This is an open letter to the Idaho Attorney General.  Please sign below to indicate your support for the Attorney General to thoroughly investigate Baby Lily's CPS Case in Kootenai County, Idaho.

 

You can also call his office at 208-334-2400 to request an investigation of this case.

(Please see update post for information on how to help the family with legal fees.)

Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General, Idaho

PO Box 1899

Boise, ID 83701

Email to AGLabrador@ag.idaho.gov

 

Dear Mr. Labrador:

 

We rejoice that you were elected to the office of Attorney General in Idaho, as it is our hope that you bring a voice of reason and the ability to act in scenarios that appear to be lawless.  In this letter, I want to bring your attention to a bizarre situation in which a child and family have been victimized by Idaho Health and Welfare, in hopes that you will investigate and take steps to introduce justice to the matter.

 

You may have heard of Baby Lily Marseguerra, as her case has garnered much attention, not only statewide, but nationally, for the egregious overreach of CPS in Kootenai County.  The adoptive mother has been interviewed by several conservative news outlets in recent weeks.

 

Cases like this one ask for the Attorney General’s office to expose CPS and their motives.  The signers below ask you to investigate Health and Welfare in this case (and on others where appropriate), not only because it is the right thing to do to, but also because a family had their child removed, and this affront to their legal rights is costing them time and money that could be poured into their children.

 

Here is the background of the case:  On December 9, 2021, Baby Lily was born to Jerica Marseguerra in Kootenai Hospital.  Jerica had acknowledged that she is an addict and was not in a position to care for her child, and had therefore legally contracted with her first cousin in Indiana to adopt her child once it was born (The original signed and notarized adoption agreement is pictured below).  

 

 

 

On the day Baby Lily was born, Jerica’s mother contacted the adoptive parents, who had filed for adoption legally in Indiana (which adoption proceeding is still open, and Indiana claims jurisdiction over the adoption).  Jerica informed the hospital staff of her adoption plans, and when CPS arrived with law enforcement to take the child, Jerica also informed them that she planned to adopt the child to her first cousin, who was on the way.  Note that all of this was happening while Jerica was recovering from major surgery.  Further, Jerica reports that CPS approached her every day the month prior to the delivery, attempting to persuade her to sign the child over the CPS, and she declined to do so, repeating that she had arranged an adoption for the child to her first cousin.

 

As part of the child seizure, just hours after the surgical birth, the CPS agent lied to the recovering Jerica and told her they would hold the child until her cousin arrived, and convinced her to sign papers giving CPS temporary custody of her child.  Jerica understood from the social worker that CPS would work to help the child be adopted to her cousin.  Note that she was heavily sedated at the time and there were police officers in the room.  Here is a stark example of the use of coercion to convince a mother in duress to hand her child to social services against her will, and against her natural right.  Remember, this was a mother who was wisely willing to give up custody of her child to a family member who could better care for her.

 

Prior to coming to the hospital to take Baby Lily, CPS convinced a judge to sign an order for emergency removal, but it is unclear what the argument was for the removal and we do not have access to these testimonies.  Note that the only drug in Ms. Marseguerra’s system on the day of the birth was a drug prescribed by the state to help her with her addiction.  Nurses are on staff at Kootenai Medical Center to care for children while moms recover from surgery, so the child was presumably under the very best care – the nurses at the hospital – until the adoptive family arrived.  The citizens signed below observe that this removal was lawless.  We ask for your office to examine whether there is ANY Idaho law which justifies this removal, or whether it is rather, a kidnapping.  

 

Health and Welfare has stated to the court that Ms. Marseguerra stipulated to CPS shelter care and was represented by counsel “at all times”.   But when she stipulated to shelter care at the hospital, she had just come out of major surgery, had no counsel, and was assured by the CPS agent (supported by a police officer) that the placement was temporary until her cousin arrived.  Not only do these circumstances amount to duress, but also CPS lied to the court when it said she had counsel at all times.  

 

The lies appear to have continued, with CPS agents reporting to the court in the first hearing (which Jerica was forced to attend a few days after surgery), that Jerica told them, that she wanted an adoption for the child “the CPS way.”  Jerica testifies that she never said this, and the hospital records, (relevant, redacted excerpt below), affirm that Jerica, the biological mother, reported to the hospital staff that she was adopting the child to her first cousin out of state.  Jerica was tormented by CPS’ removal of her first son, and would never have requested another “CPS Way” adoption.

 

 

 

 

 

CPS took custody of Jerica’s first child, Lily’s brother, and placed him to a single foster mother in Coeur D’Alene.  The facts of Baby Lily's case create the appearance that CPS believes that all future children of Jerica Marseguerra, an Idaho citizen, belong to the state.  But that is not what the law says.  Idaho Code 16-1504 states that the biological mother to an adoptee born out of wedlock shall have the right to consent to adoption and that this right is only nullified if her rights to a child have been terminated.  Ms. Marseguerra, the biological mother of Baby Lily, to this day retains the right to choose the adoptive parents of her child, as her parental rights have not been terminated.

 

It is now fourteen months after the initial seizure, and CPS maintains custody of this child, and the child remains in foster care, in limbo, all while the adoptive family has incurred more than $100,000 in legal fees attempting to adopt the child that their cousin signed over to them in pregnancy.  More importantly, the adoptive parents’ contact with their child has been inexplicably denied by CPS.  (To help with the Templetons' legal fees, go to:  https://www.givesendgo.com/BringBabyLilyHome)

 

What world are we living in, that CPS can interfere with a private adoption between family members, and the family court approves it?

 

Gag Order:  Judge Eckhardt in the Kootenai courthouse has presided over this case and has placed a gag order on all parties involved so that no one knows what transpires behind the closed doors of the courtroom.  We ask that you investigate the constitutionality of this gag order. A decision by the United States Supreme Court in Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart,  427 U.S. 539 (1976) placed a heavy burden on judges that issue gag orders to prioritize the protect the first amendment rights to free speech, and to ONLY abridge these rights if the right to a fair trial is at risk.  Given there is no jury in this case that can be swayed, the appearance is that this order is unconstitutionally abridging first amendment rights, and serves mainly to hide wrongdoing by state agents, rather than protecting any citizens’ rights.

 

The adoptive parents are footing all the legal bills but are not permitted to know the status of the case or their child.  They have incurred legal bills for the biological mother’s appeal of the case but have no ability to confer with the lawyer that they are paying to strategize about the case. Understandably, the biological mother and the adoptive parents have little confidence in finding justice in the family court and do not know what to expect in the appellate court, except of course, more legal fees.  That is why we are reaching out to you.

 

Lack of Legal Basis for Removal and Denial of Parental Rights:  CPS offers no legal reason to deny adoption to the birth mother’s first cousin at this point:

 

·      Idaho CPS attorneys and Deputy AG Rosen said that foster care was not approved for the cousins in Indiana.  But the adoptive have been approved for adoption, and that is the legal approval that is needed.  CPS confounded the process by attempting to gain approval for the adoptive family as foster parents, which was irrelevant.

·      CPS and Deputy AG Denise Rosen claim that the adoptive cousins are not first cousins, which is required under the CPA.  This assertion contains two problems:  First, a private adoption does not restrict the relationship when a mother chooses the adoptive parents for her child, and second, the adoptive cousins are first cousins, albeit once removed.  Thus Ms. Rosen either deliberately misled the court, or does not understand familial relationships and didn’t bother to research it, thus misrepresenting a key fact on which she hinged the state’s case.

 

Ms. Marseguerra’s chosen adoptive parents – the Templetons -- prepared for adopting their first cousin’s child by working with an adoption center in Indiana; they completed a home study and background check and were approved for adopting.  After the child was removed from the hospital by CPS and the Templetons entered into the stress-filled situation of attempting to extract their child from Idaho’s system, their attorney Peter Dan contacted the Idaho ICPC administrator – this administrator confirmed that if the Department had not removed the child, the adoption would have been processed immediately.  THIS would have been the proper avenue for honoring the mother’s wishes for the child.  CPS inserted themselves into a legal proceeding with regard to a child of this state and has now appeared to decide that this child’s future is theirs to direct.  We cannot find a legal basis for CPS’ interference in this case, and therefore plead with you to get involved.

 

In an email written on December 22, 2021 to Ms. Burke-Love (copy attached hereto), Ms. Rosen acknowledges that “a private adoption was interrupted with a child protection case”.  This acknowledges only a couple weeks into this case that Ms. Rosen knew that there was a private adoption, and that CPS “interrupted” it with their process.  Yet she reports to the court and to legislators that she has not seen evidence of a private adoption.  What is true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once CPS seized the child, they appear to have twisted the facts of the case and applicable laws to suit the goal of maintaining custody of the child with the state.  What conversations, or agreements related to Baby Lily are happening behind closed doors, away from the family who seeks to exercise their natural rights to protect and care for her? 

 

Even now, in CPS custody, there are specific laws governing the proper priority in choosing the placement of a child in custody.  According to Idaho Code §16-1629(11), placement priority of a child in CPS custody occurs in the following order: 

 

(1) A fit and willing relative; 

(2) A fit and willing relative with a significant relationship with the child; 

(3) Foster parents and other persons licensed in accordance with chapter 12, title 39, Idaho Code, with a significant relationship with the child; 

(4) Foster parents and other persons licensed in accordance with chapter 12, title 39, Idaho Code. 

 

For some reason, CPS skipped the first legally required two priorities and moved lower on this priority list.  The adoptive parents met the first two priorities, were selected by the birth parent with the natural right to do so, and were legally contracted to adopt the child.  Again, the undersigned petitioners ask, “Why do CPS and Deputy AG Rosen overlook the first two priorities?”  

 

The adoptive parents have a significant relationship with the mother and grandmother of the child (as they are first cousins), and thus the relationship with the child is a natural development of these relationships.  Further, the Templetons established a relationship with the child to the extent possible within CPS restrictions on their interactions.  The Templetons have a room at their house for the child that remains empty because they planned for her to be in their family and as far as they were informed by the Adoption Center in Indiana, there were no obstacles to this.  CPS cut off these regular visits between Lily and the Templetons, stating that they were pursuing permanency with her current foster parent, before the judge ruled on Ms. Marseguerra’s motion to dismiss the CPS case, and on the Templeton’s motion to adopt the child concurrent with Ms. Marseguerra’s termination of parental rights.  The relationship between the Templetons and Lily remains despite any CPS action, but the Department appears appears to be dividing the child from its family members in an attempt to subvert this second priority for placing the child.

 

What the Health and Welfare Department thinks about Ms. Marseguerra’s personal life, her previous behavior, or her choice of adoptive parents is irrelevant – the adoption was arranged and there is a legal process through which an adoption happens interstate, via ICPC and its Idaho administrator -- that was the path for the child and family to follow, and it was not only their intention to do so, but the process had begun and attorneys hired and paperwork begun.

 

Federal Funds and Exposure of the State to False Claims Act Cases:  Please note that if the Health and Welfare Department collects Title IV-E Federal funds in connection with this or any other CPS case, the Department MUST testify on the claim form that it made efforts to prevent the removal of the child from its family, and that it made efforts to maintain the child with extended family.  To the extent that these claims were made, and they were made falsely, ANYONE can pursue litigation against Idaho under the False Claims Act (FCA) against the state of Idaho.  Cases like this one can open the State of Idaho to tremendous liability for false claims under the FCA.  If Health and Welfare will not police itself, someone must do so, and it seems like the Attorney General’s office would be the first hope for holding this department accountable.

 

The Health and Welfare Department is charged with protecting the most vulnerable in our state.  In this case, the unfortunate appearance is that the Department preys on those whom it is charged to protect, and either is ignorantly or purposefully trying to ignore or dilute the intent of Idaho law.  

 

The State of Idaho never had the right to interfere with a private contract between family members, and still does not.  We look forward to seeing your action toward remedying this abridgment of the natural rights of the parents of your State.

 

We plead you to investigate Baby Lily’s case and to share the results of your investigation.

 

Signed Respectfully by Citizens in Support of an Attorney General investigation into Baby Lily’s Unlawful Removal, Sanctions for Wrongdoing in this Case, and Return of Baby Lily to her Adoptive Parents,