georgekennedy      bushsignsdfacs      bushbringthemkidsover
 
KIDS FOR SALE DFACS   Bush Clinton Pic gallery

who is more dangerous to the United States of America Today -
USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

CPS agencies routinely enter a family's home without probable cause, without warrants, without court orders and many times with force and casually remove the children to places unknown without any evidence of abuse or neglect. This happens three thousand times a day and the parents have no recourse. With the children in the custody of the state, and with possession being nine-tenths of the law, it can take years to get their children back despite the fact that, in the absence of evidence, probable cause, or a warrant
these children have been taken illegally.

According to international standards of law and morality, anyone who incites violence against an entire people, especially for ideological reasons, is a criminal.
This Statement is right off the FBI web site - they changed this link lol, we put the FBI mainpage link in its place
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE  THE LAST FREE PRESS
www.familyrightsassociation.com  www.sierratimes.com


There system is set up for the (BIG Trick) what they do under the false ruse for protection for the child, get the child, instead of you, this way they KNOW that they can terrorize and traumatize the child just by getting there hands on them, then on the way to DFACS there already steady brainwashing them by the use of leading and repeated questions then bribing the child for a disclosure by saying, just say this, then you can go home, you have to tell the judge this!

then you can go home, now when we get there you have to tell this lady here what you said! so as you can get back home, next they make the parent look bad in the child eyes by repeated phrases like THAT MAN, what did that man do to you (in a loud voice) you know he's BAD, The Reason your here is because they don't Love You, another (TRICK) is to say there's no room to put you anywhere, so we're going to have to stay here in the back of the DACFS office overnight

or over the weekend until we can find a place for you, this way they have overnight to drill the kid or KIDS some more with leading and repeated questions, now they have what they want, telling the kid they have to tell Everyone this, in order to go back home (now they have you, there going to have a convection in court, and the kids will be on the auction BLOCK!

never mind the Children will often recant once removed from the duress imposed on them by the relentless questioning, they will just make them out to be a liar in court! ( did i say court lol, i mean kangaroo court ) saying there protecting there parent's, in other words they want to go by the first statement, there not interested in the truth.

HELL they don't make any money that way.


• who is or what is DFACS - DFACS is the Department of Family and Children Services

• who is or what is DFACS Court - DFACS is the Finest Kangaroo Court Money can Buy bar none!

• Do they have a Judge in DFACS Court - Yes he is the Head Kangaroo

• Do they have a Guardian Ad Litem in DFACS Court to Help Protect and represent the Child - Yes LOL, they are the one that will mainly help brain wash your child with tactics that adolf hitler would be proud of !

• What do you mean DFACS is a Kangaroo Court - DFACS Court is a crime to America, totally Illegal, from your first walk in - to your last walk out !

• What Happens when you walk in a DFACS Court - You may not Know it, but When you Walk in a DFACS Court, you have just walked back in time, back in the Dark Ages, courtesy of Bill Clinton and George Bush!

• What would be the Definition of DFACS then - the Definition of DFACS in America Today is - Children Terrorists!

• What type or class of children do they go after - they go after the Poor, lower class, middle class!

• Why is this - you want see them pulling the same dirty Illegal Tricks with the Higher class!, because they will sue there eyes out!, plus this would be in the public eye and in the major news!, Double Standard for the Rich.

• Why don't we hear anything about this in the news - that's a good question, could be bought and paid for, Government Control, what do you think!

• Who Controls the news - CBS - Sumner Redstone

• Television's Hidden Agenda - TurnOffYourTV.com

• How could this happen and still be going on in the United States of America - i think that's what happens when Crooked Politicians and rich draft Dodgers, Oil Tycoons take over our, let me say this again for the Crooked Politicians reading this, "Our" Government, what do you think!

• How or where do they get the children - the number (1) source they get the Children from is the Government Controlled Schools, the school teachers or routinely brainwashed into thinking there helping the children also the school counselor for helping the kids is another trick, unknown to the children, is there one step in the door of DFACS

• How or where do they get the children - the number (2) source i would say is in the hospital emergency room, staff and doctors are also brainwashed into thinking there helping children, i put this as number (2) because if they can get there hands on the baby's, in there Eyes they see Big ($$$$$) signs!, yes and that's all they see

• How or where do they get the children - The number (3) source would be the police officer, trained professional to report anything abusive of any kind, there Learning the truth, i have talked to a few, there not as stupid as the hospital staff lol

• who is more dangerous to the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has terrorized more families in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has terrorized more Kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has ripped more families apart in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has destroyed more lives in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who uses the ruse that there helping the abuse children in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has the most Commercials on National TV claiming the ruse that there helping the abused children in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has more Power in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has more Money in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who tell's more Lies in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has Scared more Kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has more Judges in there pocket in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has sold more Kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has sold more Kids Illegally in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has harmed more Kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has harmed more families in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has violated more laws, bill of rights and the Constitution in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has a Baby Brokering Business in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is killing the most kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is abusing more kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is abusing more babes in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is abusing more families in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who would you trust most to invite in your house in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who would you trust most to talk to your kids alone! in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who would you call first to completely destroy your next door neighbor Lives in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who can take a False Allegation turn it around and take your kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who can take a False Allegation, bring it to court just to sell your kids! in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who can take a wonderful happy 6 year old child and falsely make him say he has been abused in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has committed more crimes in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN - Al Copone or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has committed more crimes and gotten away with it in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN - Al Copone or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has made more money kidnapping and selling kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• what happens when you don't go by the Constitution in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who would you trust more to have a Chat with in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is more of a threat to the Child in juvenile Court - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The CASA attorney?, Guardian Ad Litem?

• who violates the fundamental rights protected by First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who makes over 81,000.00 for a child in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who makes over 250,000.00 for a special child in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has traumatized for life more families in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has the Government spent more MONEY on to STOP theses injustice CRIMES in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, George Bush

• who has been in the TV news more, telling of the injustice being done by theses people in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, George Bush

• who has been in the news paper more, telling of the injustice being done by theses people in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, George Bush

• who was the Homeland Security set up to fight and watch in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who do we NEED the Homeland Security set up to fight and watch in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who would your worry about the most in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who would you spend the $31 billion on securing our nation, in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is the WORLD'S most Dangerous Terrorist in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who Would you CRY about EVERY NIGHT for Stealing Americas KIDS in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is the Most Evil in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who Will be remembered most in HISTORY FOR HURTING KIDS AND FAMILIES in in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who in the USA'S Government will be remembered most for letting this go on everyday in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, George Bush

• who will be Held Reasonable in Government for HURTING KIDS AND FAMILIES in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, George Bush

• who has done more harm to America, in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN, Taliban or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is more important to protect in our Family, in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN, Taliban or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, or our Children

• who is more precious to protect in our Family, in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN, Taliban or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, or our Children

• who has the most employees in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has the most damaged people working for them in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is raging the REAL WAR against the people in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who is controlling the media in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, our Government.

• who is systematically set up in every county and state in the union to Kidnap our Children in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who prays on the poor in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who walks to the back office and shows pornographic material to 3 year old children in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

by Thomas Jefferson Unanimously adopted by the Continental Congress of the Thirteen United States of America in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.

• who has traumatized for life more Kids in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has made more families to be afraid of going to the hospital emergency room in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS

• who has given social workers powers and immunity provisions that far exceed those of the police. They conduct these searches with impunity, systematically abusing hundreds of thousands of children every year in the name of child protection - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, At 3 A.M. the telephone rings, awakening you from a sound sleep. The gruff voice on the other end identifies himself as a child abuse investigator, threatening immediate removal of your children if you hang up. The following afternoon, caseworkers enter your home, look through your refrigerator, and question your two-and five-year-old children. The case is closed, labeled as unfounded. - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, Two months later, another child protective services caseworker appears to strip-search your children, a task the first worker had neglected to perform. He leaves, admonishing that your failure to comply with another such possible search will result in the immediate removal of your children - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who can go to the local public school without even calling you! and pickup your Kids Illegally in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, Promises are often made to children by child protective caseworkers that they will be allowed to leave, and return to their parents, once they "disclose" the alleged abuse.- in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, "Just tell us what happened, and you can go home," and similar phrases are in common use today. The desired effect is to elicit disclosure by offering the frightened child a thinly veiled opportunity to end the interrogation.- in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, The interviewer comes close to bribing the child for a disclosure, by implying that the aversive interview can be terminated as soon as the child repeats what he said earlier. Popsicles and playing with a tape recorder are offered as rewards.- in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, The use of leading and repeated questions is typical in abuse investigations, due in large part to the predisposition on the part of many workers that children deny or repress memories of abuse. Repeated denials on the part of a child often result in continued questioning until the child finally "discloses" the alleged abuse.- in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, Children often recant disclosers obtained by these methods once removed from the duress imposed on them by the relentless questioning. Rather than raising doubts as to the validity of the disclosure obtained by the use of coercion, social workers typically view a recantation as having been subsequently coerced by a parent, or they say there telling a lie to protect there parent, or as part of an "accommodation syndrome". - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, One of the more common techniques used by child protective caseworkers is to cast the person thought to have perpetrated the abuse in an unfavorable light in the eyes of the child. Repeated criticism of a parent may result in the desired disclosure. Similarly, this technique is reportedly often used to divide parents, effectively pitting one against the other through the technique of the social workers presenting their findings or suspicions in an authoritative manner. - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, Threats, bribes, promises of rewards, and other forms of psychological duress are often applied by social workers as the seek disclosure from children.- in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, The transmission of suggestion can also be subtly communicated to children through more obvious factors such as the interviewer's tone of voice, mild threats, praise, cajoling, bribes and rewards, as well as resort to peer pressure. - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, The extent of which CPS is allowed to continue to operate while being so far out of compliance with the existing state and federal laws is mind boggling. It would be a challenge to find any other agency in our countries history that operated in such gross and blatant violation of the law with absolutely no intervention from the administration. Tens of millions of tax dollars are being squandered on a system that is destroying families and causing lifelong emotional ruin to children and those are the lucky ones who live through it. - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The
Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is defrauding the federal government with intent. CPS should be subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office. They should be held liable for the restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent collection of federal funds under the False Statements and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42 U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title IV-E. could be prosecuted under RICO, but also the judges who are signing the documents. - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or The Department of Family and Children Services, DFACS, CPS

• who does this, Taps your phone! - after contacting the FBI, CIA, President, Governor, and homeland security, about this scam on the American People and our American Children, for over 8 months? - After one Year and 6 Months of a Living Nightmare! - in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or Homeland Security!

• who is working 24 hours aday and has enough Guts! to STOP this madness in the United States of America Today - USAMA BIN LADEN or
President Bush, Sen. Miller, or Sen. Chambliss ???????????? or (Arnold Schwarzenegger)


State's Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government
Nev Moore

In 1974 Walter Mondale initiated CAPTA (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), the legislation that began feeding federal funding into the state's child welfare agencies. With remarkable foresight Mondale expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to systemic abuse in that the state agencies might over-process children into the system unnecessarily to keep, and increase, the flow of federal dollars. Shortly after CAPTA was enacted there was a dramatic increase in the number of children in foster care, peaking at around 500,000 during the mid-70's. George Miller, the Chairman of the federal Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, initiated an intensive investigation of the nation's foster care system after the effects of CAPTA started to become apparent by the soaring numbers of children who were being placed in foster care. An official at the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare admitted to Miller that the government had no idea where many of the nation's 500,000 foster children where living, what services they were receiving, if any, or if any efforts were being made to reunite them with their families.

To address the obvious free-for-all snatching of children that CAPTA had stimulated, the Committee crafted new federal legislation with the intent of creating accountability and clearer guidelines for the states child welfare agencies. During the crafting of P.L. 96-272 Chairman Miller's concern was that the federal government was footing the bill for warehousing children in institutions and inappropriate settings without accountability. In 1980 the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, P.L. 96-272, was enacted. The act included provisions that "reasonable efforts" be made to prevent children from being unnecessarily removed from their homes and placed in foster care. Although CPS has always tried to buffalo the media and the public that they are involved with families due to some sort of horrific child abuse or neglect, there has never been any debate among national policy makers, researchers, and federal agencies that the vast majority of CPS cases are due to poverty or frivolous/social reasons and do not contain elements of real child abuse. If the cases did actually involve acts of abuse they would be criminal, identified and investigated by law enforcement, rather than social workers, and would be prosecuted as such. P.L. 96-272 came into effect partly because Congress determined that a large number of children were being unnecessarily removed from their homes, and, once removed, they were lost in the limbo of foster care for years, many until they just grew too old, when they were then put on the streets at the age of 18.

The Child Welfare League of America testified before a senate subcommittee: "In fact, there were many instances then, as now, of children being removed unnecessarily from their families. It is important to recognize that children are almost always traumatized by removal from their own families." So, accountability from each states child protection agency was also written in. To receive the federal money the states would have to submit an annual report to the federal government, known as an AFCARS report, that specifically accounts for each child in state care. ACLU Children's Rights Project attorney, Marcia Robinson Lowry, explained in her testimony to Congress: "As a condition of federal funding, states must have a reasonable information system to identify children in federally-funded state custody." These requirements were implemented in 1980. Up until 1999 some states were still not filing their federally required AFCARS report to the federal government. According to Jeffrey Locke, former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services, the excuse to the legislature was that they "couldn't figure out how to work their computer system."

When I called Senator Therese Murray in 1998 to ask how many children had died in foster care in Massachusetts, her aide replied: "We don't have those statistics." At that time Senator Murray was the Senate Chair of the Committee on Health & Elderly Affairs, and therefore responsible to oversee the collection and filing of AFCARS data.

The "reasonable efforts" requirements were designed to address these issues by requiring the states child welfare agencies to have specific investigation and assessment policies to minimize frivolous removals, to provide "services" to address and ameliorate conditions that were detrimental to the child's well-being; to place children with relatives when removal from the home was absolutely necessary; and make efforts to reunite families in a timely fashion. Methods to audit and track compliance with federal requirements were also built in. The states were to establish "citizen review panels" comprised of a specifically designated representation of the population which would include not only members of collateral professional communities involved in child protection, but "parents, foster parents, and former foster children." Each state was to have at least three citizen review panels. The panels would essentially act as a standing jury of peers and would review CPS cases. Twenty years after P.L. 96- 272 went into effect the citizen review panels have never been established in most states.

Another means of creating accountability was to have the federal authority, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, conduct compliance audits, which are known as Section 427 reviews. The method of enforcement that Congress devised to ensure that the states followed the federal law was to provide incentive funds to the states that documented their compliance with the federal regulations. The states would self-certify compliance, but could be subjected to "periodic" 427 reviews by the Dept. of Health & Human Services. Were the states to find themselves in non-compliance they would simply return the incentive funds. It would seem that providing cash to agencies that are allowed to self-document compliance is a somewhat less than intelligent system. It would be interesting to track down exactly how much money the states child "protective" agencies have returned to the government because they found themselves in non-compliance. Gee, maybe this is rocket science.

Like CAPTA, P.L. 96-272 could only have worked if the federal government demanded compliance and meticulous accountability, and them imposed sanctions for non-compliance. Even better criminal charges for racketeering for intentional fraud. Mark Soler, director of the National Youth Law Center in California explained:

The Department of Health & Human Services has failed to promulgate meaningful regulations to implement the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. It has applied even the minimal federal regulations that were developed in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and only token implementation of the laws protecting children.

Even when HHS finds overwhelming evidence of lack of compliance during 427 reviews, no sanctions are imposed and they continue to keep the fed $$$ pouring in, in violation of their own regulations. Not so much as a slap on the hand or even token admonishment. Certainly explains how CPS developed their arrogance and contempt for any authority because there is none. Their confidence that they are free from the feds insisting on compliance with the law is well illustrated by the foster care numbers which increased dramatically after CAPTA began feeding federal dollars into the states child protection agencies, then dropped equally dramatically after the enactment of P.L.96-272, which was supposed to create more specific federal regulation and accountability. However, once the state agencies saw that the federal government was not enforcing compliance, the foster care numbers soared once again.

Michael Petit, Deputy Director of the Child Welfare League of America, stated in his testimony before Congress: "A 427 is a meaningless process for most of the states. It represents no kind of sanctions to the states whatsoever for non-compliance. Marcia Robinson Lowry told Congress: "States are passing HHS audits with systems in which no reasonable person could consider that children are being well treated. It is virtually impossible to fail a 427 audit.

The initial concept of "reasonable efforts" was the only conclusion that any rational person could come to: rather than disrupt children's lives, and traumatize them by seizing them from non- abusive situations and placing them with strangers (who are often no better, and sometimes far worse), assist families in overcoming their obstacles and problems by providing support and services. The idea never worked, though, because it has always been more profitable to too many to remove children rather than keep them at home. Rather than offer support and simple, practical services to families CPS forged contracts with vendors. Now private businesses, under the guise of "service providers", could mushroom into existence knowing that their sugar daddy, CPS, would provide a never-ending flow of coerced clients. The market potential is unlimited, potentially every mother, father, grandparent, and child in the country. Rather than offering practical, meaningful services that are germane to the families circumstances, CPS clients are ordered to engage in services with CPS-contracted vendors; special interest groups who are dependent on CPS for their income and profit by maintaining the levels of children in foster care, and whose interests are protected by a bureaucracy intent on securing it's own survival and protecting unlimited growth.

The extent of which CPS is allowed to continue to operate while being so far out of compliance with the existing state and federal laws is mind boggling. It would be a challenge to find any other agency in our countries history that operated in such gross and blatant violation of the law with absolutely no intervention from the administration. Tens of millions of tax dollars are being squandered on a system that is destroying families and causing lifelong emotional ruin to children and those are the lucky ones who live through it.

The most egregious area of outright criminal fraud is CPS's practice of filing their federally required documentation of compliance in secrecy through the courts. The federal foster care reimbursements are channeled through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. Each states child welfare agency enters into a contract with the federal government, which is referred to as their Title IV-E state plan. It is this contract that spells out the responsibilities that CPS must, by law, comply with in order to receive their federal funding. To document compliance with the fed regs CPS must file a form through the courts in each individual case. In Massachusetts these forms are referred to as a "29-C." 42 U.S. Code, ss 672 reads:

"These requirements are not mere formalities. The Finance Committee of Congress, in preparing its summary for final passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, stated; ` The Committee is aware of allegations that the judicial determination requirement (sic: that a judge makes a determination that a child needs to be removed from the home) can become a mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain federal funding. While this could occur in some instances, the Committee is unwilling to accept as a general proposition that the judiciaries of the States would so lightly treat a responsibility placed upon them by federal statute for the protection of children."

1980 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News: A judicial determination of those efforts (reasonable efforts, as defined in the Act) serves to closely examine, in the case of each individual child, whether reasonable efforts were made to keep the family intact. In accordance with the federal requirements the Massachusetts legislature enacted G.L. c.119 ss 29b, which requires all judges to certify that the Department of Social Services met the obligation grounded in the federal statute of making reasonable efforts to protect the child short of removing him or her from the parents, and, if the child was removed, making it possible for the child to return home in a timely manner. Rather than closely examining, in Massachusetts this grave responsibility is carried out by judges by rubber stamping stacks of 29c forms that simply contain three yes or no check boxes. In many instances making three check marks is even too much work for Massachusetts judges and they rubber stamp the forms while leaving them blank, never mind actually verifying that the reasonable efforts were made. In return for these forms DSS receives it's federal money.

The three questions are:

1. Continuation in the home is contrary to the well being of the child?

2. Reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement of the child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his/her home?

3. Reasonable efforts have been made to make it possible for the child to return to his parent/guardian?

I discussed this issue a few years ago with Veronica Melendez at the Children's Bureau (the federal authority). She told me that the federal government was under the impression that all parties were present in the court room at the time of the filing of the 29c's, so that the parents attorneys had the opportunity to object, rebut, or verify the reasonable efforts. In reality, no one sees the federal forms except the judges and a representative of DSS's main legal department. Attorneys ask us how we ever got our hands on the 29c forms, as we have never yet met an attorney who has seen the forms, let alone have been notified of the filing hearing. We even have forms on which the no boxes were checked, yet the children were still removed from their homes and federal funds collected for them.

By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is defrauding the federal government with intent. CPS should be subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys Office. They should be held liable for the restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent collection of federal funds under the False Statements and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42 U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title IV-E. I have discussed this issue with the Inspector Generals Office and they felt it could possible be prosecuted under RICO, yet they have also failed to act, possibly because it isn't just CPS/DSS who is committing federal fraud, but also the judges who are signing the documents.

In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L. 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the fraud being committed in the name of child protection, and stated:

What has been demonstrated here is that you have a system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other way. You have a system that is not only out of control, it's illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in is state sponsored child abuse, who is really making the money

By Nev Moore © 2002 Published 10. 17. 02 at 19:25 Sierra Time
DSS: Social Engineers of the Brave New World By Nev Moore - President, Justice for Families January 2001


Although this article may sound extreme to many readers at first glance, please consider it carefully. So far, these programs will probably have had no effect on you personally, because most of these programs apply only to the poor for now. The stated intent is to expand it to everyone. The author of the article has had personal experiences with DSS and has helped countless others over the past three years.

You can discover more about the home visitors program in Massachusetts (and its secret, intimate database of the mothers it visits) in our August 2000 issue or at our Internet archives at healthy families.

The staggering financial incentives that have corrupted DSS policies and practices were featured in the May 2000 edition of Massachusetts News in the article, Adoption Bonuses: the Money Behind the Madness.

It explained the financial motivation for DSS to snatch children and quickly force them into adoption. Previously, Ed Oliver had written a revealing article that explained how consulting firms are hired to maximize the revenue of DSS. These pieces tell why DSS does what it does. Easy enough for even the most uninformed citizen to understand. The questioning mind might wonder why the federal government continues to enable this terribly dysfunctional and destructive system that harms and kills more children than it saves. This leads us to the next phase: the madness behind the federal money.

It's no surprise to any of us (is it?) that there are many people who will sell their souls for a little bit of dirty money. Under the label of liberal, these brave new socialists are control freaks who are working out their own inner feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy by dominating others. These are the soldiers, passive-aggressive drones who tell you: We're here to help you - whether you like it or not. It's easy to seduce small-minded, bitter people by offering a little money and unlimited power. The power to harm - without consequences - is irresistible to many.

Behind the money is a faction of people who are intent on bringing to fruition Aldous Huxley's nightmare vision of a brave new world: a homogenized population of compliant, controllable, government-raised citizens.

Reported in Detail Massachusetts News reported all of this in detail in its August 2000 edition, including the work of Dr. C. Henry Kemp, Richard Krugman, who was chairman of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1991. (See home visitation on our archives.)

The elite behind this movement are narcissistic men and women who wish to see the United States under a totalitarian regime which, of course, will not apply to them, only to the general population. The architects and engineers of this plan are, in reality, about as liberal as Pol Pot or Idi Amin. The plan is being implemented through the bill entitled Goals 2000 which was enacted in 1994.

It's the end result of thirty years of work by others who work out of the public eye. Goals 2000 was presented as education reform. Considering that our kids graduate from high school not knowing how to read or write, on the surface it sounds like a good thing. It sounds as if the education system will be reformed to bring back higher standards, which would be the logical inference. But, the real intent of Goals 2000 is to dumb down our children, rather than to raise their intellectual level.

Goals 2000 is about much more than just education reform. It is the blueprint of a plan to take control of our nation's children - the next generation of adults. A chilling clue to its true intent is that, among its proponents it is sub-titled: the Restructuring of American Society - from Cradle to Grave. The government will be the parent of every citizen born in the United States. Each citizen will have an electronic portfolio that begins at birth and will track the person throughout his life. Their education and future place in the work force will be determined by the government. The schools will subject all children to psychological testing. Every parent will have a social worker who will make home visits, conduct a family assessment, and record risk factors. Risk factors include not enough toys, too many toys, birth of a sibling, death or divorce in the family, homeschooling, etc.

The unholy trinity that is enforcing Goals 2000 is: Child Protective Services (CPS), known as DSS in Massachusetts, the Home Visitation Program (see the August 2000 edition of MassNews), and Outcome Based Education (OBE).

The public is deliberately being kept in the dark as to how these elements are connected because the original proponents of this plan stated that it must be implemented quietly. Why is the intent of OBE to dumb down our children? Because a dumbed down citizen will not have the capability of independent thinking, will be less likely to challenge, and is therefore more easily controlled. OBE is also responsible for eroding values, boundaries, and morals. The schools, while paying lip-service to the need for discipline and structure in child rearing, in practice undermine parental authority and any form of discipline, self-restraint, or values that parents try to instill in their children. Children are being taught that they must accept the state's politically correct ideas rather than their families values and that their parents do not have the right to discipline them or make any decisions for them.

OBE amounts to thought reform - and thought reform is mind control. The December 1999 edition of WorldNetDaily contained an excellent review by Samuel L. Blumenfeld, a scholar who lives in Waltham, on The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, a book written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. Blumenfeld wrote: Anyone who has any lingering hope that what educators have been doing is a result of error, accident, or stupidity will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.

Example Close to Home An example of deliberate dumbing down occurred close to home recently when my assistant, Stacie Hevener, noticed that her 9-year-old daughter's graded homework contained misspelled words that the teacher had not corrected. When Stacie called the teacher to ask her why the spelling errors were not corrected, the teacher said it was not important.

While OBE and DSS stories initially sound nonsensical and far-fetched, all logic and reason turned upside down, they fall into place when considered in the context of implementing a socialist agenda. To gain control of the populace the government must break down the existing systems that give people strength, character, and community cohesion: family, marriage, faith, and intellect. This explains the puzzling fact that DSS is not targeting the drug-ridden ghettos where many families do live in filth and chaos and many children are truly neglected and abused. Those families are already broken down, and that is what DSS role is - to act as the jackboot's who will enforce compliance by the citizens and, ultimately, break down the institution of family until it is eliminated completely leaving individuals isolated, vulnerable and dependent on the government.

So, instead of saving children who are abused, neglected, and abandoned, DSS targets Christians, homeschoolers, and families with strong marriages where two parents are committed to raising their children to be decent and self-sufficient, with a solid foundation of values and the capability to think independently. Most of us still believe that is the caring and responsible way to raise children, but this is exactly what the government does not want, as that takes the control away from Big Brother. During the Communist takeovers in Russia and China, the aristocracy and the intellectuals were murdered en masse as they would be the people most likely to see the larger picture and be capable of organizing to halt it. By the time the average working citizen, distracted by the details of daily survival, sees what's happening and stands to defend his freedom, it's too late. It's interesting to add the gun control issue into the equation, as disarming citizens is a key factor for successful government control. We have plenty of gun-control laws already, the problem is that only law-abiding citizens follow the law, and those aren't the people we need to worry about. Obviously, a person who has no compunction about shooting a stranger in the head is not worried about violating other laws.

There is no question that there is a powerful anti-father agenda in this country today, but we need to recognize that the anti-father agenda is a component of the anti-family agenda. The vicious feminist movement not only attacks men, but also attacks women who desire to be in a marriage and raise a family with their husbands. By removing husbands, the government can create isolation and vulnerability in women, as well as making them financially dependent on the state. Children may be questioned about whether their parents ever argue or yell. Any conflict or disagreement between spouses is documented as domestic violence and opens up a whole new funding floodgate.

Documented in Our Case Files Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating can see copies of service plans from our case files which state parents will not yell and parents will not have loud or angry arguments. All people disagree at some time or another. Most people, at some time, become angry, argue and even raise their voices. Conflict is part of the human condition. Children have witnessed their parents argue for millions of years. It is not always comfortable, but not necessarily damaging either. Perhaps, by witnessing things we learn how to do things differently. By grossly stretching the boundaries of definition for domestic violence, DSS has managed to remove thousands of men from their homes and from the lives of their children. There is plenty of sound, scientific literature on the negative effects of fatherless households on children, and the degree to which fatherlessness contributes to the emotional and behavioral decline of children. That is the goal of DSS, backed by the feminists.

This begins to explain why the funding to combat domestic violence is channeled through DSS. It is an anti-family, anti-Christian, pro-feminist, pro-gay organization. This is far, far removed from the original purpose of protecting children from abuse and serious neglect that place a child at imminent risk of serious harm. Their function is to act as social engineers enforcing a plan of social restructuring through coercion, threats, and intimidation by seizing or threatening to seize, our children. Remember, it is DSS who the police, the schools, the day care centers and the doctors call to turn parents in, not necessarily for acts of abuse or neglect, but because the parents are resistant to enforced government programs. Enforced programs such as home visitation, parent training, drugging or unnecessary vaccinations, explicit sexual instruction or participation in batterers treatment by parents. The threat of having your children seized, or never seeing them again, is a powerful weapon to force citizens to submit to government control.

While breaking down the intellectual development and moral fiber of our children at school, the schools are also subversively intruding into our homes. Many shocked parents are reporting bizarre and invasive questionnaires given to their children in school. Children may be asked if their parents argue or yell, if the parents drink, if daddy travels on business, or if there has been a death in the family and if any of the above frighten or upset the child. These are all considered risk factors in the Goals 2000 family assessment and will red flag a family for DSS intervention. Home visitation social workers will also note allergies, mother being overweight, baby crying, and letting kids stay up too late as risk factors.

YMCA Has Joined in When our daughter was ten, her school called and told me that the YMCA was offering an after school adventure course on the grounds of their summer camp. It would involve the rope course and other outdoor, physical activities. This was offered during the winter so we thought it would be a great chance for her to beat the winter indoor doldrums. The YMCA sent home paperwork for us to complete. I was expecting the usual forms for contact information, emergency contacts, medical information. Instead I received a four-page interrogation. After name/address/child's age, the third question was: Has there been a history of foster care placement? Some of the rest of the questions asked if any of the following applied to our child:

v Poor attitude towards authority

v Swearing

v Yelling

v Argumentative

v Listens to first request (are there really children who do this?)

v Family history of drug, alcohol, or tobacco use

v Poor choice of friends

v Please include any police involvement or arrests (of child)

v Age at first arrest

v DSS contact

v Fire setting

v Diagnosed mental health issues

v Sexual identity issues

Bear in mind that this questionnaire was for 9- and 10-year-old little girls. When I said that I felt the form to be inappropriate and invasive and that I would not fill out anything other than necessary information, our daughter was denied participation.

Licensing of Parents In addition to the Home Visitation program, which brings the government in control of the child before school age, Goals 2000 is being implemented through parent licensing, parent-teacher compacts, and parental report cards issued by the schools. These programs, under various names, are either in place or being proposed across the nation. Parental Licensing is still a point of controversial discussion, although legislation to pass it into law has been submitted in other states.

The government will determine who may have children and who may not. Jack C. Westman, a psychiatrist at the University of Wisconsin and author of Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse?, explains. A parent license would place the responsibility on parents to be competent. The burden of proof would be on the parents to demonstrate that they are not abusing and neglecting their children rather than on the state to prove through quasi-legal proceedings that parents are unfit after they have damaged their children. So, parents will be in the position of having to disprove a negative, and having to prove that they will not commit future acts.

As one of the most prominent advocates for parental licensing, he adds, We must create a new paradigm in which parenthood is a privilege. Most parents feel that being a parent is a privilege, a gift from God that gives our lives meaning and purpose. But, should it be an entitlement given to us by the government? Does this mean that some citizens will be deemed workers, and others breeders? If the government will select who may propagate and who may not, how many steps away are we from mandatory sterilization of those deemed unfit by the government, or those who do not conform to a societal ideal established by the government? Or will we allow to breed to provide children to others?

David Lykken, author of Antisocial Personalities, and a strong advocate of parental licensing, calls for the immediate removal of newborns from unlicensed mothers so that they may be placed directly into foster homes and quickly adopted.

Who will determine who gets the privilege of a license? Will it be used as a perk for those who go along and do not resist the socialist regime? Who will make the determination of who may have children and who may not? Will it be done randomly by a computer? The Illinois legislation established that not having a license would be grounds for the social workers to remove the children. An interesting sidebar is that although parental licensing advocates are adamant about the issue, they do not feel that it is necessary for social workers or foster parents to have licenses.

Parent Training Paving the way towards parent licensing is the Parent Training program, also enacted in 1994, which is already firmly entrenched. In the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994, local education agencies are required to reserve a percentage of their Title I, section 1118, Parental Involvement funds for programs that teach parenting skills, not to teens in school, but to parents who have children enrolled in the schools.

Schools are directed to coordinate and integrate their parental involvement strategies with programs like the Parents as Teachers program that was initiated in Missouri and became mandatory for all Missouri school districts in 1984. The program, which is a home/school partnership that begins at birth has spread to 44 states, including Massachusetts. In this mandatory program, parents are trained by parent educator trainers (PET's - can you stand it!). The program is based on the offensive assumption that all parents are in need of training and the majority are at risk. Which explains the condescending, overbearing attitude that we see in DSS.

The PET's use a Goals 2000 assessment tool called a risk factor matrix which includes 12 categories of at risk parents. As there is no code to indicate a normal, well-functioning family, any family can fit into the at risk category. Some of the questions from the Parents as Teachers workbook are:

v Does mother respond to child's vocalizations with verbal response?

v Is mother's speech distinct, clear, and audible?

v Mother occasionally allows child to engage in messy types of play.

v Mother does not scold child.

v At least ten books are present and visible during a PET visit.

v Parent comments verbally on child's hunger cues.

v Parent does not offer food while child looks down or turns away.

v Parent does not compress lips, grimace, or frown when making eye contact with child.

v Parent verbalizes to child within five seconds after child has vocalized.

v Parent does not talk baby talk to child.

v Child stops displaying distress cues within fifteen seconds after parents soothing attempts.

Other observations to be documented by PET's include:

v Does child express distress during grooming (hair brushing, face washing, nail clipping)?

v Does child withdraw from splashing water?

v Does child have difficulty standing in line?

v Does child avoid certain tastes or smells?

v Is child a picky eater?

v Child seeks all kinds of movement.

v Child doesn't seem to notice when face or hands are messy.

v Does child jump from one activity to another?

v Does child leave clothing twisted on body?

v Child appears not to hear what parent says.

v Child watches people move around room.

v Does child squint in bright light?

Anyone who holds the same Ph.D. that I do, a Ph.D. in common sense, will immediately recognize these symptoms as the pathology of any child. However, the government agents who are using this workbook to assess your adequacy as a parent claim that these behaviors indicate child abuse and neglect. Perpetrated by you - the parents. They also include passive abuse which includes neglecting to fill out school forms.

Worcester School Has Parental Report Cards To justify the need for parent training programs, the schools have initiated Parent-Teacher Compacts and parental report cards. Some compacts are simple, others can consist of dozens of pages of invasive questioning. Douglas Elementary School in Worcester, MA sends out a compact for parents to sign that states that they will ensure their children get to school on time, well-rested and well-nourished in addition to monitoring their homework and leisure time. Who is going to judge if you have adequately performed these duties? If the schools do not sent out the questionnaires they will lose their federal aid.

The irony is that the federal aid is only channeled to districts that need it because they are considered disadvantaged. So, parents in wealthier districts will be exempt from this governmental intrusion and judgment and will not face admonishment if their children ate candy bars for breakfast, or are not well-rested or the parents forgot to sign the orange homework folder each night.

In some school districts the wording has already changed from compact to contract, and mandates that all parents contribute a specified number of volunteer hours to the school. This may include baby-sitting for school employees.

Parent report cards document their compliance with the parent/school compact. One parent report card that we have obtained includes the following areas and questions: (on the report card, a check mark indicates that the parent is successfully nurturing the home/school connection:

v Attendance: Children should be absent only for the following reasons: illness, death of an immediate family member, observance of a religious holiday, or extreme family emergency.

v Punctuality: the parent has the child to school on time each day.

v Student health & safety: Has the child eaten healthy meals and snacks; dresses child appropriately for the weather; registers child for school aftercare program.

v Parent-school communications: parent supports school policies; parent attends school functions; completes and returns school documents; has child return completed homework each day.

v Parent involvement: signs and returns the daily parent homework checklist; attends parent-teacher conferences; volunteers in classroom; praises child often; follows through on school's suggested plans for child's success; spends quality time with child.

Given the extremely interpretive nature of the questions, who could we trust enough to make these assessments? Why should we be assessed when we haven't done anything wrong? Do we really want to give government agents the right to assess us as human beings and as moms and dads for interpretive social reasons and in the absence of acts of maltreatment towards our children? Who is to judge if the time you spend with your child is quality time, or if you have dressed them appropriately? Is this before or after they lost their hats and mittens between your home and the school? Is that sugary fruit juice and chemically sprayed celery a healthy snack? I know that I, for one, can never remember to sign the orange homework folder, but then I failed all the other questions, too. My child definitely cannot stand still in a line, and, I confess, she absolutely squints in bright light, so I might as well just turn myself in to a parental training camp, which is where parents who fail their report cards in Illinois have to go. I'd better start packing right away.

The recent case in Massachusetts about the boy who wanted to wear girls clothes to school and use the girls bathroom illustrates the hypocrisy of this system. When we teach children about homosexual sex in school, we cannot pretend to be surprised when they assert their right to act it out. At the same time, the national media has been giving exposure to another story about a boy who was taken away from his parents by social services because they allowed him to wear girls clothes to school. In the Massachusetts case the lesbian Judge Linda Giles wrote: This court trusts that exposing children to diversity at an early age serves the important social goals of increasing their ability to tolerate differences and teaching them respect for everyone's experience, in the Brave New World out there.

How does DSS fit in? They are the enforcers who will remove your children if you don't go along. A state police sergeant recently told me that DSS is the ultimate authority over all issues regarding children in Massachusetts. Experience and statistics tell us that DSS is neither a caring nor safe caretaker of our children. When DSS clients call the legislators for help they are told: We can't help you, we have no power over DSS. Yet, I have a letter from U.S. Health & Human Services in Washington that says it is indeed the state legislators responsibility to hold DSS accountable. The buck is passing faster here than a three-card Monty game in Times Square.

In the not-so-brave New World of Goals 2000, which already has much of it in effect, the government will dictate how we think and behave, how we interact in our marriages and relationships, even what tone of voice we use. Literature on battered women's syndrome teaches us that batterers are motivated by the need to control. This is accomplished over time by tearing down the victim's individuality, self-esteem and free will until the person no longer resists or attempts to assert any independence. This includes their thinking process. The victim becomes apathetic, submissive, and compliant - robot-like. This insidious tearing down process is also the foundation of brainwashing and hostage taking techniques and is clearly seen in the coercive government intrusion and control that we are seeing in this country today: the insidious removal of our free will.


The Petition

For The Sanctity And The Protection of Families And Children

As a citizen of the of the United States of America I hereby petition the Congress of the United States of America under article I of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. This petition is to be construed as a formal Petition to the Government for Redress of Grievances and do here by Declare the following.

The history of the present Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations against the inherent sovereignty of the American family, designed to undermine the authority and control of parents over their children and to deprive their children of their inherent birthright.

Our nation's parents and children labor under burdensome state-sanctioned violations of their inalienable rights, and of their enumerated rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America:

The right to the free exercise of their religion. Children are removed for various religious practices including reading the Bible, disciplining with spanking and home-schooling.

The right to free speech. Many parents are ordered by the courts not to speak publicly about the violations of rights that they and their children suffer at the hands of the State or in court-ordered custody arrangements. Others have their children held hostage to the demands of CPS workers that they silence their public outcry against the injustices perpetrated against them and their children, with visitations being denied until they comply.

The right to freedom of the press. Parents and children have been ordered by the Court to remove all Internet web sites that publicize the injustices perpetrated against them by CPS (Child Protection Services and all other child welfare agencies by whatever name they are known) agencies and the Family Court. Flyers published at the parents' own expense have been ordered removed from local businesses by CPS agents. Parents have been denied the right to purchase and publish advertising in local papers requesting other abused families to contact them.

The right to peaceably assemble. Parents have been penalized by CPS agencies when they gather with other falsely accused parents and become pro-active. There are documented cases where, in open court, CPS representatives have questioned parents about membership in these groups and used that information against other member parents.

The right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Parents' petitions to elected representatives at the local, state, and federal levels go unanswered and unresolved while their and their children's rights are casually trampled by CPS agencies. Our representatives tell us the CPS agents are protected by immunity and there is nothing anyone can do. Our pleas are ignored by the courts. Our funds are drained and we lack the resources or the availability of competent legal representation to take our petitions to higher courts. Our cries and the cries of our children fall on deaf ears.

The right to keep and bear arms. Thousands of parents daily are being denied the right to keep and bear arms under the domestic violence laws. They are threatened, intimidated, and coerced into accepting false plea bargains of child abuse, which then costs them their right to own firearms, even though they are not convicted felons. This is unconscionable.

The right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. While nobody can enter someone's home and simply confiscate their television, CPS agencies routinely enter a family's home without probable cause, without warrants, without court orders and many times with force and casually remove the children to places unknown without any evidence of abuse or neglect. This happens three thousand times a day and the parents have no recourse. With the children in the custody of the state, and with possession being nine-tenths of the law, it can take years to get their children back despite the fact that, in the absence of evidence, probable cause, or a warrant, these children have been taken illegally.

The right to be free from Warrants issued, but on probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmations and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. CPS agents and police officers, as a matter of routine, steal children without warrants, and search homes for evidence without warrants or evidence of any crime. This is all done in the name of protecting the children.

These warrantless searches are used by CPS agencies to obtain access to the children and interview them on the spot in a separate room, completely disregarding the trauma they inflict on the children and with complete disregard for the right of parents to oversee and protect their children. These children are often strip searched and their naked bodies photographed. If the parents object to such intrusions and interviews, they are accused of hiding something and this assertion of their rights is presumed to be proof of guilt.

They conduct their warranted searches for children illegally, by looking in places where children could not possibly be hidden in their illegal endeavors to obtain more evidence to manipulate against innocent parents.

The right to not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Parents are routinely ordered by the court to cooperate with CPS agencies, which means to disclose information that is often twisted and manipulated into lies and is presented as fact to the court. They are never informed by any CPS agent that what they say will be used against them. They are court-ordered to sign releases of private medical and psychiatric information which once again is a violation of their right not to be a witness against themselves. Failure to sign these releases results in either contempt charges or the court ordering the information released against the parent's will.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are ?held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Parental rights are effectively terminated when the CPS agent leaves the home with the children. This does not protect the right to due process. Parents are automatically denied the right to be present at interviews and examinations or to even speak with their children. If they have visitation, they are forbidden to speak about the case, or to initiate a hug lest the visitation be immediately terminated. They have no say in any aspect of their children's life, who will care for them and how, or in the treatments the children will receive.

The children's right to due process is also violated by these actions. To all appearances, they are being punished because they are being denied access to their beloved parents, to their family, their home, their friends. They are patted on the head and told this is for their own good. When they act out their anger and fear due to the State's ill-advised action, they are drugged into compliance against their wishes and the wishes of their parents, all at the unilateral whim of a case worker.

Parents have been ordered out of the courtroom during hearings where the decisions about their children are being made, leaving them without a voice in their defense or in the disposition of the children, or even the means to cross examine witnesses and impeach testimony. Parents are denied the admission of evidence in their favor - many times under the guise of protecting the child's confidentiality - and are subjected to hearsay evidence against them which is accorded the unjustified status of truth. Their children are removed from their homes and placed with strangers where they are at far greater risk of abuse than they were at home. Parental rights are terminated and the child is never seen or heard from again, all without due process.

Parents are often not notified of hearings pertaining to their case or their child. When they don't show up, they have no say in the process, can present no defense and cannot answer any accusations. Many times when parents are notified of hearings, they are told ?it is only a formality, you don't have to be there.' Once again they have been lied to, to their own and their child's detriment. If they are notified, it can be as short as one hour before the scheduled hearing.

Parents are denied access to their children without having been found guilty of any crime against them. This is often denied arbitrarily, and often as punishment for the parents' refusing to admit guilt or accept a plea bargain. Not only is this a denial of due process, it is cruel and unusual punishment for both the parents and the child.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are ?held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The process of intervention is fundamentally unfair and a gross violation of both the child's and the parents' rights.

The right to a trial by jury. In all cases of Dependency & Neglect, where a child can be ordered removed from the home, where the parent can be ordered to comply with expensive and dubious treatment plans, a parent is denied the right to a trial by jury. This is unconscionable as the very heart and soul of the parent, his progeny, is at risk and left to the whims of a Family Court judge, who is, in far too many cases, predisposed against the parent. It may be allowed during termination hearings, but this is too rare. A trial by jury must be allowed for all Family court proceedings to protect the rights of both the parents and the children. Many times, children are removed from their parents to the detriment of the child. Juries could provide a process of checks and balances against this.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are ?held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and the inherent right to have free and unfettered access to all evidence and witnesses against them. Accused parents are denied the right to know and face their accusers, be they anonymous reporters, mandated reporters, or the child himself. Parents are denied access to many forms of so-called evidence against them under the guise of ?confidentiality' laws. They are often denied access to their children to determine if any disclosures have been obtained through questionable tactics such as intimidation, deceit, the administration of drugs to the child, and the threat of never seeing their parents again unless they disclose abuse.

Additionally, the motive of many child abuse reporters is never investigated, resulting in many custody disputes being resolved through false reports against the other parent - as many as 80% of these reports. The accused must have the right to confront the witnesses against him.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are ?held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Parents often find that the witnesses they subpoena do not appear for court hearings, including social workers, Guardians ad Litem, and therapists. The court sanctions these violations without allowing the parents the remedies they need to compel these witnesses to appear.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are ?held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense and the inherent right to effective counsel for his defense. Again, we are dealing with an important issue, THE most important issue to most parents; their children. A parent is denied court appointed counsel UNLESS his rights are being terminated or he is facing criminal charges. Too sadly, most charges do not meet the burden of proof for criminal charges and CPS agencies file charges in civil - or family - court. This is an illegal ruse to avoid the fact that they do not have a legitimate case against the parent. By the time parental rights are being terminated, too much time has passed, too many violations of the parents' and the children's rights have been perpetrated and too many opportunities have been missed due to lack of competent counsel. It becomes a slam-dunk for the CPS agency.

Additionally, most cases are lost, not because the parent was guilty, but because there is virtually no attorney out there who will effectively represent a defendant. By their own admission, attorneys have too much to lose by presenting a vigorous and effective defense. They advise their clients to accept a false plea bargain, to cooperate and give up all their rights, just to make their own jobs easier.

Many parents, having been drained of funds and unable to find competent counsel, attempt pro-se defenses, only to find the courts biased against them. Still others look for help outside the Bar Associations only to find that while their non-licensed counsel may be truly competent, he is not allowed to represent them in court.

The amendment states "Assistance of Counsel" and does not include the qualification that said counsel be licensed to practice law.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are ?held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Removing a child from a loving and non-abusive home is cruel and unusual punishment, for the child and for the parents. Doing so without due process exacerbates the injustice. These children ostensibly have a voice through the GAL, but in substance, their voice is ignored by all who profess to protect them, and their voice is silenced to their parents whose hands are tied to protect their beloved child. This unwarranted and unsubstantiated separation is cruel and unusual punishment whether it comes before or after a conviction or without a conviction. The substance of the action is to punish.

Alternatively, the CPS agencies and the courts routinely leave truly abused children in the homes of their abusers, ignoring the pleas of the children and non-custodial parents to protect the children from the ongoing abuse, be they in State custody or in a divorced parent's home. These are the children who die, and CPS agencies knew of the abuse and did nothing to prevent it.

The States actively cover up the abuse of children they have in their custody and there are no provisions for independent investigations into such complaints. The children suffer at the expense of CPS agencies.

Even when a parent is not criminally charged, they are held to answer' for charges that are, in substance, the same as if they had been criminally charged. If the substance is the same as a crime, then the protections must likewise be the same.

The right to decide whether to have children or not, without fear of having those children forcibly or unwillingly removed without true due process of law. Under the law, parents whose parental rights have previously terminated involuntarily are now subject to having their rights terminated on any other existing children as well as any child yet to be born, without due process, and without any reason given. This is unconscionable.

Additionally, the state cannot mandate that a person have a child, nor can it mandate that they do not have a child. Children are part of a family, the family is an institution that predates any government, and has rights that Government cannot intrude on. The family is as inviolate as a man's home. Our Government has displayed a casual disregard for this institution which is the backbone of our society. As families are destroyed willy nilly, so our society crumbles.

If the State wishes to raise children, let the State bear its own children. Since this is impossible, the State has no right to interfere with family matters unless they present a real danger to the child.

The right to raise said children with the values and teachings that the parents see fit, whether or not the State agrees with those values or teachings. Children are being removed from homes for home-schooling, for Bible reading, for having guns in the home, for having their children born at home, for teaching the Constitution, and for any number of reasons that deal with the values and teaching the parents chose to impart to their youngsters.

The State has no right to remove children from non-abusive homes regardless of the State's position on certain teachings or beliefs.

The right of a child to be raised by blood relatives rather than the State. The State does not make a good parent, it has no vested interest in the welfare of the child, and cannot love and nurture a child. In the tragic event that a child must be removed from their home to protect their safety, the best way to mitigate the resultant trauma is to place the child with blood relatives. This is the child's RIGHT.

This is also the right of the blood relatives, be they grandparents, aunts or uncles, or siblings. Theirs is the vested interest, theirs is the ability to comfort and protect that child better than any State agency, because they have a blood tie to that child that will serve to genuinely nurture and love the child. Placing the child with any but a blood relative should only be done as a last resort.

Additionally, blood relatives should not be required to meet the same requirements as strangers who apply to be foster parents or adoptive parents. The blood tie should suffice along with the presumption of innocence. The blood relatives will be more likely to have the best interests of the child at heart, much more so than strangers or the State would. To require more is a violation of the integrity of the family bond and patently immoral.

If the child is to be adopted, blood relatives should have the first option, and they should be given the child in all cases except for previously proven abuse or neglect against the relative who wishes to adopt. To give a child to strangers is cruel to the child and to the blood relatives who have been denied the right to raise their own kin.

The right to refuse unwanted or unneeded medical or psychiatric evaluations, treatments or drugs, for themselves and for their children. Parents whose children are taken often find their children are placed on dangerous or questionable drug therapies, subjected to offensive and unnecessary medical examinations by practitioners whose expertise in certain areas is questionable, and forced to undergo traumatic therapies designed to help the child disclose nonexistent abuse. The child's fragile psyche is manhandled and manipulated until the child succumbs to the demands of the interrogator. They are exposed to adult sexual situations under the questionable guise of therapy and their natural inhibitions are brutally torn from them in the attempt to get a disclosure.

Their natural reactions to the separation trauma from their parents are misinterpreted as signs of sexual abuse and they are hammered to disclose.

Normal, happy, healthy children become traumatized drug-addicts, and dysfunctional while in state care, and the state erroneously treats the child as if the trauma was inflicted in the home instead of triggered by their very actions of taking the child from his parents.

When the parents plead to have their children back and state that they never had these problems at home, the CPS agencies refuse to listen and continue on their destructive course of intervention.

These agencies use the courts to order the parents into therapies designed to ?treat' their nonexistent domestic relations problems; therapies in which the parent must admit guilt before being allowed to complete it successfully. Non-abusive, falsely accused parents must either falsely admit guilt or refuse to comply and risk losing their children permanently.

CPS agencies actually recommend medications and dosages, in some cases requiring parents to take Antabuse and increasing the dosage over and above what the doctor prescribed causing toxic side effects. In other cases, they put traumatized children on Ritalin and other drugs in an attempt to control the child's behavior problems that have been caused by the agency's intervention.

Most parents vehemently oppose these drug therapies in vain. The child learns to turn to a pill to solve his problems which cannot, in any way, be portrayed as a good thing. The parent must have the right to choose whether or not their children will be examined, treated and medicated.

The right of parents to select therapists, mental health professionals and medical practitioners of their own choosing, for themselves and for their children. Parents and children are ordered by the courts to attend therapies, and do not have the option of choosing who will treat them. The therapists they must go to are often ?whores' of the CPS agency and will produce any diagnosis that agency wants or risk losing that source of income.

If a parent/child rightly suspects the evaluation might not be unbiased, they will further taint it by not trusting the therapist.

The true issue is that the patient must be able to trust their health care provider, and ordering them to providers that they don't trust or don't agree philosophically with is a violation of their right to choose their own providers, whether the State is paying for these services or not.

Furthermore, many of these ?whores' casually disclose private information to unauthorized sources, leaving another reason for not trusting them.

The right of children to be with their parents and of parents to be with their children. This speaks for itself. When two people have a child, a bond exists that cannot be severed easily, either for the parents or for the child. To attempt to sever it or to interfere with it is the ultimate cruelty. So harsh are the repercussions to the interference with that bond, that any intervention MUST be based on evidence, not supposition, of abuse.

This means both parents, under all circumstances. To deny a child access to either parent, or to restrict that access is a violation of that special bond, and an act of extreme cruelty.

We are not ?breeders' for the state. Our children do not belong to the state. They are OURS! We bear the ultimate responsibility for them, and the state has no right to interfere for anything less than real danger to the health or safety of the child.

The right to be free from threats, duress, coercion, or intimidation in their dealings with the State; to be assured that their children will not be held hostage to the illegal demands of the State. Parents are routinely subjected to threats, duress, and coercion during interviews with CPS agencies. Their children are held hostage for a guilty plea. They are told they will never see their children unless they confess. Innocent people have nothing to confess, but this is irrelevant to the CPS agents.

Children are also told that unless they disclose, they will not see their parents again. This emotional manipulation of children, some who are as young as three years old, is cruel and brutal. Children are torn between believing the agents who say they will only help mommy and daddy and not throw them in jail, and telling the truth and running the risk of not seeing their parents again. If they make a false disclosure, the parents are put in prison and the children realize that the agents lied to them, further traumatizing them.

Such tactics are torture, to parents and to children. Without the presumption of innocence and accountability, any agent of the State can brutalize families with impunity.

The right to privacy; to refuse to sign releases or to have private information forcibly taken from them without their permission. Court orders to sign releases is a violation of personal privacy. This allows any number of people associated with CPS agencies to have access to personal medical and psychological information on the parents or the children. This is a gross violation of the inherent right to privacy and the right not to be a witness against oneself, and violates the patient/doctor confidentiality.

The right to refuse to participate in unwanted or unneeded treatment plans. All treatment plans proposed by the CPS agencies do not have a clearly defined termination point. Parents are given hoops to jump through, and when they do it - expecting to get their children back - they are only given more hoops to jump through. CPS agencies can keep hapless parents dancing to their tune indefinitely.

Most treatment plans are irrelevant to the circumstances that precipitated the intervention. Sober parents are ordered to alcohol and drug treatments, and are required to submit to random urinalysis. Nonviolent parents are ordered to anger management classes and domestic violence classes. All parents are ordered to parenting classes that often teach ineffective discipline techniques and oppose spanking. Parents cannot 'pass' these classes unless they admit non-existent guilt and comply with the suggested techniques, whether those techniques violate the family's values or not. This is an undisguised attempt to maintain control over the family as long as possible, and is also an illegal ?fishing expedition' to gain more ?evidence' to use against the parents.

Is it any wonder that parents are reluctant to comply with treatment plans?

The right to refuse to contract and to place themselves in debt at the order of the state. The right to contract also implies the right to refuse to contract. When the court orders therapies, examinations, classes, drug testing, etc. they are forcing a parent to contract with various agencies against his will, and forcing him to incur unwanted, unneeded and/or unaffordable debt. It also forces action that may be against the parent's values and beliefs, or forces punishment/treatment without a finding of guilt. This ties up funds that could be available for his defense and limits his ability to protect his and his children's rights. To force anyone to incur debt, without having been found to have committed a crime or breached a contract by a competent court of law, is tantamount to stealing. Families are bankrupted daily by these actions.

The right to be legally protected from slanderous or libelous reports against them; and the right to be able to seek real retribution for any such violations against their character. When a parent's name is entered on a ?registry' of child abusers, without having been convicted of the crime of child abuse, it publicly presents this person as a though he were a convicted criminal and has the effect of legally slandering and libeling his character. This registry is accessed by employers, schools, police agencies, and even neighbors. People assume that a name on the registry means a conviction. Even parents who have never been found guilty of child abuse/neglect have their names entered on the registry for the mere suspicion of abuse/neglect, whether founded or not. The presence of a person's name on the registry is stigmatizing in the extreme, especially if the person is innocent.

The process of placing a person's name on a registry has no procedural safeguards, nor is it employed only after due process, in order to protect the rights of the persons listed and is therefore facially unconstitutional.

A false report of child abuse is in and of itself slanderous and libelous in nature. There are numerous documented cases of an irate neighbor or one party in a custody dispute using a false report of child abuse to get even or to resolve a disputed custody issue in their favor. The existing laws designed to punish such malicious actions have no teeth and the damaged party has, in substance and in practice, no recourse against the offender. Prosecutors refuse to prosecute these cases.

These malicious reports invariably cost the victims their reputations, thousands of dollars in their defense and deny them access to their children. The subject children are denied the necessary contact with their parents and are traumatized, making the children victims of this malice, too.

Mandated reporters have taken to turning virtually everything over to CPS agencies, whether the incident or circumstances can reasonably be construed to be abuse or not. This is a cowardly effort to cover their own backsides at the expense of innocent families. These mandated reporters can get away with this because of the absolute immunity they enjoy against making a false report. They have no motive to avoid making a false report, even though such a false report violates the rights of the children and the parents.

The right to be free of debtors' prison. Many parents are being ordered to reimburse the CPS agencies for foster care, to pay for Guardian ad Litem fees, and forced to spend money on unwanted and unneeded therapies and treatment plans. When the parent cannot or will not pay for these items, many have been threatened with and actually found in contempt of court and imprisoned at the whim of the judge for their failure to pay. Even parents who have filed bankruptcy, with the associated charges included on the filing, are imprisoned for not paying.

The right to assert their rights without suffering repercussions. CPS agencies use intimidation to force their services on families. When parents know and assert their rights, these agencies become even more belligerent and use cruel tactics such as telling the parent that if they don't cooperate, they will never see their child again, and telling the children that their parents don't want them or love them. Many times, CPS agencies will move these children to other jurisdictions and deny the parents any contact with their children. These tactics are inhumane and malicious, and are most strongly targeted at parents who assert their innocence and their rights. These families, in effect, suffer harsher repercussions for their righteous assertions.

The right to the presumption of innocence. The fact is, that in substance and in practice, in a child abuse case, a person is guilty until he can prove his innocence. There is no provision for innocence that is not proven.

The right that all men must live under the law; that no man who is in a position of authority over them is above the law; that those who have been victimized have the real ability to seek civil and criminal punishment against those who use the authority of the state to act outside the law with impunity. CPS agents, mandated reporters, and the courts have all been placed above the law, by being granted unqualified immunity to act against any person in this country. By not being held accountable for their actions, whether these actions be legal or illegal, has created a class of person who can act with impunity and without fear of justified action against them. They can destroy a family by tearing it apart, bankrupting them, driving parents and children to mental anguish and suicide, refuse to protect known abused children, and demand unfair and unreasonable treatments, all against innocent victims of their state sanctioned arrogance. They have no motive to act reasonably, or within the law, and as a matter of routine, act capriciously. These people have been corrupted by absolute power and our children are paying the price.

Parents and children who have been abused by these people have, in practice and in substance, no recourse against the violations perpetrated against them, and the violators know it.

The right to not be subjected to hearsay evidence against them. In a child abuse case, be it civil or criminal, hearsay evidence is routinely admitted into court. In many cases, the children, who were the only witnesses to the alleged abuse, are not permitted to testify. This ?he said, she said' testimony is a violation of a fundamental constitutional right. To put someone on trial, or to convict someone, based on hearsay is a travesty.

These wholesale violations of parents' and children's rights are cloaked in secrecy under the guise of the confidentiality laws and are actively championed in Family Courts across this country. The actions of the Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies and the Family Courts are accorded the unjustified status of ?due process' while these vile practices are, in substance and reality, state sanctioned tyranny and oppression on a wholesale scale against innocent parents and children.

As we have been reminded by the supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison (1803), ...that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT (CAPTA) and associated Child Protection laws and regulations which sanction all of the above violations against Our Rights and the rights of Our Children, are repugnant to the constitution and must be repealed. This is to serve notice that you, hereby having knowledge of these violations, that your failure to prevent or correct these violations makes you complicit in these violations and opens you to civil and criminal remedies under the law.

We DEMAND the following REMEDIES

1. DEFINE that the first best interest of the child is to be under the control of and in the physical custody of his biological parent(s). Failing that due to clear and convincing evidence of abuse, that the best interests of the child includes the right to be raised and/or adopted by blood relatives before being turned over to strangers or the State.

2. DEFINE that the parent-child bond is more precious than any bond linking the child with the state; that the right of a parent to the companionship, care, custody, and management of the child and the right of the child to be under the custody and protection of his parent is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

3. DEFINE that the State is not the best parent for a child, and that the State cannot give the same loving quality of care and nurturing to a child that a parent can, nor can the State know the best interests of the child better than the parents and/or blood relatives do; and that the child is at greater risk of abuse and/or neglect while in State custody than in the home.

4. DEFINE that the children's rights cannot be artificially separated from the parents' rights nor the parent's rights artificially separated from the children's rights; and that any attempts by any outsider to separate these rights; or to pit the child against either parent; or to dis-empower the parent; or undermine the parents' authority over the child is prima facie evidence of bad faith and severs the offender from all immunity protections.

5. DEFINE that to ?err on the side of the child' is a phony excuse for laziness on the part of officials involved; and that it allows them to adopt a self-righteous veneer as a concerned child saver while loftily sanctioning and ignoring the devastating traumatic effects intervention has on such a large majority of children and families; and that if there is a choice between erring and not, that the choice should be to not err; and that it takes much more effort to actually investigate and determine whether an allegation is founded than to simply take the child and warehouse him somewhere while the witch hunt commences; and that whenever someone ?errs on the side of the child', the child is invariably seriously injured by that error; and that the higher purpose is to not err at all; and that goal admittedly takes some effort, but if one is unwilling to put the effort required into conducting a fair and reasonable investigation, then they are probably in the wrong profession; and that to employ this line of reasoning severs them from their immunity.

6. DEFINE that any disability - either the child's or the parent's - is not sufficient grounds in and of itself to remove a child from the home.

7. REQUIRE that if a child is suspected of being abused or neglected due to a disability suffered by either the child or the parent, that CPS agencies cannot remove the child until sufficient, relevant in-home services have been provided to correct the deficiency in the home; and that if said disability is permanent, that said in-home services are not to be withdrawn simply to allow grounds to remove the child; and that the deficiencies in the home due to said disability presents clear and convincing evidence of danger to the health and safety of the child or that the parent's disability is so debilitating that he cannot properly care for or protect the child even with in-home assistance; and require extraordinary efforts to keep the family with disabilities together; and that removal of the child from parents solely due to the child's disability is not permitted.

8. DEFINE NEGLECT as not being sufficient grounds in and of itself to remove a child from the home.

9. REQUIRE that if a child is suspected of being neglected, that CPS agencies cannot remove the child until sufficient, relevant in-home services or training classes have been provided which would be required for a reasonable person to remedy the neglectful situation; and that said neglect has not been reduced or eliminated in that reasonable time; and that said neglect presents a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the child.

10. DEFINE that no ties are more precious than those binding parent and child and few decrees are so grave in their consequences as a court order to remove a child from the home or permanently severing the parent-child bond.

11. REQUIRE that said parental custody and control can ONLY be interfered with based upon probable cause of serious injury or neglect, which cause is willful and/or intentional, and is substantiated by bona fide evidence to the same.

12. REQUIRE that the States shall not prosecute the parents or caretakers nor intervene for cases of abuse and/or neglect that are beyond the parent's or care givers control. Establish the presumption that if the child is in the home or residence at the time of the incident, and if a reasonable person could have prevented the abuse and/or neglect and did not prevent it, that person can be held accountable for allowing it to happen and for failing to protect the child.

13. REQUIRE that in all cases of suspected child abuse and neglect, the burden of proof be upon the CPS agency and the State, whether the case is heard in criminal or civil (family) court.

14. REQUIRE that no CPS agency nor the state can prosecute for nor force intervention on, nor force treatment plans on, nor force separation of the child from the parents or anyone else for what might be or what might happen or for anything that has not actually happened and which has been substantiated by evidence.

15. REQUIRE that any CPS agency and the Family Courts recognize and act on the premise that a parent or anyone accused of child abuse or neglect is innocent until proven guilty.

16. DEFINE serious injury as that which jeopardizes the life or health of the child; and require the States to implement such definition into their statutes.

17. REQUIRE that mandated reporters must only meet the standard of ?reasonably believed' that injuries were the result of willful intent to injure; and that an organization's policies for reporting an incident of child abuse must not be based on anything other than an individual, reasonable analysis of each case or they may be held liable for slander and libel; and eliminate the vague standards that provide for the wholesale reporting of innocent circumstances as abuse to the detriment of innocent families.

18. ELIMINATE the provisions for immunity from prosecution under State and local laws for persons who report instances of child abuse or neglect from circumstances arising from such reporting.

Institute qualified immunity for persons reporting who knew or reasonably should have known that an instance was in fact child abuse or neglect. If the person knew or reasonably should have known that the reported incident was not abuse or neglect, that person will not be protected from prosecution. Any person working in the capacity of a social worker, investigator, or other child protection professional will be presumed to have known that a reported instance was not in fact child abuse or neglect if they ever, in the course of their investigation and/or intervention, employ lies and/or deceit with, or withhold evidence from, the parents, children, departments, or courts in an effort to provide services to a family. Require all states to vigorously pursue RICO and/or criminal felony prosecutions against all persons who act alone, or conspire, to violate the rights of any family member, or who act outside their statutory authority during the course of an investigation or intervention; and to immediately sanction them against ever working in the capacity of child protective services; and to enter their names on a national data base of sanctioned social workers; and mandate the States to prosecute for perjury any state agency worker who lies in any report to the court or while under oath.

19. REQUIRE an immediate (within 24 hours) trial by a jury of twelve (12) in order to remove a child from the home for more than 48 hours.

20. REQUIRE the ?clear and convincing' standard of proof to keep a child out of the parents' home.

21. REQUIRE a trial by a jury of twelve (12) to terminate parental rights.

22. REQUIRE the ?clear and convincing' standard of proof to terminate parental rights.

23. REQUIRE all investigations of child abuse to be conducted by the law enforcement agency of the appropriate jurisdiction; and that child abuse is a crime and should be treated as such; and that social workers are not trained to conduct investigations, to interview ALL knowledgeable parties, to completely document all findings, to properly preserve evidence, and to respect legal rights.

24. REQUIRE that during any intervention by child protection agencies, the parents and the children are to be informed of their right to remain silent, and that anything they say can and will be used against them.

25. REQUIRE the parent is to be informed that to confess to a crime they did not commit (to accept a false plea bargain) is perjury.

26. REQUIRE that the State inform the parents in writing of every hearing scheduled in their case that pertains to themselves or their children; and that such notice clearly details the consequences for failing to appear; and that such notice is delivered to the parent no less than 48 hours prior to said hearing.

27. REQUIRE that during any intervention by child protection agencies, the parents be informed in writing of their right not to sign releases of private information; and of their right to participate in the formation of a treatment plan; and of their right to refuse participation in a treatment plan if they have not been found guilty of child abuse and/or neglect.

28. REQUIRE that CPS agencies shall not hold the child hostage to their demands that the parents separate, break up or get a divorce; and that to set forth such conditions for the return of the child will be prima facie evidence of bad faith and removes all immunity protections for the social workers involved.

29. REQUIRE that during any intervention by child protection agencies, any treatment plan devised must include a definite termination point, either a time frame or the completion of certain criteria and that upon completion of the time or stated criteria, the children must be returned to the family and intervention must cease.

30. REQUIRE that any treatment plan be relevant to the circumstances that instigated the intervention, and include an explanation as to why and how each element is relevant and the proposed benefits of each element.

31. REQUIRE that the States provide for an effective administrative appeal process for any proposed treatment plan, including but not limited to presenting the appeal before a citizen's review panel, before asking the court to order it; and advise parents in writing of their rights to appeal certain elements of any treatment plan in court for being irrelevant to their situation.

32. REQUIRE that the CPS agency prove to the Court the necessity of all elements of the treatment plan or the court must deny the agency's request; and that said proof must include the fact that the parent(s) has a past history of actions that warrant the requested element of treatment; and that said history constitutes a violation of the law.

33. REQUIRE that child protection agencies provide written guidelines for dealing with parents who assert their innocence and where there is no evidence of abuse, and have real provisions for immediately terminating intervention and returning children to their parents' custody when no probable cause can be found to continue intervention.

34. REQUIRE that all child protection agencies provide written guidelines of rights and remedies for complaints against the agency upon initiating an intervention; and that there are provisions for a truly independent citizen's review panel to deal with complaints that are not satisfactorily addressed internally; and that said panel is not to be under the influence of or suffer the presence of any CPS agency representative during their investigations and that the CPS agency is required to follow the recommendations of said citizen's review panel; and said panel will have the power to compel evidence to be produced and to compel witnesses to testify before them.

35. REQUIRE that all efforts to place children with relatives be documented in the case file by transcripts of tape-recorded conversations and/or certified letters, which unedited tapes are to be made available to any party upon request; which records will include the names of the relatives contacted, including date, time, results of the contact.

36. REQUIRE that all efforts to reunify the family are defined as such in writing and be included in the case file as a reunification report; and that such efforts describe exactly how these efforts are relevant to the family's dynamics; and describe how they will benefit the family; and require that these efforts are approved by the parents and validated with the parents' signatures on the said reunification report; and that the parent is permitted to submit their own analysis of the reunification efforts that must also be included as part of the case file and must be presented to the court.

37. REQUIRE that all interviews with children who are suspected of being abused or neglected be video tape recorded in their entirety; and that fact subscribed and sworn to under the penalty of perjury; and that the parents have a right to have their representative present at such interviews; and that such representative is not required to be a lawyer licensed to practice law; and that the parents have the right to video or audio tape said interviews themselves, or to have free access to unedited, true copies of said interviews upon request; and that all persons present at said interviews must be visible on the video tape at all times; and if anyone present during the interview is not visible on the tape at any time, it is prima facie evidence of inappropriate interview techniques and any disclosures made under those conditions may be rendered invalid in court.

38. REQUIRE that the CPS agency, its agents or assigns may not isolate the child from his parents or other relatives unless there is a real threat to the child's life or safety that is substantiated by hard evidence; and if any CPS agent denies the parents access to the child without said evidence of danger, the agent is severed from immunity from civil and criminal penalties.

39. REQUIRE that the parents' access to the child be frequent and lengthy so as to maintain the parent-child bond and relationship; and that the CPS agency may not limit visitations because it is inconvenient for the agency.

40. REQUIRE an objective, age-appropriate definition of abuse and neglect that cannot be subject to individual interpretation and biases; and in this definition, spanking or slapping, in and of itself, cannot be construed to be abuse; and that any condition that is statutorily defined as an injury must be proven medically to be an injury that requires medical attention to preserve the health of the child; and that any definition of mental abuse must conform to the science of psychology, not to theory.

41. REQUIRE that the laws protect the practice of the parent's religious beliefs which do not seriously endanger the health or safety of the child; and provide stiff punishments for agency representatives who remove children from their homes due to the parents practicing their religion.

42. REQUIRE laws to protect the right of parents to home-school their children; and to control who the child will associate with; and to control the child's medical care where the life of the child is not in danger by their inaction; and to direct the religious and secular education and upbringing of their children in all cases where there is no clear and convincing evidence of danger to the child's health or safety.

43. ELIMINATE anonymous reporting; and REQUIRE that the names and addresses of all persons who report child abuse be made freely available to any party to the complaint; and that the accused be allowed to face the person reporting abuse against them in court; and make all persons who report child abuse subject to qualified immunity based on the standard that they knew or reasonably should have known the report of abuse was true and accurate and within the statutory definition of abuse; and make them accountable for false reports with severe criminal and civil penalties; and REQUIRE the states to ENFORCE these penalties upon the penalty of losing funding.

44. REQUIRE the states to advise any child reporting child abuse against himself of the existing criminal liabilities he faces for making a false report.

45. REQUIRE all social workers to be licensed, and bonded.

46. REQUIRE all Guardians ad Litem (GAL) to be bonded.

47. REQUIRE that GALs conduct bona fide investigations on behalf of the child; and make the results of that investigation available to all parties; and make the falsification of this investigative report punishable by mandatory fines, imprisonment and revocation of their license to practice law.

48. ELIMINATE the requirement for secrecy and sealed records in all unfounded cases; and open these records for public inspection so that abuses by the system can be exposed.

49. ELIMINATE the confidentiality protections which in reality are a cloak of secrecy which protects the parties in p