The Federalization of Family Law | Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Since the 1930s, Congress has enacted numerous federal statutes to address serious problems regarding family law matters that states have been either unwilling or unable to resolve, especially when the welfare of children is involved.

Source: The Federalization of Family Law | Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice

 hydra family justice usa

The Federalization of Family Law

Vol. 36

By Linda D. Elrod

Linda D. Elrod is the Richard S. Righter Distinguished Professor of Law at Washburn University School of Law and director of the Children and Family Law Center. She formerly chaired the ABA’s Family Law Section and currently co-chairs the IRR Rights of Children Committee.

Historically, family law has been a matter of state law. State legislatures define what constitutes a family and enact the laws that regulate marriage, parentage, adoption, child welfare, divorce, family support obligations, and property rights. State courts generally decide family law cases. But since the 1930s, Congress has enacted numerous federal statutes to address serious problems regarding family law matters that states have been either unwilling or unable to resolve, especially when the welfare of children is involved. Today, congressional legislation, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the participation of the United States in more international treaties have “federalized” more and more areas of family law traditionally left to the states.

A multitude of federal laws now regulate and impact families; some specifically confer jurisdiction on federal courts. As a result, federal courts now hear a growing number of family law cases, especially those that involve complex interjurisdictional or full faith and credit issues. The Supreme Court has contributed to this federalization by “constitutionalizing” family law. It has repeatedly used the U.S. Constitution, in particular the Fourteenth Amendment, to extend constitutional privacy protections to increasing numbers of persons and to invalidate state laws in areas of law previously thought to be the exclusive province of state legislatures.

Internationalization of the law likewise contributes to federalization. As people and goods move freely across country borders, so do their family law issues and problems. The U.S. State Department now actively participates in the drafting of international treaties, working with the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the United Nations (UN) to address family law issues on a global scale. The United States has ratified and implemented many international law conventions. The Supreme Court has noted the judicial opinions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving privacy rights of same-sex partners and the juvenile death penalty.

Congressional Action since the 1930s

For almost two hundred years, the fifty states regulated family law because the federal government did not. The Tenth Amendment left states with “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it.” Beginning with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, Congress has used its powers under the Commerce Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the spending power to set policy. A brief look at the areas of child support and child protection illustrate how Congress has set the national social welfare agenda by passing laws, allocating money for programs, and requiring states to comply with federal regulations to receive funding.

Child Support Establishment and Enforcement

Title IV-A of the Social Security Act of 1935 included a provision for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC was a partnership between the federal government and the states to provide a minimum support payment for children in single parent homes, if the states adopted plans approved by the then-U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. AFDC quickly became welfare for single mothers with children whose fathers were absent from the home; in the majority of cases, there were no paternity or support orders. Rising numbers of children born out of wedlock and in poverty led to increasingly larger demands for welfare funds.

In an attempt to shift costs to parents, Congress enacted Title IV-D of the Social Security Act in 1974 and established the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Because of state reliance on federal monies to operate the AFDC system, this office could dictate standards for establishing and enforcing child support, including a requirement that each state set up its own “IV-D” agency. Ten years later, a unanimous Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 that changed the federal government’s role from merely enforcing child support to encouraging states to establish adequate support orders. The 1984 amendments mandated that states offer child support services to all child support obligees, enact wage ‑ withholding provisions to ensure payment of child support, and develop expedited procedures for establishing and enforcing child support orders. The legislation created a national panel to develop models for objective support guidelines that reflected the costs of rearing a child so that states could adopt advisory child support guidelines.

Within four years, Congress passed the Family Support Act of 1988 that required states to make the “advisory” guidelines presumptive and to develop expedited procedures for establishing paternity throughout a child’s minority. The act also created the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support. That commission recommended criminal sanctions for nonpayment of support. The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 made it a federal crime to willfully fail to pay child support to a child in another state. Federal courts upheld that act against challenges, finding it to be a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause in “pursuit of the general welfare.” To prevent modification of one state’s support order by another state, Congress enacted the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act of 1994, which required states to enforce, and not modify, child support orders from other states.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) marked a new era in federal government involvement. It ended the AFDC program guarantee of cash subsistence benefits in favor of block grants to states, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The PRWORA required that states enact tougher enforcement laws, create new registries for support orders and new hires, and streamline procedures for paternity establishment. Most significantly, Congress mandated that states enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, which provided states with enforcement tools for out-of-state enforcement orders. Until the
PRWORA, states had been free to choose whether to enact a uniform law. Federal courts again rebuffed challenges to the federal mandates on the basis that Congress may condition federal funds upon a state’s enactment of laws or regulations as long as the condition is in pursuit of the public welfare—and collecting child support is for the general welfare.

In another move to protect children, Congress mandated that every custody order include a qualified medical child support order to ensure that children are covered under a parent’s health insurance policy. Individual states, however, still control the amount and duration of child support, with some states ending support at age eighteen and others allowing postmajority support. Some have suggested that a national child support guideline should provide all children with parents of comparable income the same level and duration of support.

Child Welfare

The New Deal legislation also provided the roots for the federalization of child welfare. The 1935 Social Security Act that created AFDC also provided money to enable the federal Children’s Bureau to cooperate with state public welfare agencies in establishing, extending, and strengthening protections of and care for homeless, dependent, and neglected children. In the 1960s, Congress created the AFDC Foster Care Program to help states with the cost of placing children from poor families in government-supported foster care.

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, enacted in 1974, authorized the use of federal funds to improve state responses to child neglect. CAPTA required states to have legal definitions of abuse and neglect covering children through their eighteenth birthday, to expand the types of mandatory reporters of child abuse, to provide a twenty-four-hour hotline to report child abuse and neglect, and to appoint guardians ad litem in abuse and neglect cases. A National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect was set up to fund research and to shape nationwide child protective services. When it appeared that too many Native American children were being placed in foster care or adoptive placements outside the tribe, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). ICWA requires notice to tribes, allows tribal intervention, and requires a higher standard for removal of Indian children to non-Indian placements.

Congress has enacted a host of other pieces of child welfare legislation, including:

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Opportunities Act of 1978,

• The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,

• The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988,

• The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990,

• The Family Preservation and Support Initiative,

• The Multiethnic Placement Act and the Interethnic Adoption Provision of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996,

• The Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act and Megan’s Law,

• The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,

• The 1999 Foster Care Independence Act,

• The PROTECT Act,

• The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006,

• The Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006, and

• The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

Child abduction. Relying on its powers under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, Congress enacted the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA) to deter parental child abduction and to prevent interjurisdictional conflicts over the proper location for child custody decisions. Because two states could exercise child custody jurisdiction simultaneously under the then-applicable uniform law (the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act), the PKPA prioritized a “home state” basis (often called the six-month rule) for jurisdiction. Only if there is no home state could a court use another basis for jurisdiction. The PKPA also detailed the concept of continuing exclusive jurisdiction in which the decree state retains jurisdiction so long as one contestant remains there and the child maintains contacts. State courts need only give full faith and credit to custody orders made in accordance with the PKPA. Although the Supreme Court later held that the PKPA did not create a private right of action in federal courts, it led to the drafting of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which uses the same jurisdictional language as the PKPA and will soon be the law in all fifty states.

Congress also addressed international abductions by enacting a federal criminal law for international parental kidnapping. In implementing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act confers concurrent jurisdiction on federal and state courts for return of a child.

Congress has affected child welfare in numerous other ways: the child labor regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; the many laws on public schools and education, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975; the English Language Acquisition Act; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.


In addition to matters affecting a child’s welfare, Congress has legislated in the areas of abortion, childbirth, family planning, and domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 made it a federal crime to cross a state line with intent to injure or harass an intimate partner and required interstate enforcement of protection orders. Reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 continued funding and expanded coverage to assist more women.

By adding Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, Congress ended a century of protective labor legislation that had kept married women from the workplace. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 also helped end discriminatory practices. Federal laws help spouses who are divorcing by allowing continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and by providing a framework for the division of pensions (qualified domestic relations orders) under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, amending the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Federal laws in the tax, immigration, bankruptcy, and military areas all affect families.

Probably the most controversial and direct foray into family law came in 1996, when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Enacted in response to a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that placed Hawaii on the verge of permitting same-sex marriages, DOMA provides that federal law will only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman. DOMA expresses congressional intent to limit the applicability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause by providing that no state shall be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. There are currently a number of cases challenging the federal benefits provision of DOMA filed by married couples and by government agencies in states that now allow same-sex marriage.

The Constitutionalization of Family Law

Because family law has mainly been state law, state trial judges generally have broad discretion to interpret their own state statutes. There is no statutory bar to federal courts hearing these cases if they involve citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A nineteenth century judicially created “domestic relations exception,” however, allows federal courts to avoid judicial involvement in substantive domestic relations matters, such as divorce and its incidents. As late as 1992, the Supreme Court observed that the whole subject of the domestic relations belongs to the laws of the states.

That said, beginning with the Warren Court in the mid 1960s, Supreme Court decisions have affected nearly every area of family law, transforming what had been seen as ordinary state-regulated family issues—regulation of marriage, criminal laws on contraception, etc.—into constitutional issues of equality, privacy, and federalism. Over 100 Supreme Court cases have dealt with such issues as establishing and terminating parental status; child abuse and neglect; marriage; jurisdiction for divorce, alimony, division of property, child custody, and child support; family property rights such as homestead, pensions, and insurance proceeds; family living arrangements; child custody and visitation; and child rearing. The Supreme Court has set the framework for examining domicile, jurisdiction, and full faith and credit issues for recognizing sister state divorce decrees.

For example, in a series of cases, the Supreme Court established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a “private realm” of family life—the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and procreation. The Court also has held that citizens have a fundamental right to marry that is rooted in liberty and privacy, and have a right to marital and individual privacy in contraception and procreation.

As early as the 1920s, the Supreme Court recognized the rights of parents to raise and educate their children as part of the liberty protected by substantive due process. Parental rights, however, are not absolute, as the state as parens patriae can act to protect children from harm. The state can terminate parental rights. To terminate parental rights, however, requires clear and convincing evidence, and parents must be provided with counsel if they cannot afford it.

The Supreme Court has also recognized and protected family relationships that were not dependent on marriage. Unwed fathers who establish a relationship with their child or who follow state-prescribed procedures for establishing parentage are entitled to protection of their parental rights, except in some limited instances. A grandmother living with two grandsons who were cousins was protected as a “family” from removal from public housing under a city zoning ordinance.

Children are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment entitled to equal protection in education, in laws that establish ages of majority for child support, and in custody disputes involving interracial parents. Children, including those born out of wedlock, are persons within the Bill of Rights entitled to benefits that are for children generally, such as child support, the right to sue for wrongful death, and depending on circumstances inheritance through intestate succession. Children have procreative rights as well as First Amendment rights (although these rights are somewhat more limited than those held by adults).

Children have both procedural and substantive due process rights when subjected to state action or school disciplinary proceedings. In delinquency proceedings, children have the right to counsel and to confront witnesses. In addition, the Supreme Court has prohibited states from using the death penalty for crimes committed while a minor.

The Supreme Court has stricken regulations that discriminated on the basis of gender in child support, alimony, and in education, and has removed restrictions on marital testimonial privilege. The Supreme Court has also interpreted federal pension statutes and other laws.

This ongoing constitutionalization of family law is likely to continue because the Supreme Court appears willing to recognize new rights protected by substantive due process. In addition, the protection is not limited to traditional families. As families become even more diverse and problems more complex, the Supreme Court is likely to be the final voice.

The World’s Children

Child welfare issues have united the countries of the world. Family law has become internationalized through U.S. participation in international organizations such as the UN and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Although the Hague Conference started working on problems facing international families at the end of the nineteenth century, the United States did not join until 1964. The problem of parental abduction of children across international borders brought the United States into the active drafting process for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980). Over eighty countries, including the United States, have ratified or acceded to the abduction convention.

The increasing number of babies crossing international borders for adoptions in other countries, many in the United States, has raised concerns about “baby selling.” The United States participated in the drafting and ratified the Hague Convention on Intercountry Cooperation with Respect to International Adoption. Three other conventions await ratification: the Hague conventions on the protection of children (1996), that on the protection of adults (1999), and that on the international recovery of child support (2007).

The United States signed, but has not ratified, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, although 192 other nations have. This convention recognizes the rights of a child for continuity of relationships, for a voice in judicial or administrative custody decisions if the child is mature enough, and for protection in the formation and preservation of their identity, including nationality, name, and family relations. The language of the UN convention recognizes that the child may have separate legal interests from his parents, such that the child might intervene as a party or have appointed counsel to advocate the child’s position in a divorce case. The United States also has not ratified the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, although many states have used some of its provisions.

In finding that the Eighth Amendment prohibited sentencing juveniles to death for crimes committed as juveniles, the Supreme Court looked at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as evidence of an international consensus against the juvenile death penalty. Increasing “globalization” will make international treaties and laws of even more importance.

Increasingly, family law issues transcend state boundaries. When issues involve protecting children, as in sheltering them from abuse and abduction and in ensuring that they receive adequate child support and health care, a national solution may be necessary. The village is now national, and rapidly becoming international.

About Jim Black

Jim Black is the founder of Angel Eyes over Texas (AEovrT). Jim is a former Manufacturing Engineer turned CPS Watchdog. Jim spent more than 32 years studying manufacturing companies, their procedures, and the proper application of their resources with a heavy emphasis on Quality Control, Automated Systems, and Resource Management. Now those same skills are applied toward analyzing Texas DFPS and it's functions; breaking down the mechanics of how the agency fails to follow the policies, statutes, and rules set forth by the State of Texas. Jim tracks all changes to the Texas CPS Handbook on Jim often consults with CPS defense attorneys on handbook research.
This entry was posted in #OpExposeCPS, Your Rights Under the Constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The Federalization of Family Law | Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice

  1. schmidtjulie76 says:

    Please let me know what you think of my story this happened in Washington state.

    Brake down

    11/20/95 my family and the state of washington CPS kidnapped my children. Even though CPS there knew of the extensive abuse history that my family had, including the sister that they took my kids and placed with.

    4/96- filed a dependency on me claiming i was disruptive to the placement, that i did not agree too it was either give my half sister who abused me as a child temporary custody or the social worker would make sure my son’s were separated and I would never see them again.

    From 4/96 till 11/98 I did do everything to try to get help to get on my feet, but my family had control over my SSI and me. They manipulated the situation to make sure that i couldn’t see my children.

    Finally in 11/98 I became my own payee, and immediately got my own place suitable for my sons. Did all the services plus more, the workers never came out to my house to do a welfare check.

    And as of 2011 I learn that I have never been in the child abuse registry for any thing. I don’t have a criminal record, FBI record nothing. But too date they won’t tell me why they took my kids.

    1993- allegation they tried to use, they could never verify it, so it was closed. And this person has the written verification to prove it
    1994-allegation they tried to use here was closed, they could never verify the abuse to be fact
    1995- this girl had given her mother temporary custody. So any abuse that was going on was under the grandmother’s authority. And the grandmother was getting the Taniff assistance for the children. The agreement was that the grandmother would take the children back and forth to medical appointments until the girl could get on her feet. The girl notified all the doctors ahead of time, and they called her back a few days later to let her know the boys weren’t coming for their appointments and if they didn’t know why the boys were to be terminated from care. Than the girl learned that the mother was living with a registered sex offender, wasn’t getting any answers from the mother about the missed appointments. So the girl was looking to take her kids back. 11/1995 she asked the Sheriff to help her get the kids because of the unique situation and they reconfirmed with her that the boyfriend was a registered sex offender. They called and spoke to CPS Ward Peterson who said it was alright to release the children to her, contingent she appear that Monday 11/20/1995 at the office. By Monday the girl’s family was stocking her and harassing her because they were mad, she pulled her SSI checks from her families control, and now she pulled her kids from her families control which included the taniff checks they were getting. That day a Joanne Jones forced her to give temporary custody of her children to a half sister that had a history of abusing her as a child. Telling her if she did not give her temporary custody that she would make sure the boys were separated and adopted out and she would never see them again.

    1993- allegation closed founded per the pediatrician
    1994- allegation closed- per CPS records
    1995- allegation closed 5/95. The girls mother had temporary custody, so to the point she was getting the cash assistance and medicaid coupons for the children. Children’s therapy records state that the grandmother was signing the children into care and was disenrolled from care 9/1995 because of not attending medical appointments. From which she was responsible. See the grandmother had a long history of doing this to her own kids when they were little. 11/95 Joanne Jones forced her to give her kids to a half sister that has a well known history of abusing her as a child.

    Both the children were current with the pediatrician Dr. Thomas from Northwest pediatrics until March 1995 when they were transferred out of care to Lakewood pediatrics to a Dr. Edward Fahy. Who states he didn’t see the kids until 08/95 when the grandmother brought them for one appointment and that was it. They were terminated from care with Good sam Children’s therapy 9/1995. The grandmother notified CPS that the daughter had given her temporary custody for a year in 1995, but she didn’t notify them verbally till 9/1995. All the records state that the grandchildren was on the grandmother’s AFDC grant. And that would of meant that the medicaid and Foodstamps was also under the grandmother. So how would the mother of the children be responsible, when she wasn’t even the one bringing them to their appointments because she wasn’t getting the medical coupons for the children.

    04/1996- they put a Dependency hold claiming she was disruptive to the placement.

    7/96- allegation came claiming she was missing medical appointments for the children. THE CHILDREN WERE NOT IN HER CARE, THEY WERE IN THE CARE OF HER SISTER.

    Claims the girl suffered from severe mental impairments.s

    1996- Not qualified for services with the division of developmental disabilities, because her IQ was above the means to state she had an issue

    1996- Greater lakes mental health stated she did not meet the need for services because they felt she wasn’t severely mentally impaired.

    1997- Greater lakes again stated she did not meet the qualifications for services

    Up to this point, even though the girl’s family of origin was abusing her, and attempting to fraud the government under her name. CPS failed to protect this girl and her children from it. Just like they failed to protect this girl from the abuse when she was a child.

    1998- She became her own payee, immediately got a place. Started doing all things necessary to show she can care for herself and her children. Social workers never even attempted to do a home check to see if her place would of been qualified. In fact with the help of the half sister (who always hated this sister) did everything in their power to make sure that the children never had a chance to bond with their mother.

    1999- the girl’s mother died. was forced to still do the counseling. wasn’t allowed to grieve over her. Because of the half sister she wasn’t even allowed to attend the funeral. During this counseling the counselor was told she would need to get her to understand her children weren’t coming back etc etc. That the girl was severely mentally impaired. After a few sessions and the social workers learned that the counselor/psychologist felt she could parent her children as long as she had help. All the sudden the funding stopped for the counseling services.

    10/25/99 they terminated her rights based on the fact she was supposely mentally impaired. But there was never actually a mental impairment. She filed an appeal, and during the appeal she was not allowed to see the children. But the sister was acting like the mother already at this point. And even was putting her self on hospital records acting as the guarantor for the girl, way before the case started.

    There is a document signed by the ATG Lisa Roth at the time, in 2000 instructing all parties not to release records to her because her rights were terminated. Here is a fact when there is an appeal, the rights are still there until there is a decision on the appeal. And the girl has a copy of it.

    From 1999 too 2002 she was a registered caregiver for the Agency in Washington state called Division of developmental disabilities.

    May 2001 the girls kids were adopted, or at lease she thought.
    The girl had gotten married 1/01 she wanted to try to start her life over and she moved to Michigan to be with her husband

    During this time, there was another report filed against her in Washington state even though she didn’t reside in Washington state claiming she was pregnant and was neglecting the pregnancy, and so when the baby was born they put that baby on the fast track to adoption. Here is the down fall, her tubes were tied against her wishes in 1995. That if she didn’t get it done her family and the state would take her kids and she would never see them again. But her mother signed the document acting as a POA for the girl. So she wasn’t pregnant in 2001. But CPS said they won’t remove it because they can’t verify that it wasn’t her.

    2002- The girls husband had gotten some back pay money from the Social security agency. The next thing she knows the sister that got her kids shows up. Stating she needs help with food because the kids were eating bologna sandwiches because she couldn’t afford to get them food. The girl agreed, but was cautious. The sister got 350.00$ plus, gaming systems, and a computer screen. Kept asking for money to go to the game with etc. Ultimately she kept getting turned down When she was asked to repay, and return the screen because she was only supposed to borrow it. The next thing the girl learns the sister filed a restraining order
    claiming that the girl was attempting to kidnap the children. Ultimately the sister was brought to small claims court and was forced to pay back the money she had gotten from the girl and her husband.

    She hears nothing from no one.

    2005- the youngest sister (who was raised by the half sister that got the girl’s kids) came to stay with the girl claiming she had no place to live. They moved to Florida, the younger sister and another female went on a check writing spree in her name, and she than fled to the State of Washington when the girl had learned what she had done. And instead of the family holding the younger sister accountable, they told the girl she would need to go to prison and do the time for the spree the younger sister did.

    2008- the younger sister reappears in her life again. She was cautious. But no sooner than she reappeared the sister that had her children immediately found out where she was. And started her restraining order false claims again.
    During this time, the girl’s son’s were writing emails to her stating that they were suicidal and so forth because they were always being abused, neglected always were going hungry etc. These emails continued all thru 2009. During this whole process CPS workers were notified not only by the children, by her, by Senators of your state and somehow the sister that had the children found out. When they would come do a welfare check, they would call her and tell her they were coming out and to make sure she cleaned the house and such. She would threaten to beat the crap out of the boys if they said anything why the workers were present. And yet again the social workers failed the children. At one point one of the children tried to get help from an organization called Team child, and was told help is limited because the adoptive mother had both boys labeled as mentally imcompetent. Police welfare checks were done, and because one of the boys was Gay he was told it was illegal to be gay that if his adoptive mother didn’t want him to be gay he wasn’t allowed to be.

    2011- background checks were ran. She has no CHILD ABUSE REGISTRY. NO FBI. NO WASH STATE PATROL
    2012- the boys left her house on their own terms. one was an adult, and one was 17. He wrote statements to the facts on why he left. She literally put a missing person poster on a 17 year old who would of been 18 in 2 months. She than proceeded to file more false restraining order claims that the girl was flying to Washington state and beating her up. See the girl was advised to leave per her doctor for medical reasons. She was in a wheelchair up till she left Washington state in the end of October 2012. She would of never gotten on a plane let alone fly to come beat someone up.


    3+ BCCU {the agency that runs checks for the department. they tell me that if anything ever was on my name even if it was from 30 years ago it would show up, but nothing ever has} backgrounds were ran on her from the Seattle office and that of the Tacoma office to come back clear. When it was brought to the Tacoma office’s attention. What she got told left her speechless, that those documents from their own department was false. That she suffers from severe mental impairments, and anger issues. So not only they kidnapped her children, that she wasn’t allowed to be around her neaces and nephew because of her severe issues.

    FROM WHICH IT HAS NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED. To date, she has been asking for these supposed psychological reports to verify these supposed issues. She gets told by the psychologists she didn’t pay for them, so by law they couldn’t give them to her, she would need to get it from the social workers. The social workers tell her, that she would need to get it from the attorney she had at the time (2015 letter states those records from the attorneys office was destroyed). Even the termination trial transcripts have been destroyed.

    3/2015 A release was signed asking for the records, because up to this point the information she is being provided doesn’t even match her identity. Same name, birthdate, wrong social security number. The departments policy is 120 days to date she hasn’t gotten any records.. I finally got some records on 11-27-15, but the psychological records and particular financial records from that time. Seem not to be found. Still waiting to see what is going on


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.