: The following are excerpts from an article in the Sioux City
A California Indian tribe has filed a complaint in federal court seeking to nullify the
adoption of an American Indian baby born in Sioux City. The Tyme Maidu Tribe, Berry
Creek Rancheria, of Oroville, Calif., claims in court documents that state and federal
Indian child welfare laws were not followed from shortly after the baby girl’s birth
throughout her placement for adoption with an Arizona couple.
The tribe said it was not told of the infant’s removal from her mother or her placement
with the couple, even though it had notified a Sioux City lawyer involved in the adoption
three months before the birth that tribal homes were available for placement of the child
and that the tribe would not agree to placement in a nonpreferred home. The tribe also
said it was not notified of several hearings in Woodbury County Juvenile Court and an
Arizona court. “The Juvenile Court affirmatively denied the tribe its federal right to
effectively participate in the termination proceedings,” the tribe said in the complaintThe tribe said Sioux City attorney Maxine Buckmeier ignored its requests for a
placement with the mother’s extended family and made “little or no effort” to check for
other possible placements with the tribe. “Instead, Buckmeier placed (the girl) with the
(adoptive couple), her personal clients, with the goal of the (couple) adopting (her),” the
petition said.
The tribe is seeking a judge’s order that the child be returned to the tribe’s custody, that
the Woodbury County Juvenile Court and Buckmeier comply with all Indian child welfare
laws in future custody proceedings concerning the child and provide the tribe with its
right to intervene in all hearings.
According to the petition, filed in U.S. District Court in Sioux City, Shannon Edwards, an
enrolled tribal member, gave birth to the girl June 6. Three days later, she signed a
release of custody to Buckmeier. According to the ICWA, that consent was invalid
because the law requires at least 10 days after birth before such consent can be given.
Buckmeier transferred possession of the child to an Arizona couple and on June 19
obtained a referral to place the child in Arizona
.The tribe said in the petition that it was not notified of any action taken in the case until
it was served with a petition for termination of parental rights on June 26, after the child
was placed in Arizona. The tribe said it was denied participation by telephone in a Nov.
1 hearing on that petition. Edwards’ parental rights were terminated Dec. 26. The tribe
has appealed that ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court. The tribe has also appealed a
juvenile court order overruling the tribe’s motion to vacate the adoption. Both appeals
are pending.
As the case was proceeding in Woodbury County, the adoptive couple filed an adoption
petition on Oct. 5 in Maricopa County, Ariz. Five days later, Edwards appeared before a
judge in Coconino County, Ariz., and consented to the adoption and waived the ICWA
preferred placement preferences. The tribe said that waiver was obtained without notice
to the tribe, and those proceedings took place in a court that had no jurisdiction in the
case. The tribe also said that the couple did not notify the Arizona court of the pending
case in Iowa.
On March 26, the petition said, the couple secured an order in Arizona designating them
as the child’s adoptive parents. The tribe contends they do not have that legal status
because ICWA laws were not followed throughout the process. Granting custody to the
nonIndian couple, the petition said, would cost the girl eligibility for tribal enrollment,
which would deprive her of an entitlement to a share of tribal profits, which is currently
guaranteed at $3,000 per month plus quarterly bonuses, and eligibility for a private
education, trust fund and money for athletics, books and supplies.

Delay in Florida Adoption Case: The following are excerpts from an article in the
Florida Times-Union:
For nearly three years, a Jacksonville teenager languished in foster care while the
agency responsible for him repeatedly broke Florida law and lied in court about its
efforts to get him adopted, a judge found. In fact, the judge said, caseworkers at the
Children’s Home Society made no efforts at all to put the boy’s information on a statemandated
Internet adoption site despite telling the judge the opposite in court and in
Circuit Judge David Gooding indicated April 4 in his contempt of court order that he
plans to fine the agency, and he requested financial information to help him determine
the right amount. “Children’s Home Society engaged in prolonged, repeated and
chronic misrepresentations to this court and violations of judicial … orders to the
detriment of the child,” Gooding wrote. “This conduct … is particularly egregious
because for 32 months, this child was unknown to any prospective adoptive families.”
One of the child’s former counselors at Children’s Home Society testified in October that
the agency thought he was on the adoption exchange site but said under crossexamination
that his information hadn’t been updated since May 2005, the judge said.
But Gooding said even though Children’s Home Society told him in court, filed regular
reports and prepared court orders saying the boy was on the adoption exchange, he “is
not and has not ever been” on any state-mandated site. In light of its long history,
Gooding said, “Children’s Home Society should have known better.”
The boy has been in foster care much of his life but became eligible for adoption 30
days after his parents’ rights were terminated in January 2004, according to Gooding’s
order. Once that happened, state law required Children’s Home Society to actively seek
a permanent home through adoption, including placement of his picture and
biographical information on the adoption exchange site. His status was the subject of
regular hearings in dependency court, presided over by Gooding.
Georgia Judge Halts Gay Adoption: The following are excerpts from an article in the
Georgia Blade:
Days away from her seventh birthday, a little girl named Emma Rose is currently
trapped in Georgia’s foster care system, unable to reunite with the woman who has
been her mother for almost a year — all because the mother is a lesbian. The
prospective adoptive mother, Elizabeth Hadaway, was also sentenced to 10 days in jail
earlier this month by a Wilkinson County Superior Court judge (judge Parrott) who
refused to grant the adoption in part because “the child will have a long-term exposure
to the homosexual parent’s lifestyle.”
Hadaway first began trying to adopt Emma Rose last spring at the request of the
young girl’s biological mother, Deborah Schultz, who is also a lesbian. According to
court documents and an interview with Hadaway, Schultz informed Hadaway that she
had fallen on tough times and asked Hadaway to take custody of her six-year-olddaughter. Hadaway traveled to Florida last May to pick up Emma Rose, and a month
later she was granted legal custody of the child by Wilkinson County Superior Court
Judge James Cline. A few months later, Hadaway underwent a mandatory home
evaluation by a local adoption agency, where it came out that Hadaway was a lesbian
and living with her partner of seven years.
Hadaway admitted she was in a lesbian relationship, and Judge Parrott said he
needed to do research to determine if Georgia law allowed adoptions by gay parents,
according to Hadaway. On Jan. 8, 2007, Parrott issued a ruling that denied Hadaway
the right to adopt Emma Rose and ordered the young child be returned to her
biological mother within 10 days. Parrott’s 16-page ruling is inundated with references
to Hadaway’s homosexuality, and his belief that placing Emma Rose in a lesbian home
is not in the best interest of the child.
Parrott conceded that Georgia law has no requirements relating to the sexual
orientation of adoptive parents, but accused Hadaway of attempting to “subterfuge and
sham”the court by applying as a single adoptive parent when she “seeks to
accomplish an adoption by a de facto homosexual couple.”
Parrott also argued that the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
approved by Georgia voters in 2004 effectively prohibits adoptions by same-sex
couples. “[Hadaway] seeks to have her and her same-sex partner treated as a family
union or unit, the same as a married couple for the purposes of adoption,”Parrott
wrote. “Clearly, then, the unmarried homosexual union in this case would be getting a
direct benefit of marriage under Georgia adoption law: the ability to adopt.”
Parrott also ruled against placing Emma Rose with Hadaway because the young girl
would be exposed to both homosexuality and discrimination. “If the instant adoption is
approved, inevitably the child will witness both directly and circumstantially the
homosexual activity of [Hadaway] and her same-sex partner,”Parrott wrote. “There
has been no study conducted … into the isolation and stigma that the child may face
growing up in a small, rural town with two women, in whose care she was placed at the
age of six, who openly engage in homosexual relationship.”
Parrott’s ruling ordered Emma Rose to be returned to Deborah Schultz within 10 days,
or be declared a “deprived child”and turned over the Georgia Department of Family &
Children Services. Hadaway and Shultz met at a truck stop in Jeffersonville, Ga., on
Jan. 12, 2007, but Shultz refused to take Emma Rose back to Florida with her, instead
reiterating her wish for Hadaway to raise the young girl.
Prior to Parrott’s Jan. 8 ruling, Hadaway left her longtime partner and moved to Bibb
County, 70 miles south of Atlanta, which she considered more progressive and tolerant
than Wilkinson County. After Shultz refused to regain custody of Emma Rose,
Hadaway said she was encouraged by attorneys and DFCS workers to apply for an
adoption in Bibb County Superior Court.
Upon discovering that Emma Rose remained in Hadaway’s custody, Parrott issued two
more rulings: a Feb. 12 order to place Emma Rose in DFCS custody, and a March 23
ruling finding Hadaway and her attorney in criminal contempt for not following his order
to transfer custody of the child. The two women were sentenced to 10 days in jail, or
five days plus a $500 fine, but are currently appealing Parrott’s decisionCiting a report by Alicia Gregory, a doctor hired by Wilkinson County DFCS to conduct
an independent assessment of Emma Rose’s situation, Bibb County Superior Court
Judge Tilman Self ruled March 30 that Hadaway be restored custody. “Dr. Gregory
concluded, and in fact was quite adamant, that Emma’s best interests would be served
by returning Emma to [Hadaway’s] custody,”Self wrote. “Indeed, Dr. Gregory stated
that Emma’s current foster placement was the worst possible scenario for Emma.”
But when Hadaway and Wilkinson County sheriff’s deputies attempted to retrieve
Emma Rose from her foster family on April 3, they were rebuffed. “The foster family
would not turn her over to me,”Hadaway said. When the sheriff’s deputies informed
the foster family that they had a Bibb County court order demanding Emma Rose be
returned to Hadaway, the foster father allegedly called Parrott. The judge told the
officer that he was not recognizing the Bibb County order, and if Hadaway wanted
custody of Emma Rose she would have to re-apply in Wilkinson County.
Hadaway’s new lawyer — Parrott prohibited her first attorney from continuing to
represent Hadaway after he found them both in contempt — is filing a habeas corpus
claim and a writ of mandamus with the Georgia Supreme Court in an attempt to get the
Bibb County custody order enforced.

AprilStatistical Summary: During the month of April, the Iowa Supreme Court
rendered no decisions in juvenile cases. During the month of April, the Iowa Court of
Appeals rendered 19 opinions in juvenile cases. Of those 19 cases, 16 were
Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) cases and 3 were Child In Need of Assistance
(CINA) cases. Here is what happened on those cases:
TPR Cases: In all 19 of the TPR, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
termination of parental rights.
CINA Cases: In one of the Child in Need of Assistance Cases, an
appeal by a child, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
order denying the motion to modify placement or to dismiss the
CINA petition. In another case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court’s permanency order placing guardianship with
grandparents. In the third CINA case (this case is discussed below),
the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s permanency order
that failed to return the child to the custody of the mother.
Evidence is Necessary: In Interest of T.R. (Iowa Court of Appeals, April 25, 2007): In
this Child in Need of Assistance case, the court, at a permanency hearing, adopted the
recommendations of two fathers and the guardian ad litem (contrary to the position ofof Appeals discussed the burden of proof in a Permanency hearing:
The State in a permanency hearing has the burden to show the
children cannot be returned. In this case, the State not only did not
meet that burden, but actually supported the return of the children to
their mother. This was not done without basis, but rather on the
recommendation of DHS. At the hearing, the State along with DHS,
the mother, and one of the three fathers, all sought the return of the
children to Tammy. The guardian ad litem and two of the fathers
“expressed concerns.” No evidence was taken. No expert
testimony or reports were admitted to rebut the recommendation of
DHS. Those expressing concern presented no evidence or
testimony. It was upon this record that the juvenile court determined
that the return of the children was not appropriate.
Where, as here, the State has not assumed the burden to show the
children cannot be returned, some other party must assume that
burden. That did not occur here. The Court, of its own volition,
ignored both the recommendation of the State and DHS. Without
any evidence recommending the continued removal of the children,
the court found that reunification was inappropriate. Where no one
has met the burden, the Court cannot find evidence of further
adjudicatory harm sufficient to deny reunification.
Placement of Other Children: In Interest of A.W. (Iowa Court of AppealsApril 25,
2007): In this Termination of Parental Rights case, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that
the continued placement of one child with a parent does not rule out a termination of
parental rights as to other children:
Where a parent is allowed to continue to parent some children, it
may nonetheless be in the other children’s best interests to
terminate parental rights. (citations omitted) DHS’s failure to
remove the new baby from Shayla’s home does not convince us that
the children could be returned to Shayla’s home.
Notice for Prior Proceedings: In Interest of J.P. (Iowa Court of Appeals, April 25,
2007): In this Termination of Parental Rights case, the Iowa Court of Appeals had to
address the issue of whether failure of proper notice in prior proceedings would interfere
with the progress of a termination proceeding:
Although it does not appear that the statutory procedures for notice
of the CINA adjudicatory, dispositional, or permanency review
hearings were strictly complied with by the State, we conclude thatthe lack of formal notice does not undermine the subsequent
termination of his parental rights. The father did received notice of
the termination petition and hearing, was present, and was
represented by counsel. (citations omitted)
The father had considerable personal contact with DHS, was
informed of the status of the adjudication and disposition, and was
offered services to comply with the case plan for reunification. At
the termination hearing, he admitted that he knew he should have
obtained legal counsel during the pendency of the CINA case.
Under these facts, the father has never challenged the adjudication
or disposition. We conclude formal notice or service of process
under section 232.88 to the father of the CINA case was waived and
did not hinder the court from proceeding with termination of his
parental rights.
Hague Convention: De Silva v. Pitts, ____ F3d _____ (10th Cir. 2007): Petitionermother
appealed a judgment of the district court denying her Hague Convention petition
for return of her son to her custody in Canada. The Federal Circuit Court approved of
language of a prior case [Shealy, v. Shealy, 295 F.3d 1117, 1121 (10th Cir. 2002)] to
explain the requirements of the Hague Convention:
The removal or retention of a child is wrongful where it is in breach
of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other
body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the
child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or
retention, where such rights were actually exercised by the parent
seeking return of the child. The petitioner bears the burden of
showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the removal or
retention was wrongful. More specifically, the petitioner must show
that: (1) the child was habitually resident in a given state at the time
of the removal or retention; (2) the removal or retention was in
breach of petitioner’s custody rights under the laws of that state;
and (3) petitioner was exercising those rights at the time of removal
or retention.
The court found that the child should not be returned in this case because of the
preference of the child. The Court stated:
Once a petitioner establishes that removal was wrongful, the child
must be returned unless the respondent can establish a defense.
(citations omitted) There are four defenses set out in the
Convention, which are narrowly construed, (citations omitted) and
which are not relevant here. There is also a fifth consideration, left
to the discretion of the judicial or administrative authority, which
allows for refusal to order the return of a child where “the childobjects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of
maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.”
Sibling Visitation: In light of the recent passage and signing of the “Sibling Visitation
Bill”jointly promoted by the Joan & Lyle Middleton Center for Children’s Rights and the
Elevate™ group, the following information from the Child Welfare Information Gateway,
is of particular interest:
 Approximately 70% of children in foster care in the United States have another
sibling also in care.
 According to a 2003 study of California foster children with siblings in care, about
46% were placed with all of their siblings who were in care, and 66% were placed
with at least one sibling.
 A 2005 longitudinal analysis of placement patters of more than 168,000 foster
youth with siblings in care in New York City shoed that 43% of siblings entered
care on the same day, with another 10% entering within 30 days. 41% entered
care longer than 6 months apart, and these siblings were at the highest risk of
being separated. For siblings not entering care together. 2/3s were not placed
together initially. However, when siblings entered care together, 78% were
placed all together.
“Here’s a message to the new borns, waiting to breathe: if you believe
then you can achieve. Just look at me, against all odds ‘though life is
hard, we carry on, livin’ in the projects, broke with no lights on. To all
the seeds that follow me- protect your essence, born with less, but
you still precious.”–Tupac Shakur

About yvonnemason

Background:  The eldest of five children, Yvonne was born May 17, 1951 in Atlanta, Georgia. Raised in East Point, Georgia, she moved to Jackson County, Ga. until 2006 then moved to Port St. Lucie, Florida where she currently makes her home.  Licensed bounty hunter for the state of Georgia. Education:  After a 34 year absence, returned to college in 2004. Graduated with honors in Criminal Justice with an Associate’s degree from Lanier Technical College in 2006. Awards:  Nominated for the prestigious GOAL award in 2005 which encompasses all of the technical colleges. This award is based not only on excellence in academics but also leadership, positive attitude and the willingness to excel in one’s major. Affiliations:  Beta Sigma Phi Sorority  Member of The Florida Writer’s Association – Group Leader for St Lucie County The Dream:  Since learning to write at the age of five, Yvonne has wanted to be an author. She wrote her first novel Stan’s Story beginning in 1974 and completed it in 2006. Publication seemed impossible as rejections grew to 10 years. Determined, she continued adding to the story until her dream came true in 2006. The Inspiration:  Yvonne’s brother Stan has been her inspiration and hero in every facet of her life. He was stricken with Encephalitis at the tender age of nine months. He has defied every roadblock placed in his way and has been the driving force in every one of her accomplishments. He is the one who taught her never to give up The Author: Yvonne is currently the author of several novels, including:  Stan’s Story- the true story of her brother’s accomplishments, it has been compared to the style of Capote, and is currently being rewritten with new information for re-release.  Tangled Minds - a riveting story about a young girl’s bad decision and how it taints everyone’s life around her yet still manages to show that hope is always possible. This novel has been compared to the writing of Steinbeck and is currently being written as a screenplay. This novel will be re-released by Kerlak Publishing in 2009  Brilliant Insanity – released by Kerlak Publishing October 2008  Silent Scream – Released by Lulu.com October 2008- Slated to be made into a movie Yvonne’s Philosophy in Life - “Pay it Forward”: “In this life we all have been helped by others to attain our dreams and goals. We cannot pay it back but what we can do is ‘pay it forward’. It is a simple
This entry was posted in Abuse by CPS, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Texas Considers a Bill of Rights for Foster Children

  1. GOOD DAD says:

    In the 221st State District Court of Montgomery Co, TX, Judge Suzanne Stovall massacred me in a 3¼ year custody case for my, now, 6½ y/o daughter.
    Convicted child molesters have more access to their children than I do.
    Calls, letters, & gifts are intercepted, & I have no visitation.
    The mother secreted her 2mo & 14mo babies, 1200 miles from their father, & for 15½ years, her family prevented all contact.
    The mother’s 18 year history/pattern of hostility, alienation, & medical mistreatment was well documented to evaluating psychologist Dr Edward G Silverman, therapist Theresa Burbank, ad litem Lynn T Coleman, the attorneys, et.al.
    Despite months of exams & x-rays by pediatricians & specialists, for a real & progressing condition, & prescribing increasingly invasive treatment, the mother, Edward G Silverman, Theresa Burbank, Lynn Coleman, Elaine Baggerley of CPS, & Judge Suzanne Stovall, refused to believe the diagnosis of the medical professionals & necessity for treatment.
    Even after receiving the medical records & speaking with the medical professionals, they persisted in their false beliefs despite the invalidating evidence, continuing to Aid & Abet Injury to a Child.
    A specialist repeatedly requested the mother & Lynn Coleman, attend the appointments, but they refused.
    Even with the mother’s sworn statements of medically abusing/neglecting our daughter & with the doctors corroborating records of her mistreatment, Judge Suzanne Stovall took my daughter from me & placed her into the mother’s sole custody.
    Symptoms persisted, but her condition is withheld.
    Since infancy, the mother has secreted our daughter to doctors, & medically mistreated her.
    From 2006 to 2008, the mother yo-yoed our daughter on steroids.
    She has neglected her dental care.
    The mother has a history & pattern of medically mistreating her other children with steroids, psychiatric drugs, numerous prescription & OTC medicines, & they have had significant dental issues due to her neglect.
    Judge Suzanne Stovall signed a Final Decree to remove me from my daughter, without a trial, without my signature, without my lawyer’s signature, & without compelling the mother’s (plaintiff) discovery.
    Despite 3 years of Hearings, Rule 11’s, hundreds of emails/letters/conversations, Judge Suzanne Stovall refused to compel the mother’s discovery, yet granted years of continuances because her discovery was incomplete; including continuing a preferentially set trial.
    All knew how devastating her discovery would be & Judge Suzanne Stovall refused to compel.
    Judge Suzanne Stovall inconsistently ruled on motions, laws, or rules to favor the mother.
    My lawyers complained that she favored the mother.
    Judge Suzanne Stovall ignored the overwhelming certified/certifiable evidence of violence/hostility/aggression/abuse by the mother, her family, & her friends.
    Judge Suzanne Stovall disregarded 3+ years & 300+ exhibited provable charges of Contempt against the mother, including failure to pay child support, interfering with child custody, & worse.
    It required my lawyer’s written threat of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the mother to surrender our daughter to me.
    I paid the jury fee, & for 3 years, pleaded in vain for a trial or in some way to present a case.
    Judge Suzanne Stovall punished me with over 20% plus $100, monthly child support.
    CISD records, depositions, sworn statements, & other Certified/Certifiable evidence revealed a home with an AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT FELON, wrist CUTTING, daily VIOLENCE, 15y/o runaway, destruction, criminals, drugs (METH, COCAINE, XANAX, OXYCOTIN, etc), many police visits & a SEARCH WARRANT confiscated drug paraphernalia, probation violations, multiple sex partners, suspensions for drugs & violence, burglary, vandalism, shootings, disease, fighting, screaming, profanity, pornography (incl BEASTIALITY), boys/men sleeping over, my daughter sleeping at men’s homes, being taught obscene language & gestures, & so much more.
    Aggravated perjury, forged letters, falsified evidence, unsupported/inconsistent/unchallenged false accusations, by the mother, CPS, et al., outweighed exhaustive undisputed facts, certified evidence, sworn statements, & objective/testable/verifiable documentation, disproving the accusations, & proving neglect/ abuse by the mother.
    At 4 y/o my daughter could count to 29 & to 100 by tens, write her name, recognize most letters, tie her shoes, play checkers, had her own computer w/ games, play card games, front & back flip off a spring board, jump off a 5m platform, swim 100+ ft, & much more.
    With the knowledge &/or support of Dr Edward G Silverman, Lynn T Coleman, Theresa Burbank, & Elaine Baggerley, the mother has so thwarted my daughter’s education that, in Kindergarten, at 6½ y/o, she is below District Guidelines, only counts to 12, she requires special attention, & is a behavioral problem.
    Well known to Edward G Silverman, Lynn Coleman, & Theresa Burbank, the mother provided & reared her young children on GRAPHICALLY SEXUALLY VIOLENT entertainment & since infancy has repeatedly exposed my daughter to the same.
    Well known to several Montgomery Co Courts & Probation, Edward G Silverman, Theresa Burbank, Lynn Coleman, & CPS, the mother’s teens became violent, drug abusing criminals, who attended alternative high schools.
    On their first meeting, Elaine Baggerley of CPS began diagnosing my daughter as ADHD, & more.
    20 months of Theresa Burbank’s therapy & the mother’s sole parenting have resulted in my daughter being referred to a psychiatrist.
    The mother’s family & friends have threatened me at my home & away, & my property has been vandalized.
    I have received harassing, obscene, & middle of the night phone calls.
    The well paid, well insured mother has lived rent & utilities free for 3½ years, but claims to be deep in debt from undisclosed medical expenses.
    The mother has committed tax, CHIPs, Medicaid, & insurance fraud at least since 2003.
    Threats, violence, drugs, promiscuity, crime, lying, etc is normal in the mother’s family & normalized to my daughter.
    There is no history or evidence that I have ever been indecent, violent, destructive, abusive, hostile, drug use, etc.
    My increasing debt exceeds twice my gross annual income.
    Fees & expenses have exceeded 4 times my gross annual income.
    I have recorded nearly every contact with the mother, CPS, ad litem, & many others.
    I will be presenting this case to the Texas: Bar, Commission on Judicial Conduct, Attorneys General, Appellate Courts, Supreme Court, Board of Examiners of Psychologists, TDFPS, malpractice attorneys, etc. & will include:
    medical & doctors records of years of mistreatment
    CPS reports of violence, drugs, medical mistreatment, etc
    psychological evaluations include lying, abuse, etc
    depositions of lying, violence, drug abuse, sex, etc
    CISD records of violence, drugs, sex, etc
    police reports of violence, drugs, shootings, etc
    myspace of violence, drug abuse, sex, pornography, etc
    emails to/from the: ad litem, psychologist, therapist
    I have always loved & wanted my daughter & always will, & I will never, ever, ever give up trying to rescue her.
    Judge Suzanne Stovall: Please right your injustice & return my daughter


  2. Pingback: Texas Considers a Bill of Rights for Foster Children « How Child … | Coleman, Texas LocalSpur - News, Yellow Page Listings, Events and Local Tweets for Coleman, TX.

  3. Pingback: adoption records tx | ADOPTION

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s