I received this comment on one of the blogs on this site earlier after she had already made a snide comment about her comments disappearing. I told her that this blog was for informational purposes and was not a format for bashing parents who had lost their children to the legal kidnapping by the government. This was her response. She goes on and on about how these parents are not telling the ” truth” and that she would chew her arm off to keep her kids and blah – blah- blah – The first question is how does she know their situation? But before that question comes this one. She goes on and on about truth when she hides behind a fake name. Where is that truth? Who names their child “Just Me?”” Really?! IF she has the fire in her belly to tear down others the least she should do is use her real name. That is one thing I absolutely detest is the fact (which is much different than truth) that people who have no clue as to what they are talking about hide behind autonomy. They do not have the “balls” to use their christian name for fear of reprisal.
Now let me just explain the difference between “truth” and “fact”
Truth is a perception and that perception is as varied as there are people. For instance three people could be a witness to the same robbery, however each one will have a different truth. The reason is each one will see something different and it will be a truth but not necessarily a fact.
A Fact is indisputable. For instance those same three people might describe the perpetrator differently but they all knew he fled in a brown car. The Brown car is the fact. This person who is spouting her “truth” has no facts to back up her statements and the fact that she uses autonomy tells me she is not credible at all – I would never use her as a witness.
So Ms. “Just Me” before you preach your truths- take stock in the name you call yourself. Your truths are not facts. They are just your perception and no one will listen or believe you at all.
IF you truly have a conviction have balls enough to stand behind it using your real name. I am sure that mother is very proud of you if she gave you the name of “Just Me.”
New comment on your post “Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Human Services”
Author : JustMe (IP: 188.8.131.52 , 97-104-20-61.res.bhn.net)
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/184.108.40.206
Hey, whatever makes you feel better – most of these people leave out the real reason their kids were taken. If it makes you feel better to sit here and have all these lies posted day in and out, then knock yourself out! No state just waltzes in and takes a child for NO REASON! At least 90% of these people leave out the REAL reason their kids were taken or they downplay it like crazy! If someone’s child were truly taken for NO reason, they would contact news stations or can even research attorneys who hate DCF and may take their case for free. But they don’t, you know why? Because they are LYING!!!!
My brother and his wife smoke crack, pop pills, have a filthy, disgusting home with roaches crawling everywhere, their 10-year-old daughter has the social skills of a 3-year-old, yet they will tell you they are fantastic parents and that the state just has it out for them! They tell people their daughter was taken due to “being late to school!” It’s been nearly two years and they have not completed their case plans! They have every excuse you could think of as to why they couldn’t. They both continue to test positive on hair shaft tests (yet they manage to pass their urine drug screens)!
Like I told one of your other lying-ass posters, I don’t care if the state told me to gnaw my own fucking arm off, I’D DO IT RIGHT THEN AND THERE TO GET MY KIDS BACK! Did you not see what she said? She REFUSED to do the substance abuse class, which means she tested positive for drugs! There is no other class that she could be talking about. Everyone hates that particular class because not only are you drug tested on a consistent basis, but it takes up a great deal of time. Therefore, just like my ignorant brother and his POS wife, that girl basically said, “fuck my kid, he/she is not worth the time!”
Also, rights are not terminated so easily. It has to be PROVEN to a judge why a parent loses their parental rights! I don’t care what you say, everyone is given, not only a case plan, but ample time to complete their case plans! All these people who claim otherwise are lying! Most of these people are drug addicts or scumbags who have abused their kids!
In Florida alone over 20 children have DIED at the hands of their own parents this year alone!!! If you want to defend these people, then you’re an asshole, too! One thing I hate more than anything in this world is child neglect, abuse, and murder! I for one am sick of seeing Nancy Grace on TV stating how yet another baby has just mysteriously come up missing from their bed or crib! You seriously defend people like this? WTF is wrong with you!?
Do you really think people come on here and tell the truth?? Are you seriously that delusional? They won’t because they know if they did, no one would have sympathy for them…and that’s all these cockroaches are looking for. Lick their wounds if you wish, I personally would like to slap the shit out of each and every sorry ass parent that chooses their lifestyle over their children! Once you have a child, “it’s” not about you anymore! Period!
Quit lying to yourself and everyone else who has to read this crap. I was looking to see what the chances were that my douchebag of a brother had at getting his kids back…and this is the garbage I see! So if it pisses me off that I know most of this is deceitful, too bad. You can stop me from telling the truth on your shitty little blog, but believe me, there are more places to post…and I will speak the TRUTH unlike all the skanks on here! And yes, sometimes the truth hurts! So delete away, it will not take away from the fact that most of these responses are bullshit…
CPS does not have the right to enter a home without a warrant, nor to strip seach a child no matter the age without a warrant.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
CALABRETTA v FLOYD
ROBERT CALABRETTA, individually
and as parent and natural guardian
of Tamar and Natalie Calabretta,
minor children; SHIRLEY
CALABRETTA, individually and as
parent and natural guardian of
Tamar and Natalie Calabretta,
JILL FLOYD, individually and in her
official capacity as a Caseworker
of Yolo County Department of
Social Services; YOLO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
NICHOLAS SCHWALL, individually
and in his official capacity with
Woodland Police Department;
RUSSELL SMITH, individually and in
his official capacity as Chief of
Police of the Woodland Police
Department; WOODLAND POLICE
) No. 97-15385
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
June 8, 1998–San Francisco, California
Filed August 26, 1999
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Thomas G. Nelson and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Kleinfeld
J. Scott Smith, Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff, Sacramento, California, for the defendants-appellants.
Michael P. Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association, Paeonian Springs, Virginia, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Stephen Bailey (briefed), Placerville, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Thomas R. Yanger (briefed), Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for amicus State of California Ex Rel.
Eloise Anders, Director of the California State of Social Services.
Kevin T. Snider (briefed), United States Justice Foundation, Escondido, California, for amicus United States Justice Foundation and Christian Action Network.
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency.
The two individual defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district judge denied it.
Some individual called the Department of Social Services October 27, 1994, with the information that gave rise to this case. The report says that the caller was anonymous, but the report redacts names, thus it is not clear whether the caller gave her name but the Department treated her as anonymous, or whether she refused to give her name. The caller said that she was once awakened by a child screaming “No Daddy, no” at 1:30 A.M. at the Calabretta home. Then two days ago she (or someone else, possibly a Department of Social Services employee – it is not clear from the report) heard a child in the home scream “No, no, no” in the late afternoon. The caller said that the children “are school age and home studied” and that “this is an extremely religious family.”
The report was put into the in box of defendant Jill Floyd, a social worker in the Department. She checked the Department files to see whether the Calabretta family had any “priors,” or had ever been on welfare, and ascertained that they had no priors and had never been on welfare. She did not attempt to interview the person who had called in the report.
On October 31, four days after the call, the social worker went to the Calabretta home to investigate. Mrs. Calabretta, the children’s mother, refused to let her in. The children were standing at the door with their mother, and the social worker noted on her report that they “were easily seen and they did not appear to be abused/neglected.” The social worker was about to go on vacation, so she requested that someone else be assigned to the case, but the investigation had not been completed when she returned. On November 10, fourteen days after the call and ten days after the first visit, the social worker returned to the Calabretta house with a policeman. She did not tell the police dispatcher about the specific allegations, just that she needed police assistance to gain access so that she could interview the children. Officer Nicholas Schwall met the social worker at the Calabretta house, knowing nothing about the case except that he had been assigned to assist her. She told him that they had received a report of the children crying, and he understood her to mean that they might have been beaten.
The policeman knocked, Mrs. Calabretta answered, and the policeman said they were checking on the children’s welfare because someone had reported children crying. Mrs. Calabretta did not open the door, and said she was uncomfortable letting them in without her husband at home. The police offi cer had the opinion that in any check on the welfare of children “there is an exigent circumstance” so no search warrant is needed. Mrs. Calabretta and Officer Schwall disagreed in their depositions on whether Officer Schwall told her that if she did not admit them, then he would force their way in. Appellants concede that for purposes of appeal, the entry must be treated as made without consent.
The social worker then took Mrs. Calabretta’s twelve year old daughter into one room while the policeman stayed with the mother in another. The twelve year old did not remember any of the children screaming “No, Daddy, no, ” but did recall that at about the date of the report, her little brother hurt himself in the backyard and screamed “no, no, no. ” The social worker asked what kind of discipline the parents used, and understood the twelve year old to be saying that the parents used “a round, wooden dowel, very, very thin wooden dowel,” about “twice as big . . . as a pen. ” The three year old came into the room at that point and said “I get hit with the stick too.” The twelve year old told her, according to the social worker’s report, “that her parents do not discipline indiscriminately, only irreverence or disrespect. ” The social worker wrote in her report “Minor is extremely religious – made continual references to the Lord and the Bible. ” The social worker testified that any physical means of disciplining children “raises a red flag” for her, and “I always counsel or advise parents on other ways of discipline before they resort to corporal punishment.”
While the mother was still with the policeman in the other room, the social worker told the twelve year old to pull down the three year old girl’s pants. She wanted to look at the three year old’s buttocks to see whether there were marks. The twelve year old did not do so, and the three year old started crying. The mother heard her daughter crying and ran in. The twelve year old said “she wants me to take down Natalie’s pants.” The social worker said “I understand you hit your children with objects,” and went on to say “It’s against the California state law to hit your children with objects. And I found out that you hit your children with objects. And I need to see Natalie’s bottom to see if there are bruises there.” The policeman said “I’ll leave you alone to do this” and backed off. The social worker said “The rod of correction?” Mrs. Calabretta answered, “Oh, it’s just a little stick,” referring to “a little Lincoln log, piece of Lincoln log roofing, nine inches long.” Mrs. Calabretta “explained the Biblical basis of its use” to the social worker. The social worker repeated “It’s against California law to hit your children with objects. This is breaking the law. And I insist on seeing her bottom.” The three year old was screaming and fighting to get loose, the mother looked at the social worker to see whether she would relent, but she did not, and the mother pulled down the three year old’s pants in obedience to the social worker’s order.
There were no bruises or marks on the three year old’s bottom. The social worker then insisted on seeing the piece of Lincoln log roofing, and Mrs. Calabretta showed it to her. The social worker then decided not to interview or examine the buttocks of any of the other children. She “had a brief conversation with the mother in which we discussed her looking into alternative forms of discipline.”
The Calabrettas sued the social worker and policeman and other defendants for damages, declaratory relief and an injunction under 28 U.S.C. S 1983. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. The district court denied the defendants’ motion, and the social worker and police officer appeal.
We have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from denials of summary judgments denying qualified immunity. 1 On summary judgment, “even in a qualified immunity case, we must assume the nonmoving party’s version of the facts to be correct.”2 Those facts must, of course, be established by evidence cognizable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In this case, although the parties disagree on some details, the disagreements are not material to the outcome. We review denial of the qualified immunity claim de novo.3
A. The coerced entry
The social worker and police officer concede that for purposes of appeal, they should be treated as having entered the Calabretta home without consent. They argue that the district court erred in holding that their nonconsensual entry required special exigency or a search warrant. Their theory is that an administrative search to protect the welfare of children does not carry these requirements, and the social worker was doing just what she was supposed to do under state administrative regulations. They claim immunity for entry into the home, interviewing the twelve year old, and strip searching the three year old.
 “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”4 The right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in an appropriately particularized sense. “The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. That is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.”5 The “relevant question . . . is the objective (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. [The officer's] subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant.”6 “Specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.”7
 The facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency. The social worker and her department delayed entry into the home for fourteen days after the report, because they perceived no immediate danger of serious harm to the children. The police officer was there to back up the social worker’s insistence on entry against the mother’s will, not because he perceived any imminent danger of harm. The report that led to the investigation could have indicated a problem, but was not especially alarming. A child screaming “no, Daddy, no” late at night could mean that the father was abusing the child. But in a household where the father puts the children to bed, these words are often screamed at bedtime, and also in the middle of the night after a child has gotten up to go to the bathroom, get a drink of water, check the television, and enter his parents’ room to say that he cannot sleep, when the father puts the child to bed the second time. The other scream, “no, no, no,” likewise may mean abuse, or may mean that a child around two is developing a normal, healthy sense of separateness of herself as an individual and perhaps does not care for her mother’s choice of vegetable. The tipster’s reference to religion might imply that the tip arose from religious differences between the tipster and the Calabretta family. Had the information been more alarming, had the social worker or police officer been alarmed, had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child, this would be a different case, one to which we have no occasion to speak.
Appellants urge us to adopt a principle that “a search warrant is not required for home investigatory visits by social workers.” They claim qualified immunity on the ground that there is no clearly established principle to the contrary. The principle they urged is too broad. Anderson requires more particularized analysis, to determine whether, in these particular circumstances, notably the absence of emergency, a reasonable official would understand that they could not enter the home without consent or a search warrant.8
 In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known that the law barred this entry. Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples’ homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce County9, a child welfare investigation case, that “it was settled constitutional law that, absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable cause existed.”10 The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it. Under White, appellants’ claim, that “a search warrant is not required for home investigatory visits by social workers,” is simply not the law.
 Appellants urge that White speaks only to police, not social workers. That is an invalid distinction. In the case at bar, the social worker used a police officer to intimidate the mother into opening the door. Also, there is no reason why White would be limited to one particular kind of government official. The Fourth Amendment preserves the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses . . . . ” without limiting that right to one kind of government official. It is not as though all reasonable people thought any government official could enter private houses against the occupants’ will, without search warrant or special exigency, and then White said that police officers could not, without speaking about social workers. Rather, everyone knew that the government could not so enter houses, and White said that principle was well established, in the context of a child abuse investigation. Appellants’ argument that they be allowed qualified immunity because White did not speak expressly about social workers is of the kind that Anderson rejects, “[t]hat is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful . . . .”11
There is a distinction between White and the case at bar, but the distinction is of no help to appellants. In White, there was
10 Id. at 815.
483 U.S. at 640
a special exigency. Someone had called in a report that the seven year old had several welts on his back. The boy and his father talked to the police officer at the door, and the boy tried to show the officer his back, but the father would not allow him to. Based on the report, and the father’s violent and abusive response when questioned, the officer thought that if he delayed to get a warrant, the father would injure the child or remove him from the house before the officer returned with the warrant. We held that “the deputies had probable cause to believe the child had been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.”12
By contrast, in the case at bar, the report did not describe any evidence of physical abuse, and the social worker and police officer did not perceive any danger of injury to the children or loss of evidence if they secured a warrant. On her first visit four days after the call, ten days prior to her return with the police officer, the social worker wrote “Minors were easily seen and they did not appear to be abused/neglected.” The only reason the social worker and police officer did not seek a search warrant was that their subjective opinion was that they did not need one.
Appellants argue that Baker v. Racansky13 limits White to the principle that compliance with a constitutionally permissible state statute entitles the government officials to immunity. That is not correct. We did not limit White at all in Baker, but merely held that it did the claimants in that case no good. Baker is not on point, because it did not involve any kind of home search, and did not turn on any child welfare exception to normal search and seizure law.
In Baker, we held that social workers were entitled, in the particular circumstances of that case, to qualified immunity for their decision to take a child into protective custody. We noted that at the time, “there was no binding Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent which clearly established when state officials could or could not take a child into temporary protective custody.”14 That, of course, distinguishes Baker from the case at bar, where at the time there was binding Ninth Circuit precedent, White, which clearly established that the general law of search warrants applied to child abuse investigations. Baker also differs from the case at bar in that the investigators reasonably believed that the child was in imminent danger of abuse if they did not act. A neighbor’s children reported to their mother, and to the social worker, that the child’s father had sexually abused them, and one of them had a vaginal rash that corroborated the accusation. When the social workers asked the father’s own child if his father did anything sexual with him, the child denied it but “started walking around the room . . . would crawl up in his chair . . . went into the corner of the room, put his head in between his legs, raised his legs up, put his arms up toward his head like this, curled up.”15 The social workers thought the denial was false, because of the child’s bizarre behavior when he made the denial, and thought that the mother would not be able to protect the child when the father was released from jail.
Appellants argue that other circuits have allowed broader qualified immunity, so the social worker and police officer could not have been expected to know that they were acting unconstitutionally. They cite Darryl H. v. Coler ,16 Wildauer v. Frederick Cnty.,17 and Franz v. Lytle,18 and some out of circuit district court and state court decisions to show that there is no
14 Id. at 187.
15 Id. at 189.
16 Darryl H. v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 (7th Cir. 1986).
17 Wildauer v. Frederick County , 993 F.2d 369 (4th Cir. 1993).
18 Franz v. Lytle, 997 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1993).
well-established right to privacy from inspections by social workers. It is not clear that a conflict among other circuits would create qualified immunity where clearly established law in this circuit would preclude it,19 but even if it could, these cases would not establish such an open question about coerced entry.
Darryl H. involves strip searches of children, not warrantless entries into homes, and is discussed below with respect to the strip search. Wildauer involves an entry into a home, but there was apparent consent and no express objection, no criminal aspect to the investigation, no entry of a parental home to investigate parents’ treatment of their children, and no investigatory purpose. The householder had nine “foster children” living with her (apparently the children were not placed there pursuant to custody orders), and two sets of parents had complained that she would not give their children back despite the absence of any custodial claim. When the social worker appeared, the householder gave two children back and said there were two more she could not find, and invited the social worker in to help look for them. The social worker came back with a nurse because many of the children were disabled and the house looked unhygienic to the social worker, but the purpose of the second look, to which no objection was made, was to see whether the children should stay there, not to investigate any crime.
We are unable to see why appellants cite Franz v. Lytle.20 A neighbor told the police that a woman was leaving her two year old unsupervised and not changing her urine-soaked diapers. The Tenth Circuit held that the investigating police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, for having the neighbor take off the child’s diaper so that he could examine and feel the baby’s vaginal area, and under the guise of investigating for sexual molestation, threatening to take the baby into protective custody to make the parents bring the baby to a hospital for further vaginal examination (which revealed no evidence of sexual molestation, a crime for which there was no evidence). The case would not have given the police officer and social worker in the case at bar any reason to think their entry into the Calabretta house and strip search of the three year old was constitutionally permissible, because to the extent that Franz was in any way analogous, the police officer lost on his qualified immunity claim.
One other circuit has spoken on facts analogous to those in the case at bar. Good v. Dauphin County Social Services,21 like our decision in White, holds that a social worker and police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity for insisting on entering her house against the mother’s will to examine her child for bruises. Good holds that a search warrant or exigent circumstances, such as a need to protect a child against imminent danger of serious bodily injury, was necessary for an entry without consent, and the anonymous tip claiming bruises was in that case insufficient to establish special exigency. In our case, the anonymous tip did not even allege bruises.
Appellants also argue that the doctrine allowing certain kinds of administrative searches without warrants or special exigency applies to social workers’ entries into homes for child protection. That proposition is too broad for the kind of particularized examination of conduct in particular circumstances required by Anderson. We need not decide whether in some circumstances that doctrine might apply, because it does not apply in the circumstances of this case.
The starting point for administrative searches is Camara v.Municipal Court.22 The case involved a routine municipal housing code inspection of an apartment house, yet the Court held that the Fourth Amendment requirement of a search warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances applied. The requirement of probable cause was diluted in the circumstances, so a warrant would be easy to obtain if an occupant would not let an inspector in without it, but a search warrant was necessary in the absence of special exigency or consent, despite the lack of any criminal investigatory purpose. Our analysis in White is consistent with Camara, and Camara is of no help to appellants.
Appellants argue that Wyman v. James,23 establishes that where a social worker enters a house to investigate the welfare of a child, Fourth Amendment standards do not apply. It does not. Wyman holds that the state may terminate welfare where a mother refuses to allow a social worker to visit her home to see whether the welfare money is being used in the best interests of the child for whom it is being paid. It does not hold that the social worker may enter the home despite the absence of consent or exigency. Wyman distinguishes Camara on the ground that in Wyman, “the visitation in itself is not forced or compelled.”24 In the case at bar, by contrast, the entry into the home was forced and compelled.
 New Jersey v. T.L.O.25 holds that the Fourth Amendment does apply to a school administrator search of a student’s purse, but that in the special context of in-school searches, the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant or probable cause. It has no bearing on searches of a home. Appellants would have us read T.L.O. as a blanket suspension of ordinary Fourth Amendment requirements where children are involved. The Court’s opinion does not support so broad a reading. The court emphasized that it was “the school setting” that “requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.”26 Of course there are occasions when Fourth Amendment restrictions on entry into homes are relaxed. We emphasize that in this case the officials entered without a warrant or consent simply because they thought they had a right to do so, and thought that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to entries into homes where children were involved. This was not a case where the officials coercing entry into the home recognized some special exigency creating imminent risk to the child. White v. Pierce County27 establishes that a special exigency excuses a warrantless entry where the government officers have probable cause to believe that the child has been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.
Appellants also argue that the coerced entry into the home was primarily to protect the children, not investigate crime, pursuant to California regulations. It is not clear why this would excuse them from compliance with the Fourth Amendment, in light of the Camara holding that administrative inspections of buildings are “significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment,” even though not criminal, so in the absence of emergency, warrants should be obtained if consent is refused.28 We held, years before the coerced entry into the Calabretta home, that even in the context of an administrative search, “[n]owhere is the protective force of the fourth amendment more powerful than it is when the sanctity of the home is involved . . . . Therefore, we have been adamant in our demand that absent exigent circumstances a warrant will be required before a person’s home is invaded by the authorities.”29  Nor did the California statutes and regulations direct the social worker or police officer to coerce entry into the home without a warrant or special exigency, or suggest that no warrant was needed in that circumstance. The statutes 30 appellants cite say nothing about entering houses without consent and without search warrants. The regulations they cite require social workers to respond to various contacts in various ways, but none of the regulations cited31 say that the social worker may force her way into a home without a search warrant in the absence of any emergency. A possibly related regulation, in the chapter on “Report of Child Abuse Investigative Procedures,” does speak to search warrants, but not at all helpfully to appellants. It says that the “child protective official” receiving a report should “consider the need for a search warrant.”32 This administrative regulation would tend to put the social worker on notice that she might need a search warrant, not that she was exempt from any search warrant requirements. Appellants presented no evidence they did “consider the need for a search warrant.” They both imagined incorrectly that no search warrants were necessary to enter houses for child abuse investigations.
We conclude that on appellants’ first issue, whether they were protected by qualified immunity regarding their coerced entry into the Calabrettas’ home, the district court was right. They were not.
B. The strip search.
Appellants second issue on appeal is whether they were entitled to qualified immunity for the social worker’s requiring the twelve year old to talk to her in a separate room and requiring the mother to pull down the three year old’s pants. They argue that there is no authority on point in the Ninth Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit held in Darrell H. v. Coler33 that such a visual inspection is shielded by qualified immunity. They also argue that there are so many reports of child abuse that the social workers cannot bear any additional restrictions on how they conduct their investigations. In their memorandum in support of summary judgment filed in the district court, appellants did not argue that they were entitled to qualified immunity for the interview with the twelve year old. Because this claim was not raised in the district court, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal34 and we have no occasion to pass on the question. The argument in the district court was limited to the proposition that the social worker violated no clearly established law in strip searching the three year old, so that is the only issue we consider.
Darryl H. is not entirely supportive of appellants’ position. The strip search was conducted at the children’s school, and did not involve an official takeover of the family home. The Seventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment in the social workers’ favor on constitutionality of the search. The opinion says that “nude physical examination is a significant intrusion into the child’s privacy” and even where the child is too young to have the same subjective sense of bodily privacy as an older child, the nude body search affects “legitimate expectations of the parents . . . , protected by the fourteenth amendment, that their familial relationship will not be subject to unwarranted state intrusion.”35 Although a warrant or probable cause was not needed, in the Seventh Circuit’s view, reasonableness was under the Fourth Amendment, and there were issues of fact that precluded summary judgment regarding reasonableness. Although in Darryl H., as in the case at bar, the social worker ordered the mother to strip the child, there was a genuine issue of fact about whether the mother did so consensually or in response to coercion. Also, not much checking had been done on the validity of the tip, the children denied abuse, and there was evidence that the tipster might not be fair and objective.
Darryl H. offers some support to appellants because it held that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity. But the strip search was not done during an unconstitutional entry into the home, and the information supporting a strip search was much stronger in Darryl H. than in the case at bar. The school principal reported “Lee H., age six, was tied up for punishment. Lee and his sister, Marlena, age seven, were thin and not allowed to eat lunch at school, and the children’s clothes and bodies were dirty.”36 The principal told the social worker that “both parents were usually angry when they came to school . . . that other students indicated Lee was tied up for punishment,” but “that bruises had never been observed on the children.”37 Thus, in Darryl H., the social workers had substantial reason to believe that the children were malnourished, dirty, and abusively disciplined.
 By contrast with Darryl H., in the case at bar the social worker had little reason to believe that the three year old was abused. The tip itself included a reference to the Calabrettas’ religious views that might suggest that the tipster was motivated by religious differences. Even if the tip was entirely accurate, a benign explanation of “no, Daddy, no ” and “no, no, no” was at least as likely as any punishment, let alone abusive punishment. The social worker had noted on her first visit that “Minors were easily seen and did not appear to be abused/neglected.” The twelve year old had already explained
36 Id. at 905.
away the screaming and told the social worker that the children were not abusively disciplined. The social worker’s notations refer to the religiosity of the household, but surely a family’s religious views cannot justify social workers invading the household and stripping the children. The social worker plainly expressed the view to the mother that use of any object to spank a child, such as the “rod ” (a nine inch Lincoln log) was illegal, and she did have reason to believe that such an object was used, but appellants have cited no authority for the proposition she was right that California law prohibits use of any object to discipline a child. The statutes we have found prohibit “cruel or inhuman” corporal punishment or injury resulting in traumatic condition.38 While some punishment with some objects might necessarily amount to cruel or inhuman punishment, a token “rod” such as a nine inch Lincoln log would not. A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.
The Third Circuit held, in factual circumstances much more similar than Darryl H. to the case at bar, that the social workers lacked qualified immunity for strip searching small children. In Good v. Dauphin County Social Services,39 an anonymous tipster told Social Services that a seven year old girl had bruises on her body and said she got them in a “fight with her mother.” As with Calabretta, a social worker and police officer insisted on entry, claiming that they needed no search warrant to investigate child abuse.
Good reversed a summary judgment in the social worker’s and police officer’s favor on qualified immunity, and held that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. Even though there was no case in point, the Third Circuit held that the general proposition was clearly established that the government may not “conduct a search of a home or strip search of a person’s body in the absence of consent, a valid search warrant, or exigent circumstances.”40 Good cited a Seventh Circuit case for the proposition that “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a thirteen-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.”41 Good holds that under Anderson, “a public official may not manufacture immunity by inventing exceptions to well settled doctrines for which the case law provides no support.”42
Good distinguishes Darryl H. on the ground that in Darryl H. the social workers acted pursuant to state guidelines but they did not in Good (nor did they in the case at bar), and because “the strip search in this case came in the context of a forced entry into a residence” at about 10 P.M. 43 Good held that “the propriety of the strip search cannot be isolated from the context in which it took place,” referring to the coerced entry into the home.44
The Tenth Circuit has likewise held that a police officer conducting a strip search of a small child in the context of a child abuse investigation lacked qualified immunity. Franz v. Lytle,45 discussed above, held that a police officer who insisted on looking at a two year old’s vagina, and having a doctor look at it, to assure the absence of sexual abuse, lacked qualified immunity for the strip search. The Tenth Circuit rejected the officer’s arguments that there was no case directly in point establishing the unconstitutionality, that this was an administrative search, and that such great latitude should be allowed for child protection, and held that a tip that the baby was going around with urine soaked diapers and unsupervised was not sufficient reason to allow this search. The Tenth Circuit said that the social interest in child protection included not only protection against child abuse, but also “the child’s psychological well-being, autonomy, and relationship to the family or caretaker setting.”46
 This case is like Good, not Darryl H. The strip search cannot be separated from the context in which it took place, the coerced entry into the home. An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home in which they have no right to be. There is not much reason to be concerned with the privacy and dignity of the three year old whose buttocks were exposed, because with children of that age ordinarily among the parental tasks is teaching them when they are not sup-posed to expose their buttocks. But there is a very substantial interest, which forcing the mother to pull the child’s pants down invaded, in the mother’s dignity and authority in relation to her own children in her own home. The strip search as well as the entry stripped the mother of this authority and dignity. The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent’s and the child’s interest in the privacy of their relationship with each other.
 The social worker had already established that, as against the weak tip, “no, Daddy, no,” and “no, no, no,” the children did not appear to be neglected or abused, the twelve year old said that they were not, and the object with which they were disciplined was a token “rod” consisting of a nine inch Lincoln log. By the time the social worker forced the mother to pull down the child’s pants, the investigation had contracted to the social worker’s personal opinion that any discipline of a child with an object must be against the law, and her puzzling mention of the family’s religiosity. The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.
AFFIRMED. the end
1 Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 870 (9th Cir. 1993).
2 Liston v. County of Riverside , 120 F.3d 965, 977 (9th Cir. 1997).
3 Act Up!/Portland, 988 F.2d at 871.
4 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
5 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) (internal citation omitted).
6 Id. at 641.
7 Brady v. Gebbie, 859 F.2d 1543, 1557 (9th Cir. 1988).
8 Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640-41.
9 White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986).
12 White, 797 F.2d at 815.
13 Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1989).
19 See Garcia v. Miera, 817 F.2d 650, 658 (10th Cir. 1987).
20 Franz v. Lytle. 997 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1993).
21 Good v. Dauphin County Social Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989).
22 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
23 Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971).
24 Id. at 317.
25 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
26 T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 340
.27 White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 1986).
28 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 , 534, 539-40 (1967).
29 Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879, 884(9th Cir. 1990).
30 Cal. Welfare & Inst. Code SS 16501(a) & 16208. Though appellants cite S 16208, the Code says that section was repealed.
31 DSS Regulations SS 31-105.1, 31.105.11, 31.120.1, 31-125.2, & 31-130.2.
32 Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, S 930.60.
33 Darryl H. v. Coler, 801 F.2d 893 (7th Cir. 1986).
34 Marx v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Generally, an appellate court will not consider arguments not first raised before the district court unless there were exceptional circumstances.”) (citation omitted).
35 Darryl H., 801 F.2d at 901.
38 Cal. Penal Code, tit. 1, SS 11165.3 & 11165.4.
39 Good v. Dauphin County Social Services, 891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989).
40 Id. at 1092.
41 Id. at 1093, citing Doe v. Renfrow, 631 F.2d 91, 92-93 (7th Cir. 1980).
42 Good, 891 F.2d at 1094.
43 Id. at 1096.
44 Id. at 1096, n. 6.
45 Franz v. Lytle, 997 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1993).
46 Id. at 792-93.
Warning! Traumatic Topic:. EXPOSED! What CPS Thinks is in the Best interest of the Child?
Posted by innerpeace5 on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:22:22 AM
CPS (DHHS) HAS TO BE STOPPED FAST
Statement of Vera Hassner Sharav and John H. Noble Jr., Ph.D.,
Alliance for Human Research Protection, New York, New York
On March 10, 2004, The ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) filed a complaint with both the Food and Drug Administration and the federal Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) when we learned that 36 Phase I and Phase II AIDS drug experiments had been conducted on infants and children who were under the guardianship of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). The children were living at Incarnation Children’s Center, a foster care facility under contract with ACS and the Catholic Archdiocese. We had reason to believe that the experiments were unethical, illegal, and coercive–and that federal regulations have been violated. ******We did not know at the time that children in foster care nationwide were subjected to research exploitation at prestigious medical research institutions.*******
Historically such children have been abused and exploited in medical experiments—for that reason, federal regulations were enacted to restrict the use of foster care children in research. The Associated Press confirms that for more than two decades, government officials colluded with hospitals and researchers to facilitate the enrollment ofchildren who were in the care of the state for experimental drug trials. Nationwide, an estimated 698 to 1,388 foster children were used to test experimental AIDS drugs–at least 465 of those children were in the care of NYC’s ACS—almost all were children of color. How ironic it is that children, who were placed by the courts into the protective custody of foster care agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Homes Act of 1997, should end up further victimized by their caretakers.
These children were exposed to pain, risks, and potentially harmful experimental drugs—the children suffered, some died. In some cases the children were diagnosed with HIV infection—in other cases infants were merely “presumed” to be HIV-infected.The Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56) prohibits subjecting children who are wards of the state to experiments involving ***greater than minimal risk***:
(A) Children who are wards of the State or any other agency, institution, or entity can be included in research approved under 6.406or 46.407 only if such research is:1) related to their status as wards; or
2) conducted in schools, camps, hospitals, institutions, or similar setting in which the majority of children involved as subjects are not wards.
(b) If the research is approved under paragraph (a) of this section,the IRB shall require appointment of an advocate for each child who is a ward, in addition to any other individual acting on behalf of the child as guardian or in loco parentis.
The advocate shall be an individual who has the background and experience to act in, and agrees to act in, the best interests of the child for the duration of the child’s participation in the research and who is not associated in any way (*** except ***in the role as advocate or ***member of the IR ***with the research, ****the investigator(s)****, or ****the guardian organization.*** The Phase I and Phase II experimental drug and vaccine trials in question were unrelated to their status as wards–the NYC- ACS enrollment guidelines applied to foster care children only. The ACS guidelines falsely stated that the trials posed “minimal risk,” and the guidelines clearly focused on facilitating rapid enrollment of as many foster children as possible—rather than ensuring that the trials were in the ****children’s best interest****: [Attached]
“ACS will review clinical trial protocols for HIV-infected children as soon as such protocols become available, before a specific hospital decides to participate in the study. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and pediatric AIDS specialists throughout New York State will make S aware of protocols as soon as they are in final form, before hospitals are ready to enroll children. This procedure will expedite ACS’ decision-making even before physicians are ready to start treating children in the protocols.”
The Associated Press confirmed our suspicion that most of the children in the care of ACS did not have a personal advocate—as required under federal regulations. Indeed, of the 465 NYC children in the experiments, only 142 had an advocate. Furthermore, ACS even waived the requirement for *****individual consent***** for these children—encouraging them to be herded en masse into drug trials as if they were animals. Phase I and Phase II drug experiments involve the highest level of risk, uncertainty, and discomfort—the safety and toxicity of drugs as well as maximum dose tolerance are tested in these trials. Experiments at that testing stage are unlikely to have any direct benefit for the children in whom the drugs are tested. In some trials children were diagnosed with HIV infection—in some cases infants merely presumed to be HIV-infected:
#292: A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Safety and Immunogenicity of a Seve n Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Presumed HIV-Infected Infants
#345 A Study of Ritonavir (an Anti-HIV Drug) in HIV-Positive Infants and Children, last amendment 3/13/2000.“Replacement infants…are either presumed HIV infected or have already been shown to be HIV-infected…”Infants and children were exposed to experimental HIV vaccines—which have never been successful:
#218 A Placebo-Controlled, Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of Recombinant Envelope Proteins of HIV-1gp160 and gp120 in Children >=1 Month Old with Asymptomatic HIV Infection.Although more than 4 AIDS drugs had never been tested in children, foster care children were exposed to an 8 drug cocktail “some at higher than usual doses” (which was reduced to 7 drugs because of “significant toxicity” 11/9/ 2001).
#1007 ******Multi-Drug****** Antiretroviral Therapy for Heavily Pretreated Pediatric AIDS Patients: A Phase I Proof of Concept Trial Among the drugs tested in foster care children, is Nevirapine, a drug whose safety has been the center of controversy. [AP] Because Nevirapine confers resistance following even a single (low) dose, its manufacturer cautions that its use should be restricted to “previously untreated women with HIV infection who present at labor” for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Yet, 4 to 17 year old children in foster care were exposed to Nevirapine. A Phase I trial of a Glaxo Wellcome drug, Valacyclovir hydrochloride was terminated in 1997—
Why? Typically, trials terminated at such an early stage show unacceptable levels of toxicity.The Associated Press reported: “Some foster children died during studies, *****but state or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by experimental treatments.” ******It is not for those city agencies to decide the cause of death. ACS Commissioner, John B. Mattingly, testified before a City Council General Welfare Committee, that he knows of just 19 children—out of 465—who remain within the NYC foster care system.
In addition, a series of recent investigative media reports from Texas,Florida, Ohio, New York, California, Illinois, raise concerns that over 50% of all children in foster care are currently being prescribed untested, experimental combinations of powerful, mind altering, psychotropic drugs—including antipsychotics (e.g., Risperdal, Zyprexa),anticonvulsants (e.g., Depakote, Neurontin), antidepressants (Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Celexa and others), tranquilizers (Klonopin, Xanax),stimulants (Ritalin, Adderall), as well as heavily sedating drugs such as the anti-hypertensive medication clonidine. These prescribing patterns are essentially uncontrolled experimental drug trials. [See: The Columbus Dispatch series by Encarnacion Pyle. Forced medication, straitjackets, Sunday, April ,2005 ://www.dispatch.com/reports-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/04/24/20050424-A1-00.html
Clinical trials approved by the FDA study only a *single* drug given in tightly controlled dosages. Combinations of two and three or more different psychotropic drugs have simply never been studied in a rigorous and responsible manner.
Furthermore, the foster parents and social workers who are mostly entrusted with supervising these children have less than rudimentary knowledge about these drugs’ adverse effects, and even less skills in monitoring these children to avoid dangerous drug reactions. This is of course less than the protection afforded subjects in ordinary clinical trials.
It is worth repeating:
none of these idiosyncratic drug combinations — called polypharmacy–have never been studied by any responsible government or otheragency, and the children receiving them may be considered guinea pigs in a gigantic uncontrolled medical experiment.
How can the Congress fail to take strong corrective action?
The public has a right to know:
How many children in foster care have been enrolled in clinical trials?
What happened to foster children who were used as human guinea pigs?
What adverse effects did the children suffer during and after participation?
How many children died during the experiments?
A question has been raised about the size of the cemetery plot in which children in ACS custody are buried: Were any children buried in mass graves?
What were the specific sources of funding for these Phase I and Phase II clinical trials?
Did the foster care agencies or foster families receive payment, fees, or other rewards for enrollment of the children in these trials?
How much money was paid to the researchers and articipating hospitals?
What happened in 2001 that the AIDS drug trials in foster children were stopped?
What other drug trials are being conducted on foster children?
The other questions we pose below suggest that there may have been a breakdown in the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or related federal law governing the protection of children in foster care. Our questions, by extension, suggest that the Council onAccreditation of Family and Children Services (COA), and one of its two founding organizations, the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), may not be meeting their obligations. Child protection falls within the purview of the juvenile and family court system, which remands abused and neglected children into the care of public and private, non-profit foster care agencies.
In our view, the courts have ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for what happens to these vulnerable children. The Congress may want to consider a dual approach in dealing with the issues at hand. Child welfare laws operate by regulating the care-givers. Child abuse reporting laws, for example, require health, school, and social service personnel to report suspected child abuse. If such laws were to define “suspected child abuse” to include enrollment of foster children in Type I and Type II clinical trials, in violation of the protections afforded by 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56), there would be many more eyes watching to protect children from overreaching biomedical researchers who, history has shown, have abused their authority to exploit children in foster care.
Were there violations of the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or related child welfare legislation by officials of the foster care agencies that permitted enrollment of foster children in Phase I and Phase II clinical trials?
Should not the supervising foster parents and/or social workers have reported suspected child abuse in these high risk, Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of experimental drugs and vaccines?
What training, if any, is provided to supervising foster parents and/or social workers about the conditions that must be satisfied by reference to 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56 in order to justify enrollment of foster children in ANY biomedical research involving greater than minimal risk?
Is there a need for new federal legislation that would amend the Adoption and Safe Families Act and/or 45 CFR 46.409 and 21 CFR 50.56 to expressly define children in foster care a “protected class,” whose enrollment in ANY biomedical research would trigger appointment of an independent research ombudsman under the supervision of the juvenile or family court that remanded the foster child into state custody?
Finally, if, as we argue, the courts have ultimate jurisdiction and responsibility for what happens to children whom the courts remand to the protective custody of state and private, non-profit foster care agencies,then the Congress might wish to consider amending the existing requirement for the appointment of a child advocate by the IRB pursuant to 45 CFR 46.4.09 and 21 CFR 50.56 to require instead that the child advocate be appointed by and be held accountable to the court of original jurisdiction for foster children who may be subjected to biomedical research involving greater than minimal risk. The courts, we believe, are the last recourse that foster children have to protect them from the predatory practices of those who would exploit and take advantage of their vulnerability.
We should remind ourselves that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.
CPS Corruption and Human Trafficking Exposed in San Luis Obispo
Republicans Sam Blakeslee and Able Maldonado have teamed together for a child charity in the greater San Luis Obispo area named “The Family Care Connection”. While promoting this charity both politicians refuse to review corruption in the local CPS office.
Legislation gives states incentives under Title IV-E to increase the number of children adopted out from foster care. Title IV funding provided to local CPS offices is being used for capturing and adopting out children. However, not all of these children are abused or neglected. Many children who are taken by CPS are not at risk or in any danger thus our Government is creating a form of “child trafficking”. Children are becoming a very “profitable commodity”. Under section 1962(b) of the RICO Act it unlawful for a person to acquire or maintain an interest in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Since a RICO claim cannot be made in the absence of criminal activity many parents are being unjustly prosecuted in kangaroo courts so that children can remain in the “system”. Almost half of the children taken by CPS are being adopted out using this technique. Assemblyman Blakeslee and Senator Maldonado’s actions are protecting this practice by not responding to innocent desperate parents who have sought their assistance from improper removals by overeager Social Workers. These politicians have turned a blind eye to the CPS practices and to the children and families who are being abused by the CPS system they support.
Assemblyman Blakeslee’s office claims they have no involvement with CPS procedures, yet has contacted them when children from the “Family Care Network” are at risk of escaping foster care. Senator Maldonado thinks some parents are “terrorists” if they seek his help. Some children have chaperones with them at all times so they don’t try to run away to return home to their loving parents. The benefit of these unethical practices include: increased funding, full staffing, and support of their share of over 1.6 billion dollars would be lost if this corruption were exposed. This does not include the block grants exceeding 200 million dollars annually and other incentives. In a recent publication supported by Senator Maldonado and Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee The Family Care connection is asking people to write to Governor Schwarzenegger to speak out against a budget slash of 5% in foster care funding; while knowing the author of this article has been seeking their assistance for close to 6 months.
The standard practices of CPS offices throughout California and other states have been under scrutiny for the last several years. Since President Clinton placed into effect The Adoption Safe Families Act block grants have increased the number of children who are in the system. The state pays extra incentives for adopting out children over the age of 9 years old and additional funds if they require mental services or have other special needs. As a result of these block grants almost 50% of all children in CPS’s care are between the ages of 13-19 years old. Every day 36 children an hour are taken by CPS throughout the United States. In California alone more than 20% of all children are in foster care.
This is an industry, which has grown by huge proportions and must be reined in. The Gestapo type tactics currently being used by County and State agencies to increase revenue from federal sources may provide jobs today for the local economy but is having a negative impact on many levels. Good families are being torn apart and children are dying under the State’s care. When CPS takes children in error they rarely return them right away. The families are subjected to endless classes and programs whether or not they are guilty. The parents suffer great financial hardships because they are forced to retain expensive independent legal counsel. Many families lose their jobs and their homes trying to get their children out of the system. Some attorney’s are working in collision with CPS and help keep children in the system because it’s profitable, but most will agree that CPS is in fact corrupt.
Common practices of CPS agencies include: Not investigating before removing a child, taking children into state custody based upon here say, taking children from school without a “Protective Custody Warrant”, manipulating the Court system in criminal cases against the parents who are improperly prosecuted, obstruction of justice, fabricating documents, omitting facts, coercing minors, deception, isolating children from their parents, breaking bonds, traumatizing children, negative therapy, and placing children in unsafe foster homes. Children are not being evaluated right away by a doctor or seeing child advocates such as CASA. Social workers have been known to go on “witch hunts” against parents, influencing doctors, and ruining parents medical files. Many CPS agencies work in collusion with therapists who give parents false “mental conditions” which is used against them in court. Family court is “secret” so there is no jury or fair trial. Children are being heard in Judges chambers so many testimonies cannot be documented on Court record.
Many judges who rule on family court cases also sit on the boards of phony nonprofit organizations created to generate state adoption/foster care grants via federal funding. San Luis Obispo CPS has politicians heading non-profit organizations and Judges hosting “Adoption Saturdays”. California’s 2003 Little Hoover Commission Report said up to 70 percent of children in foster care should never have been removed from their homes in the first place. Children who complain about foster care or beg to go home are either placed on psychotropic medication and are sometimes sent out of State. California’s website for children up for adoption can be found at: http://www.adoptuskids.org
Dr. Moore who is the National Director of legislative affairs for the American Family Rights Association is heading up chapters under the NAACP. Children’s rights organizations, parents, and independent non-profit agencies are also joining in the fight against CPS corruption and human trafficking. Senator Nancy Schaffer recently passed a new law that went into effect in Oklahoma and we in California are hopeful that our state will soon follow.
Kathleen Dearinger of Atascadero California is a CPS reform activist who is committed to overseeing change within her local area. She believes that the structure of CPS and Family court need to be revised and that a system designed to protect children should not be abusing the children themselves. CPS and others should not be profiting off of helpless children, whose many rights are being violated. She is working in conjunction with a number of reform and Civil Rights organizations, including Dr. Shirley Moore, the NAACP, Libertarian Groups, Serenah’s Angels, Voice for the Children, Hope4Kids, Cherish the Children, and many others to address the issues of CPS abuse. She views the biggest problem is having no accountability and poorly trained social workers who are being granted “immunity” from prosecution. The Obudsman with the Department of Social Services located in Sacramento is not effective in overseeing the CPS cases of San Luis Obispo due to their geographic location.
Additionally, they represent foster care, which is a conflict of interest, and are being provided with inaccurate information from case files given to them by CPS. CPS does not currently have an internal affairs division to be able to correct the many deficiencies. Often times local police aren’t involved in the removal of children; nor do they assist parents who have been wrongly accused of abuse or neglect. Ms. Dearinger wishes to develop a system that will compel CPS to abide by State and Federal laws and stop them from terrorizing families. She believes that policing agencies need to be incorporated each time a child is removed. This will ensure that the removal is being performed according to the WIC guidelines. Each removal should be fully documented, and pictures taken. Parents should be interviewed, and Protective Custody warrants should be issued “before” a child is ever removed from their home and placed into foster care. We have policing agencies on call 24 hours a day so there is no reason not to utilize their services.
The downward spiral of our society will continue until drastic changes are enacted. Reform is badly needed. Families will continue to be abused by CPS until we establish a system that actually provides protections for not only the children involved but also for the family. A strong family is the backbone of this nation, and these children are our future. The current policies and trends in family law and child protective services have hit the family hard; touching the lives of untold millions. We hope that California will revise the Child Protective Laws so that many of these children are better protected and those that are not abused can finally go home to where they belong.
About the Author:
Kathleen Dearinger is a Mother to her 16 year old daughter who was “kidjacked” from school by CPS of San Luis Obispo. Her daughter who was not abused or neglected was taken without a protective custody warrant by a biased social worker who never investigated or even visited her house. Her daughter was isolated from her and traumatized by workers at CPS for 5 long months before being sent out of state in the middle of the night against her wishes. She remains a hostage as of this writing and is unable to contact her mother at the direction of a social workers with CPS, who falsely claims she is on a “voluntary placement”. Ms. Dearinger has requested the assistance from Senator Maldonado, Assemblyman Blakeslee, the police, the FBI, and many other agencies only to find that no one investigates or oversees CPS workers. This is why we have over 500,000 children in foster care today.
Child Protection can mean the difference between life and death as you find the way to your own natural freedom and freedom for your family. Click here for more information. If you have a similar problem with government bureaucrats interfering with your family, email me.
You can also order the freedom classic, Sui Juris to help you deal with the judicial system, written by an Oregon couple who learned how to fight the system and wrote a book to help the hundreds of thousands of families caught in the same bureaucratic morass.
City, county, and state bureaucracies can be very authoritarian. Some parents, believe that their children can have a much better education through home-schooling. But public schools can and will sometimes demand attendance or you will face charges of truancy. How can they choose what is best for your child and you cannot?
Some parents have learned that immunization against disease can harm the health and well-being of their children and they refuse to comply.
Some parents choose alternative health practices for their children but find that bureaucrats of government agencies can remove their child from their home when they try to exercise the parental right to choose the best for their children.
How can this be? Families destroyed by the governmental agencies? Parents are still considered to be wards of the State as well as the children. Learn how to properly use the Uniform Commercial Code.
The only way that you can protect your children from the power of the State is to learn how to use the Uniform Commercial Code. This is a huge task since you are playing catch up. You must first declare your status of FIRST CREDITOR to the fiction and then file a UCC-3 to take your children under your wing. Then you must learn how to avoid being re-registered as a ward of the State. You will probably need someone to guide your curriculum and advise you, tutor you, so that you can stand free of all encumbrances that limit your freedom…and the freedom of your children. It’s a small price to pay for something so precious, and someone so precious.
Another Child Beaten To Death In A Foster Home
February 06, 2007 01:41 PM EST (Updated: February 09, 2007 05:35 AM EST)
views: 1705 | comments: 34
Two-year-old Isaac Lethbridge died on August 16, 2006 because child welfare caseworkers took him from his parents and placed him in an unsafe foster home environment. He had been beaten and burned while in state custody foster “care”. His fosterer, Charlsie Adams-Rogers, 59, is on trial for manslaughter.
According to a Detroit Free Press article, Adams-Rogers “had a history of complaints alleging mistreatment of children in her home. Though Child Protective Services never substantiated any of the nine complaints, people familiar with the child welfare system say the allegations should have raised red flags about what was going on in the brick home on Greenlawn in northwest Detroit.” But Adams-Rogers may not have been the one who inflicted the fatal blows. Her twelve-year-old daughter, one of three children Adams-Rogers adopted from foster care, stands accused of inflicting the final injury. There were at least seven children in the home at the time of Isaac’s death.
A news report stated that before his death, Isaac’s child welfare caseworker was aware of bruises on the child, inflicted while he was in custody, but did nothing to move the child from his dangerous foster home or protect him from further injury. His sister, who had been placed in the same home, also bore the signs of injuries at the time of her younger brother’s death.
I’d like to say this is a unique situation, but tragically, it is not. Hundreds of children have died violently in foster homes, many at the hands of the adults paid to take care of them. As owner of a large family rights website, FightCPS, I’ve kept an ongoing blog documenting cases like this one since 2001. Caseworkers often don’t remove children from abusive foster homes because there’s no financial motivation for the agency to do so. They remove children from their natural family homes much more readily because as soon as they do, federal financial streams are available to enrich the counties that detain children.
In Isaac’s case, his parents are accused of neglect due to poverty. They are not accused of abuse. He could have been better served by allowing the parents to learn to take appropriate care of their child while keeping custody of him. But now it is too late; he’s dead due to our country’s child welfare laws that destroy and harm nearly every family they affect.
According to an article in the Isaac Lethbridge file, he is the third child to die violently in a Michigan foster home within the last 18 months. Ricky Holland, age 7, was adopted out of foster care then killed by his adopters in July 2005. Allison Newman, age 2, died from blunt-force trauma injuries of unknown origin in September 2006. Apparently someone suggested she was “accidentally flung over a 12-foot balcony onto a hardwood floor.” Who, I ask, “accidentally” throws a 2-year-old over a balcony? Allison’s licensed foster ‘mother’ is jailed, charged with felony murder and involuntary manslaughter.
These children are the tip of the iceberg. An online memorial, In Memory of Children Protected to Death by CPS, posts dozens of names and photos of children who died in state custody foster homes in nearly every state of this nation. And these are only the ones that site owner can find names and photos for. Many more children have died in foster homes without coming to the public’s attention.
Dorothy’s Never Coming Home:
New Law Puts Families in Crisis
States Report They are Increasing Efforts to Take Children From Their Homes to Collect Federal Bounty
by TCB CHRONICLES Staff
Child protective agencies nationwide are forcibly removing more children from their homes even when the agencies’ own investigations establish that the children have not been abused or neglected, according to reports submitted by state agencies to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) during 1998. Once in foster care, state agencies further reported, children were much more likely to be maltreated than they are in their own homes.
Family advocates blame financial incentives offered through new federal legislation for the frightening trend that places increasing numbers of families at risk of losing their children and a national watchdog organization has pledged to use NCCAN’s statistics to alert parents.
According to statistics published in the recently released government publication, “Child Maltreatment 1998: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect,” 18% of children placed in foster care were taken from homes with unsubstantiated reports of child maltreatment. Pennsylvania, Kansas and New Jersey led the 16 states reporting in this category. Nearly half (43%) of the foster care placements in those states were taken from families where child protective services (CPS) workers had unsubstantiated reports of child abuse or neglect. A complete breakdown of these statistics by state is shown in Table 1. While many states did not supply specific statistics for this category, there is no evidence to suggest that the percentages are different in non-reporting states.
Child protective agencies’ disclosures clearly challenge the public’s assumption that children are removed from their homes only under the most extreme of circumstances. However, further examination of the agencies’ own records discloses that the cure increasingly utilized by child protective services is worse than the problem.
Children are eleven times more likely to be sexually abused in state care than they are in their own homes, according to NCCAN. While 59 out of 100,000 children in the general population are alleged to be physically abused, 160 — more than twice as much — were physically abused in the foster care population. Neglect? The 32 states submitting data in this category reported that 490 per hundred thousand children were neglected in their homes and 760 per hundred thousand were neglected in state care. Tragically, 6.4 children per 100,000 were killed in foster care in 1998 compared to a rate of 1.5 per hundred thousand in the general population. (See Table 2).
Nationwide, states are reporting to the federal government that children are being abused by the very system mandated to protect them.
Federal law requires that each state submit statistics about its child protective operations to NCCAN, an agency under the umbrella of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Congress mandated that DHHS oversee state child protective agencies and monitor their conformance to federal guidelines. NCCAN attempts to accomplish this by sending out annual surveys to the states and compiling the results in its national clearinghouse on child abuse and neglect. After spending more than 18 months verifying and organizing the statistics, NCCAN publishes the results in its “Child Maltreatment” series. The 1998 report was just released.
This is the first in a series of articles that will examine and report on the significance of the NCCAN data.
“Our investigators will be reviewing and analyzing every number the states handed over to the federal government, ” said Cheryl Barnes, Director of CPS Watch, a national organization of families and professionals that monitors CPS activities. “Our members are going to get this information out to the families that need it. Unlike DHHS, these watchdogs have teeth,” she said.
One of the country’s highest priorities is supposed to be the safety of its youngest citizens. Parents nationwide agonize over their responsibility to protect their children from the perils that sprout from an increasingly complex and violent society. The biggest peril faced by contemporary children may well be their own government. Yet surprisingly few citizens have voiced their concerns over the threatening DHHS statistics pouring out of the nation’s capital.
“With a nationwide budget exceeding that of the National Defense Budget, more than a few eyebrows should be raised,” says Susan Jackson, a family advocate and member of CPS Watch. “No one dares risk being politically incorrect, even to save hundreds of thousands of children who are sentenced to a life of disassociation and despair in multiple foster homes, and then, if they are ‘lucky,’ into an adoptive home, never to see their parents or siblings again.”
Federal legislation passed in 1997 appears to have dramatically increased child removals during 1998, even though the states had only partially applied it. The majority of the states were still in the process of drafting state laws to implement new federal guidelines in 1998. CPS Watch members who have reviewed the 1998 data expressed grave concern that the 1999 rates of child incarceration will astound both child welfare experts and the public alike and the foster care population will almost double by the end of this year.
Families who suddenly find themselves subject to CPS investigations are unprepared for the ordeal, parents who have gone through the experience explained. They suggest that parents who harbor the thought that it cannot happen to their family consider the implications of numbers released in NCCAN’s report.
If the 1998 rates of governmental intrusion are simply replicated in 2000, children will have a 1 in 25 chance of being subject to a child abuse/neglect investigation this year. On the other hand, the chance of getting a flat tire on the family car this year is 1 in 70 — enough of a possibility for the car industry to equip new vehicles with spare tires. (See Table 3)
“No family has any spare children,” says Barnes. “We have to do better. We have to do a better job of warning parents what these statistics mean to their families. We have to get to them before the government knocks on their door.”
In the worst states, Alaska, New York, Indiana and Missouri, a family is five times more likely to have a social worker knock on the door than they are to have a flat tire. “The idea that you don’t need to be concerned about CPS until they come to your door is about as ridiculous as thinking you don’t need a spare tire until you have a flat,” Barnes said. “We should protect our children from a government assault just as diligently as we protect against a flat tire or a house fire or any other threat to their well-being.”
Government statistics disclose that families are not only more likely to find themselves subject to CPS intrusion each year but that their children are far more likely to be removed after the investigation. States are reporting to NCCAN that they are increasingly choosing to remove children from their families as a solution, even when it appears there is no problem.
The state of Ohio reported to NCCAN that 22% of the children placed in state care were involved in reports that were ruled unfounded by child protective investigators. Ohio records indicated an additional 20% of the incarcerated children were “in need of services”, but not victims of substantiated abuse or neglect. An additional 4% were placed in foster care for “other reasons.” Ohio’s child protective agency said it did not know the reasons why 2% were taken into state care (Table 1).
Ten percent of the children incarcerated in Washington were placed as a result of unsubstantiated complaints of child abuse or neglect, according to NCCAN. An additional 26% placed in state care were cases “closed without a finding” and another 16% were placed for “other” reasons. These “other” reasons are not specifically named, but they were not based on founded charges of child abuse or neglect. In fact, only 48% of the children taken into state custody in 1998 were victims of child abuse or neglect.
New Mexico reported to NCCAN that 24% of the children it placed in state care were subjects of unsubstantiated complaints.
In Kansas, 41% of the children placed in foster care came from families where CPS investigators found complaints of child abuse or neglect to be unfounded. This, coupled with the fact that Kansas had the highest rate of termination of parental rights that year, could indicate a very serious problem in Kansas.
Twenty-five percent of the children placed in foster care in Wyoming came as the result of unsubstantiated complaints, state officials reported to NCCAN. An additional 1% of Wyoming children were incarcerated for “unknown” reasons.
Family advocates say that the reason states incarcerated children instead of providing the services they claim the children needed in their home has to do with money. State agencies do not receive nearly as much federal funding for family preservation as they do for foster care.
“As soon as I take a kid out of a home, I begin to earn federal money for the cost of caring for that child,” said Gary Stangler, who resigned as Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services last month. “All of the federal incentives are in the institutional side,” Stangler told journalist Bill Moyer (Pellett, 1992).
In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). To qualify for federal funding, each state had to adopt legislation modifying its child welfare procedures to conform to ASFA’s guidelines. The new procedures place a premium on removing children from their homes and, once in foster care, accelerates substantially the time frame for severing their rights to be legally associated with their parents. ASFA provides what it literally refers to as a “bonus” for each child adopted in the state. The act continued the uncapped federal entitlements referred to by Stangler — states receive federal funds for each child held in foster care.
Family advocates claim that all the states have a powerful financial incentive to take children into custody and keep them there.
“These folks are fed by a child abuse industry to the tune of well over 12 billion dollars,” Jackson says. “Cash harvested by social workers, diagnosticians, attorneys, foster homes and group homes, to name a few. They are jumping on the abuse hysteria bandwagon like so many fleas to a dog.”
Federal funding not only encourages states to remove children from their homes, but provisions in ASFA make it far less likely that their children will ever be able to come home.
Throughout the 1990′s, children remained in foster care for an average of 2 1/2 years before being reunited with their families or put up for adoption. ASFA requires states to move to terminate parental rights when a child has been in foster care for 15 out of the previous 22 months. ASFA also authorizes additional money to states that place children with foster caretakers who want to adopt them immediately upon removing them from their families. The foster caretaker then actively participates in CPS meetings where the decision is made whether to return the child to her family.
“Your baby is torn from your arms, even though you have not been accused of abusing or neglecting him,” says one parent, “and they put him in a house with strangers. They don’t even tell you where he is. You worry yourself sick over how he is being treated. You get to visit him one hour a week in a social services office while you’re involved in a custody battle with a stranger who has him 24/7.”
“That’s child abuse,” says the parent, who asked not to be identified because of his/her involvement in an active case.
In 1998, states reported to NCCAN that CPS workers removed an estimated 238,000 children, 34,000 more than the number of children that left the system that year. The foster care population has skyrocketed during the past decade. Currently, more than 550,000 children are in state custody.
Drawing from data submitted by the states, NCCAN estimated that 2,806,453 total reports of child abuse and neglect were phoned in to hotlines across the country in 1998. Thirty-four percent of those (955,186) were immediately judged unfounded and “screened out” of the investigative process. Of the 1,851,267 that were investigated, 295,169 were substantiated for physical or sexual child abuse — about 11% of the 2.8 million reports.
“Can we justify a 4.3 billion dollar budget for 295 thousand cases of abuse,” Barnes asks. “This is presuming that all the substantiated cases are actual cases of abuse, which is highly questionable.”
States reported to NCCAN that a large percentage of reports phoned into child abuse and neglect hotlines are made by social service workers themselves. Employees of social service agencies, which include the same workers who investigate the claims, make 15 percent of the reports. School teachers and administrators report 15 percent of the cases while police officers phone in 13 percent. Disgruntled neighbors family members and friends are responsible for 17 percent of the reports, NCCAN data shows. (See Chart 1)
The public is generally aware that false allegations of child abuse are often made to gain advantage in acrimous custody disputes.
All 50 states have passed legislation that requires certain professionals to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Mandated reporters face criminal penalties if they fail to report and, like other reporters, are immune from civil liability for falsely reporting innocent parents. Child welfare workers have grown accustomed to “knee jerk” reports from hypersensitive mandated reporters interested in covering themselves and these reports are given low priority in many CPS agencies. Mandated reporters made 53 percent of the reports in 1998.
While the states break down reporters by category in their reports to NCCAN, parents under investigation by state CPS agencies are never told who reported them for mistreating their children. Family advocates point out that it is impossible to defend yourself against false charges made by anonymous people who may be using CPS to pursue a vindictive personal agenda.
Barnes pledges that CPS Watch advocates will continue to probe NCCAN data and report on its ongoing investigation.
Family advocates suggest that citizens who are interested in protecting their families from governmental intrusion learn more about child welfare policy in their state. They say it is important for families who have not encountered CPS workers to be prepared. Citizens can write their Congresspersons and Senators to request they repeal the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the advocates suggested.
Child welfare experts and social workers have expressed concern over the effects of ASFA since it was passed in 1997. NCCAN’s 1998 data seems to confirm their worst suspicions.
In her commentary published in “Social Work” (March, 2000), Leslie Doty Hollingsworth warns of the ethical problems social workers face with the passage of ASFA. “Social workers should also advocate for policies that separate adoption incentives from child protection decisions and that are receptive to the well-being of children . . .”
“Because there are strong financial incentives to increase adoptions,” the professor of social work at the University of Michigan writes of ASFA, “practitioners may be compromised ethically if required to work for reunification and adoptive placement simultaneously.”
Hollingsworth objects to ASFA because the new federal law ignores systemic factors, such as poverty and single female parenthood. “Poor and single-parent families may be disadvantaged, whereas people desiring to adopt may be advantaged,” she points out.
“The comparative effects of terminating parental rights on children and their biological families are not addressed” in ASFA, Dr. Hollingsworth wrote. The law gives legal standing to strangers acting as foster caregivers to participate in court hearings and family planning meetings but denies grandparents and other relatives any standing.
ASFA allows state CPS agencies to make exceptions to making “reasonable efforts” to keep a family together. As Dr. Hollingsworth points out, CPS can avoid making any efforts to keep a child in her home “even if the health and safety of the child is not at risk” in her home.
Section 303 of ASFA requires the states to report to federal government any progress made in placing children with relatives — something that government agencies are strangely reluctant to do. Dr. Hollingsworth suggests to members of the social work profession that they abide by that ruling so that the data can be reviewed in the future.
Meanwhile, family advocates say, the child protective agencies continue to destroy families on the way to the bank.
“For every day that a parent has an open case against him or her, these agencies reap in the stipends, so there is no incentive to drop an innocent parent from the abuse registry or to finalize therapeutic intervention,” Jackson says.
“Government meddling is arbitrary and never-ending, and often ends up in termination of parental rights, yielding yet another cash windfall for Child Welfare.”
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.
Child Maltreatment 1998: Reports from the states to the National Clearinghouse for Child Abuse and Neglect, (2000). Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services. US Government Printing Office.
Hollingworth, Leslie (2000). Adoption policy in the United States: A word of caution. Social Work, 45, (2), pgs. 183-185.
Pellett, Gail, Producer, “Families First.” Bill Moyer, Public Broadcasting Service. 1992: Public Affairs Television, Inc.
You can find out what information your state reported to the federal government here.
TABLES & CHARTS
Perpetrators of Maltreatment
Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Neglect Medical Neglect Fatalities
Parents 59 13 241 12 1.5
State 160 112 410 14 6.4
Number of Cases per 100,000 Children
Children Removed from Their Homes
or Indicated Unsubstantiated In Need
of Services Closed Without
a Finding Other Unknown
Pennsylvania 38% 62%
Kansas 59% 41%
New Jersey 74% 26%
Wyoming 74% 25% 1%
New Mexico 74% 24% 2%
Ohio 51% 22% 20% 4% 2%
Connecticut 84% 16%
Virginia 84% 15%
Missouri 71% 14% 12% 3%
Washington 48% 10% 26% 16%
Illinois 89% 10% 1%
Michigan 94% 6%
Minnesota 94% 6%
Oklahoma 87% 6% 6%
Florida 89% 5% 6%
Texas 93% 1% 2% 3%
Percentage of Children Removed
Children Who Suffered
Number Rate per
Alaska 15,708 81.7 1 in 12
New York 334,094 74.2 1 in 13
Indiana 110,161 72.6 1 in 14
Missouri 97,197 69.1 1 in 14
Oklahoma 52,586 59.8 1 in 17
West Virginia 22,072 54.6 1 in 18
Idaho 18,717 53.3 1 in 18
Connecticut 41,354 52.3 1 in 19
Washington 76,569 52.0 1 in 19
Michigan 130,132 51.0 1 in 20
Rhode Island 11,920 50.1 1 in 20
Delaware 8,685 48.5 1 in 21
Maine 13,850 47.5 1 in 21
Colorado 46,514 44.7 1 in 22
Arkansas 28,371 43.4 1 in 23
New Mexico 21,479 42.6 1 in 23
Massachusetts 60,786 41.7 1 in 24
New Hampshire 12,392 41.5 1 in 24
Kansas 27,410 39.3 1 in 25
Oregon 31,521 38.2 1 in 26
Florida 125,314 35.4 1 in 28
Georgia 70,580 34.9 1 in 29
Utah 21,740 31.0 1 in 32
Texas 150,863 26.8 1 in 37
Wyoming 3,429 26.5 1 in 38
South Carolina 25,134 26.2 1 in 38
California 124,759 14.0 1 in 71
Total Children 1,683,337 39.9 1 in 25
.”mood stabilizers” “prevention” ‘ADHD’ akathisia Alaska alcohol and drugs Allina Hospitals and Clinics America Amy Klobuchar Amy Philo antidepressants antidepressants during pregnancy antipsychotics artist artwork Aryuvedic Mother/Baby Program baby Baby Matthew Barack Obama Baum Hedlund Bernard M. Coelho big brother bigpharmavictim Birth Defects birth defects caused by antidepressant birth defects lawsuits Bishop Mark Hanson brave kids Brian Nystrom Bush Family car chase Carolyn Laine Celexa Charles Grassley child endangerment choking Christian Delahunty Christiane Schultz Collusion Columbine Congress Coon Rapids courts CPS CRAIGSLIST criminalizing mental patients Dan Markingson Dan’s Law dead babies Dean K. Knudson demonstrations drawing drowning drug “safety” drugging children Drugging Vets ECT Effexor Effexor in pregnancy Elderly electroshock Elizabeth Torlakson Emory Enne Currie epilepsy drugs Eric Jonsgaard eugenics Evangelical Lutheran Church in America experimentation expression through art FDA FDA Warnings FDA Warns ADHD Drug Makers fight for kids final outcome for drug advocates Flag Flag paintings Forbes forced ‘treatment’ foster care Fraud Fred Baughman MD Freedom Center Freedom Commission on Mental Health gene theory George F. Borer Governor Tim Pawlenty harming sperm with drugs Harry Reid heart defects Hearts Indiana infertility Informed Consent injunction involuntary hospitalization Isaac Philo Jenny Hatch Jim Gottstein Joe Biden John Duckstad John McCain Julie Julie Edgington Katherine Stone Keith Ellison lawsuits legal kidnapping life stories LSD Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota Manie Manie Life stories manie’s dad Manie’s Family Manie’s parents Mary Weiss Marybeth Dorn Matt Miller Medicaid Drugging Medical Rights Medication Algorithm Project Melanie Stokes Mental Health Consumer/Survivor Network of Minnesota Merck Mercy Hospital Metropolitan Center for Independent Living in Minnesota MGH MindFreedom Minnesota Disability Law Center MN mothers act Munchausen murder Natural News Neruontin No. 13 Bill Oprah painting Pamela Hoopes Parenting patient deaths Patton State Hospital Paxil Paxil birth defects trial Paxil in pregnancy paxil manie Pfizer pharma payments to doctors pharmacology Postpartum Men Postpartum Progress Postpartum Support International PPD Preemption Preemption Controversy preemption doctrine Pregnancy Preschool Psychopharmacology Working Group profit psychiatric hospital Psychiatry: Force of Law PsychRights Ray Sandford Rebecca Riley Recruiting Reid Richard R. Pettingill Roberta Opheim Sarah Palin Satveer Chaudhary Satveer S. Chaudhary schizophrenia screening seizures Seroquel sexual abuse shootings shrinks disciplined stars and stripes state-paid meds suicide Supersensitivity Psychosis Supreme Court Tattoo Teresa R. Warner Terri Bradley The Future of The United States theft Tonya Wilhelm toxicity deaths Uncategorized Victory House violence vomiting Wellbutrin Withdrawal works of art Wyeth Zoloft zombie Zyprexa ..
« Newer Older »
.August 28, 2008 • 11:35 pm
.CPS Abusers Accuse Mother of Munchausen For Seeking Proper Medical Care for Lyme Disease
1000 VOLUNTEERS NEEDED TO SAVE A CHILD!
The eyes of the nation are on San Antonio, Texas. An influential opposition has, with malicious intent, lined up to make the following a benchmark case against right to treatment choice where multiple protocols exist. A loss will be devastating not only to this family, but also to the future of medical care access to everyone suffering from a disputed medical condition and especially to those, present or future, suffering with Lyme disease.
Marc, a nine-year-old Autistic child with confirmed Lyme disease, and his mom are under attack by San Antonio Child Protective Services (CPS) because the mom sought competent medical treatment for Marc. When she contacted us for help, she pleaded, “Please help me to save my son – he is dying!” In fact, without knowledgeable medical care, he was losing his vision and had already lost 30 pounds.
Uninformed physicians supporting the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) position on Lyme disease instigated the report to an equally uninformed CPS
CPS has interfered with the legal medical care of this special needs child without any due diligence. Their first intervention was an invasive confrontation indicating no desire to understand or resolve conflicting and debatable medical opinion widely known to be suspect [Findings by Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal, Reported May 1, 2008].
The child is now subject to removal to institutional care with an equal lack of understanding and skill and Marc’s mom is being pursued for criminal charges. Texas CPS, the foster care system, and contracted physician services have a documented history of questionable actions and deadly results [Ramshaw, E., Dallas Morning News, August 17, 2008].
CPS and the San Antonio district have been in the spotlight for a number of missteps, the most recent being their mishandling of the abusive FLDS polygamist group situation in West Texas. San Antonio CPS needs to regain credibility. The local County District Attorney needs to recover from a series of strong criticisms in preparation for a 2010 reelection campaign. Such self-promotion of authority makes their prosecution of this matter highly questionable. The protectors from child abuse have become the abusers.
1000 people making a gift of $10 or more to this cause can provide the support and legal assistance to defend this egregious insult to the right of all parents to choose medical care for their children.
Please visit http://www.letssavemarc.org for more information and to see how you can help. This effort is sponsored by Child Protection and Safety (CPAS, http://www.childprotectionandsafety.org), a Nonprofit Association dedicated to providing resources to children and their families placed in duress and legal jeopardy by authorities interfering with proper medical care. CPAS is directed by a Board of patients & patient advocates known for their work in their own states and nationally.
Only $10 to thwart this attack -
SAVE A CHILD’S LIFE – and ultimately, OUR OWN RIGHTS