Progression of Children’s Liberty

            (Bringing youth endorsed defense into the 21st Century)

 

                                       “The Cupcake Bill”

                        The Ohio Child Protection Registry

                           AKA: Power Against Predators

                        Petitioned by: Tammy E. Risen 2016

 

This is a petition to promote a searchable database that’s dedicated to abuse victims in an attempt to protect others.

The National Sex Offender Registry has been in operation since 2007. States have mandated that convicted “sexual” abusers register to allow law enforcement and citizens the knowledge of their existence, location, and crime(s) committed.

This petition is to remove the word “SEX” from the national registry & to promote a registry that encompasses all forms of abuse as they are equally destructive.

After someone commits intentional harm to another, that person is left in an abused state. Sexual abuse is not the only heinous act that affects our people. Therefore, anyone who has been convicted of a felonious act where they have caused trauma to another should be included in this modernized registry without the restriction of it being a sexual crime.

Currently, it is within our Civil Rights that convicted parties be forced to register as a “Sexual Predator” of a specific type of abuse. If a Child’s Abuse Registry is then considered against one’s civil rights, then it seems logical that the registry as a whole should be redefined or revoked.

Abuse along with all forms of maltreatment should be treated equally, especially if a crime was committed against a child.

A database for child abusers presents us with POWER AGAINST PREDATORS.

 

                                           “The Avery Statute”

                                      Immutable Circumstance

                             Petitioned by: Tammy E. Risen 2020

A child's right to prohibit reunification to a custodian convicted of felony child abuse against a child under the age of 13 if said crime resulted in physical or mental harm. Including crimes of malice, intent, neglect, & endangerment. 

Once a person has the attachment of immutable circumstance to their charge, if convicted, would eliminate this party from child protection and other alike services from restoring these parties’ custodianship to said child. 

 Immutable Circumstance: The creation of a “tag” added to a criminal charge much like the tag of a special circumstance. 

“Special circumstance being an act of the accused or conditions under which the crime was committed.”

The immutable circumstance would be unchangeable over time or unable to be changed when a criminal charge pertains to a victim under the age of 13. It is actionable when the accused committed a crime of abuse, malice, endangerment, and or neglect that was either felonious in nature or a secondary charge of similarity. 

The immutable circumstance tag would adhere to that criminal charge & its construct would define that the accused be prohibited from reunifying to the said victim through legal interaction by any entity designed to do such.

                                          

                                            “The Avery Act”

        Freeing children from murderous custodians to rest peacefully.

                           Petitioned by: Tammy E. Risen 2021

In similarity to the “Forfeiture Rule & Law of Succession” enacted in the United Kingdom.

Any child who is slain by a custodial party & or that party played an active role in said child’s death, will automatically lose their custodial rights in part to all decisions regarding how the child’s remains will be prepared for the funerary process at the time of death if they are:

* Under suspicion/investigation by Local Authorities/CPS/Mandated Reporters at time of death.

* On a safety plan or under the supervision of local Child Protection Services.

* Had prior allegations of abuse via CPS/Local Authorities/Mandated Reporters.                                                   

* Admitted to their role in said child’s death.

* Is charged & or convicted in part of said child’s death.

* Had been incarcerated for child abuse-related convictions.

Once the custodial right is removed, a non-residential related party to the accused shall be appointed the authority to make final arrangement pronouncements over said child’s remains. The person(s) under suspicion will be denied all authority, communication, and access during this process. 

If multiple parties fall as next of kin equally, if disputed, can individually file a petition to probate court for custodial rights within a maximum of 72 hours postmortem after which they forfeit their rights to custodianship and lose their right to voice their opinion on or at any adjacent filed motion proceeding.

Ohio’s local Probate Court would have to concede and hear the petition on an emergency basis no later than one business day. Much like a child being removed from a custodial party on an emergency basis within the Juvenile Court System. Where alike action has functioned successfully for decades without a delay to notify or have presentation of said custodian.

All Ohio Coroner’s Offices shall be notified by Local Authorities to hold all children’s remains who fall under the suspicion of homicide until a new custodian is appointed. Which can be immediate by way of Mandated Reporters, Local Authorities, Child Protection Services, and Probate Court if required.

                                                  “Avery’s Law”

                                       Child Protection Reform

                             Petitioned by: Tammy E. Risen 2016

 

Procedural Inclusion

Part A: Periodic Medical Assessments. (P.M.A.) Post-Reunification

P.M.A. consists of Forensic interviews, radiology assessments & medical examinations.

Current protocols in use include Assessments, Commitment/Preparation, and integration. (These protocols are utilized on the intake of a child into family services. If used post-reunification, these same protocols may change the course of a child’s right to live a safe and abuse-free life.)

With P.M.A., once reunification has been achieved. The periodic monitoring will take place for an undetermined length of time no less than double the time a child was in service with no less than two exams within the first year of reunification.

All post-reunification children would undergo random medical assessments to screen for ongoing violations when a parent has had historical indicators of abuse with any findings reported to local enforcement.

The importance of these assessments is to aid:

*Non-verbal children who cannot indicate their maltreatment.                *Children who are unaware of their abuse.

*Children who are fearful of their abusers.                                               *Children who are unable to communicate. 

Protocol Reform

Part B: Immediate Medical Response Act (I.M.R.A.)

(When a child is removed from their homes and placed under the custody of Child Protection Services, evaluations take place to begin or deny the reunification process. If reunification is the goal, the child who resides in a foster care situation has visitations to parties who are attempting to regain custody. This Act could make a difference in the decisions made by the court. Therefore, advancing the protection of children.)

During the reunification, process visitations are available to abusive parents. This act could prevent ongoing maltreatment when there are signs of suspicious, reoccurring injuries, and or mental declines in a child—byways of authorizing foster parents to have said child evaluated if there are any indicators of abuse.

During these evaluations, the person that the allegation is against cannot gain access to these screenings.

Under this new ACT, foster parents would be seen as mandated reporters and would have the right to I.M.R.A. screenings without permission from any case party. 

The importance of this screening:

A) It's a significant measure of protection of a victim that may mitigate further and ongoing abuse.

B) It would aid children that are non-verbal, fearful, and or mentally unable to protect themselves.

C) It would provide safety to children by way of forensic evidence from proper medical examinations that would be directly reported to a Juvenile Court and Local Authorities if there is a finding.

D) It ministers foster parents the right to adopt safety standards for the child within their care by providing that individual with the power of customary advocacy.

This screening would be non-negotiable by any case party. If these parties negotiated such testing, it could taint the results. These examinations would be utilized much like that of any rape case where the collection of evidence is imperative for people's welfare while identifying the persons who violated them. Therefore, this testing would play a vital role in a child's safety when integrated with investigations of a party already suspected of abuse.

 

Children’s Wishes Progression

Part C: Right to Self-Protection

In 1974 Children's Wishes was established. It states that any child that has the ability of reasoning may be interviewed by a magistrate to determine their wishes.

Most states have an age range of a child's eligibility to speak to a magistrate on their own behalf. In some instances, children are interviewed by Child Protection workers. Their response to the interview is then relayed in those workers’ opinions where the child’s wishes can become tainted by biased intent.

The Right to Self-Protection would allow the fostering parent(s) to be seen as a mandated reporter. These parties could then move to speak on the child’s behalf as an equal or to request a formal interview by the courts.

If a motion for a child to self-speak becomes denied, the placement should be the secondary voice of the child with the highest position for consideration for the child's wishes since they are the acting parents. 

In all cases, when reunification is the goal to place an abused child back to their predatory parent, that child should be interviewed directly by the Magistrate. If rejected, the child’s caregiver should then be acknowledged as a mandated child advocate and privately interview with the Magistrate. If both interviews are rejected, all adjacent interviews should then be visually recorded by all case parties for the Magistrate's review. 

These actions would not only uphold the current Children's Wishes, but it would accelerate the 1974 ACT into this millennium with the use of our technologies and advancements. Much like our courts have authorized the improvements of the D.N.A., we would give children a proper and accurate voice to their Civil Rights and their Safety. 

 

                              “Petition of Lawful Surveillance”

                             …within the Family Court System 

                                         “The Hobbs Act”

The first generation of modern practice of utilizing body cameras via policeman was introduced in or around 2005 in the United Kingdom. & In the United States since 2014.  This was done to certify transparency and accountability.

This petition is to expand the applied safeguard to all sovereign immunized personnel who transact within adolescent communal contact. Where gathered content would then be accessible and admissible by any petitioner or party of family court proceedings. 

Meaning: Any interaction, such as but not limited to, investigations or welfare checks, shall be recorded by way of body cameras by persons acting in adolescent contact. By such parties as Social Workers, Legal Guardians, Child Court Appointment Therapists. & So forth by example.

Being this would be a multi-party recording. It would also be legalized that any party to such recording would also have the legal right to record and present same interaction.

This action would provide accuracy, transparency, and indisputable evidence within the family court system should a need for such arise. In turn, providing fair and accurate views of issues at hand that would then be conclusive to any and all rulings.