Code Section
Educ. §§3201
Exceptions to Education
Although all children between the ages of 6 and 16 must attend school, there are a few exceptions to this rule.
Private Instruction
Parents are allowed to send their children to private school. Some parents believe that their children will receive a better education from a private school. Other parents may want religious instruction to be included in their children's education, and can choose to send them to a religious private school.
Mental/Physical Condition
If a student has a mental or physical condition, they do not need to attend school. However, the local school district may require that the child receives private instruction in a safer location. They want to Indicate me for "educational Neglect also". (Against NYS Education Rule / Law / Legislation). My son diagnosed in 2015 with Autism is a Neurological Disorder is a "Mental Health Condition, that impacts his learning ability in Academics at school, although my son is very intelligent.
The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services
Child Protective Services has operated under the assumption that parents were not protected by Constitutional Rights provided for by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. As a result, social workers often would conduct child interviews, search homes and ultimately remove children into state custody without court approval. Recently, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held there is no social worker exception and social workers must comply with the protections of the Constitution. This means they must first obtain court approval before interviewing children and before taking children into custody. Violates a Parental right to Dur Process & Equal Protection Laws of every state and all parents. Not just myself but my son also.
Exigent circumstances means there must exist an immediate threat of harm to the child. The threat must be clearly articulatable and not just a general concern for the general welfare of the child. Ontario County CPS acted under their "Own General Concern for the child." Against their duty and ethics to the child and parent, and Rule of CPS and Court Procedure. Creating the LEGAL AIDING & ABETTING REMOVAL OF A CHILD WITHOUT A COURT ORDER IS PERJURY, Violation of DUE PROCESS.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
If your Child Protective Services social worker or caseworker claims to have immunity from prosecution, don’t believe it! There is no immunity for CPS under federal civil rights law.
I now have on my plate; BIAS, IMPARTIALITY, DISCRIMINATION, VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, FALSELY REPORTING AND FILING OF MISLEADING OF DOCUMENTATION INTO COURT EVIDENCE, PERJURY, AIDING & ABETTING THE MOTHER TO REMOVE A CHILD (Legal Kidnapping without a Court Order) FROM THE HOME WITH A COURT ORDER CLEARLY STATED IN NYS LAW AND FEDERAL LAW FOR CPS WORKERS TO ABIDE BY CONSTIUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL PARENTS.
I STEPHEN P. FILE WITH THIS COURT WITH RESPECT,
UNDER CPLR 2221, THIS MOTION AFFECTING PRIOR DISMISSALS
ORDER(S)OF THIS COURT, TO REARGUE THE ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE FOR RESPONDENTS ACTS OF "PERJURY" TO
ONTARIO COUNTY FAMILY COURT JUDGE JANUARY 2017, and to
Redress this court and all parties for Contempt of Court,
Perjury with false, Misleading Documentation, for willful
acts to commit Perjury, and Contempt of Court.
1. VIOLATING PENAL LAW SUBSECTION 210.10, IS A CLASS E
FELONY,
2. THE FALSE FILING OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE COMPLAINT
WITH ONTARIO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
VIOLATING PENAL LAW SUBSECTION 240.50 IS A CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR,
3. THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATION FOR FALSELY REPORTING
TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO GENEVA POLICE A
FALSE INSTRUMENT CAUSING PUBLIC ALARM. THE FALSE
WILLFUL INTENT TO DISRUPT THE PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR PUBLIC FUNCTION IS A VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW
SUBSECTION 240.55 / 240.60 CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.
TO PUNISH THE RESPONDENT(S) FOR ALLOWING THE SAME TO
TAKE PLACE.
I STPEHEN C. P FILE WITH THIS COURT WITH RESPECT,
UNDER FAMILY COURT LAW New York Consolidated Laws,
Judiciary Law - JUD § 756. Application to punish all
parties for contempt; procedure; Paul Bleakley ESQ, Seneca County CPS DHS, Ontario County CPS DHS Social Services, .
DAVID ETTMAN, ESQ, DONNA CATHY, ESQ, JEAN M. KIRK; All IN
VIOLATION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER; DATED AUGUST 2017 BY
ONTARIO COUNTY.
FAMILY COURT JUDGE FREDERICK REED; SENECA COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S, and ATTORNEY PAUL BLAKLEY ESQ; AIDED &
ABETTED JEAN M, KIRK TO REMOVE LOGAN C. P FROM
NEW YORK STATE IN 2017 VIOLATING THE FAMILY COURT
ORDER OF ONTARIO COUNTY FAMILY COURT JUDGE REED.
THE COURT ORDER CLEARLY STATED THAT LOGAN C. PINE
WAS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM SENECA COUNTY OR ONTARIO
COUNTY. DURING THE SUMMER SCHOOL VACATION The
Respondent Jean Kirk and Brian Laws were aided and
abetted by all Lawyers to Remove Logan C. P from
Seneca County and Ontario County not only across
county lines, but across State Line to the State of
South Carolina without a Subsequent Court Order to
do so. Also putting Logan in harms way with the "Direct Willful Intent to bring Logan around a Criminal Associated Persons whom have criminal records of Meth Production, Meth Possession, Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of a Controlled Substance with the intent to distribute, wanted person in the State of Florida in 3 counties, Bank Robbery, Forgery, Escape, Incest with a minor child, Possession of Heroine, Cocaine, Shooting on School Property, Endangering the Welfare of other minor children at school, and Rape. (just to name a few of the criminally associated persons activity).
IN JANUARY 2017 RESPONDENT JEAN M. KIRK FILED A
FALSE / Misleading CHILD PROTECTIVE REPORT AGAINST PETITIONER
VIOLATING PENAL LAW SUBSECTION 240.50, CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR.
IN JANUARY 2017 WITH THE SAME FALSE CHILD
PROTECTIVE REPORT THE RESPONDENT JEAN M. KIRK FILED
A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF
PERJURY GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY TO ONTARIO COUNTY
FAMILY COURT JUDGE FEDERICK REED TO GAIN A
SUBSTANTIAL TACTICAL ADVANTAGE OVER THE PETITIONER
VIOLATING NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW SUBSECTION
210.10, WHICH IS A CLASS E FELONY.
_________________________________________________
I STATE TO THIS COURT THAT JUDGE NESSER DOES NOT
KNOW THE ENTIRE FACTS BEHIND THIS ENTIRE CASE
STEMMING FROM ONTARIO COUNTY FAMILY COURT
PROCEEDINGS OVER THE PAST 8 YEARS. SENECA COUNTY
CHILD PROTECTIVE CASE WORKER AUSTIN WILLIAMS AND
CPS SUPERVISOR MICHELLE PARKER; WERE RECENTLY MADE
AWARE OF FACTS INCLUSIVE WITH THE FALSE REPORTING
OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE ACTION TO ONTARIO COUNTY
CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCY, AND FALSE REPORTING TO
GENEVA POLICE CAUSING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND
CAUSING PUBLIC ALARM TO LOGAN C. PINE VACINITY.
PUTTING GENEVA POLICE ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE ALL
OVER THE CITY OF GENEVA DUE TO THE FALSE REPORTING
OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
AS OF NOVEMBER 18th, 2018, SENECA COUNTY CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICE PERSONNEL & SUPERVISOR, HAVE
RECENTLY HEARD THE CHILD LOGAN C. PINE EXPRESS HIS
OWN FEELINGS OF DISCONTENT AND EMOTIONAL HARM BEING
CAUSE BY HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, CIVIL
LIBERTIES, CIVIL RIGHTS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND
CHILD ABUSE / EMOTIONAL HARM / PHYSICAL HARM WHICH
CONSTITUTES A WRONG DOING ON THE PART OF SENECA
COUNTY FAMILY COURT AND THE SENECA COUNTY PUBLIC
OFFICIALS (LAWYERS) AND THE LAW GUARDIAN FOR LOGAN
C. PINE. ALL HAVE MADE JUDICIAL ERRORS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER CAUSING JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
BIAS, LACK OF DIGNITY TO THIS COURT,AND PUBLIC
INTEREST; AND TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WHICH
VIOLATES 28 UNITED STATES CODE 16 AS LISTED BELOW
IN THE FOOTNOTES.
_________________________________________________
CASE LAW & FOOTNOTES:
MISDEMEANORS:
1. Filing a False Child Protective Report January 2017, 240.50 Class A Misdemeanor and N.Y. Crim. Proc. § 30.10(2)(c). Statute of Limitation 2 years.
2. Filing a False Police Report willful intent to obstruct justice in the performance of official duties, and cause a public nusiance. Class A Misdemeanor 240.55 / 240.60 and N.Y. Crim. Proc. § 30.10(2)(c). Statute of Limitation 2 years.
Criminal Trespass:
3. Criminally Trespassing into the home of Stephen C. Pine entering the home August 2017, by use of force onto Stephen C. Pine. Class B Misdemeanor 3rd Subsection 140.05 and N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(4). Statute of Limitation 3 years.
FELONY:
4. Filing a False Order To Show Cause with Public Official / Servant in Family Court with the Family Court Judge. Swearing Under Oath in a written sworn statement January 2017, to the Judge. Class E Felony 210.10 and N.Y. Crim. Proc. § 30.10(2)(b). Statute of Limitation 5 years.

JUDICIARY LAW; JUD Subsection 756
An application to punish for a contempt punishable, may be commenced by notice of motion returnable before the court authorized to punish for the offense. The application, SHALL be Noticed, Heard, and determined in accordance with the Procedure for a notice in such court.

Impropriety
a failure to observe standards or show due honesty or modesty; improper language, behavior, or character.
fairness; showing lack of favoritism; or prejudice
motion to reargue
application which seeks to persuade a judge that the decision rendered is incorrect, because the judge has misapprehended the facts or the applicable law, or because evidence
has become available which would change the prior decision and there is a good reason why the evidence was not presented earlier
Judicial misconduct
Pursuant to title 28, chapter 16 of the United States Code, Corpus Juris Secundum (Title 48A)
"(A) judge's conduct must be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and that both his official and personal behavior be in accordance with the highest standard society can expect. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of lay people and also higher than that expected of attorneys. The ultimate standard must be conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office, and judges must so comport themselves as to dignify the administration of justice and deserve the confidence and respect of the public."
Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.
"Examples of Judicial Misconduct"
1. The use of a harsh and angry tone and demeanor,
2. Excessive arrogance,
3. Lack of impartiality,
4. Incompetence,
5. Improper political or even charitable or fund-6. raising activities,
6. Sexually harassing conduct,
7. Off-the-record, private communication with a litigant about a pending case,
8. Criminal conduct,
9. Conflict of interest,
10. An ethnic or racial slur,
11. Physical or mental disability,
12. Bankruptcy or insolvency,
13. Misuse of prestige of office,
14. Allowing cameras in the courtroom,
15. Receiving a bribe or gift from a litigant,
16. Making it public comment on a pending case or which shows prejudgment
17. Failure to recuse oneself in an appropriate case,
18. Administrative mismanagement such as a failure to render a judgment in a reasonable amount of time
19. Showing Of Bias, Unethical to the case before the court
20. Denying the public Right of Due Process
21. Denying the public Right of Equal Protection
1. 28 UNITED STATES CODE 16
2. Goldschmidt, Jona and others, The Relationship Between Method of Judicial Selection and Judicial Misconduct, 18 Widener L.J. 455 (2008-2009)

3. CANON 1 [§100.1]
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Part 100 are to be construed and applied to further that objective.
Commentary:
[1.1] Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.
4. CANON 2 [§100.2]
A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES.
(A) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
5. CANON 3 [§100.3]
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.
(A) Judicial duties in general. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.
(B) Adjudicative responsibilities.
(l) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.
(3) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
(4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person. A judge in the performance of judicial duties shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice.
(5) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
(a) Ex parte communications that are made for scheduling or administrative purposes and that do not affect a substantial right of any party are authorized, provided the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication.

(D) Disciplinary responsibilities.
(1) A judge who receives information indicating a
substantial likelihood that another judge has
committed a substantial violation of this Part
shall take appropriate action. (JUDGE FREDERICK
REED ONTARIO COUNTY FAMILY COURT & FORMER SENECA
COUNTY COURT JUDGE BENDER).
[3.20][3D]
Appropriate action may include direct communication
with the judge or lawyer who has committed the
violation, other direct action if available, and
reporting the violation to the appropriate
authority.
(2) A judge who receives information indicating a
substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed
a substantial violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility shall take appropriate action.
(DAVID ETTMAN, ESQ, DONNA CATHY, ESQ, PAUL BLAKLEY, ESQ).
Commentary:
[3.2][3B(4)
A judge must perform judicial duties impartially
and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any
basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the
proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
[3.5][3B(6)(e)
All parties or their lawyers shall be
included in communications with a judge, and not
prejudice any party to the action. (Private
communication with any judge prior to a proceeding
is not to take place outside the presence of the
parties or their laywer to the action).

BIAS, LACK OF IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS, EQUAL
PROTECTION, DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OF LAW)
[3.8][3B(6)(e)
Ex parte communication is approved by
Section 3B(6) to facilitate scheduling and other
administrative purposes. In general, however, a
judge must discourage ex parte communication and
allow it only if all the criteria stated in Section
3B(6) are clearly met. A judge must disclose to all
parties all ex parte communications described in
Sections 3B(6)(a) and 3B(6)(b) regarding a
proceeding pending or impending before the judge.
[3.13][3B(7)
In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and
fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the
rights of the parties to be heard and to have
issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay.
Containing costs while preserving fundamental
rights of parties also protects the interests of
witnesses and the general public.

The Petitioner respectfully states to this court
that Judge Kocher from Yates & Ontario County
scheduled a Hearing for October 4th, 2018. That
Hearing was "Rescheduled to October 18th, 2018."
Sum & Substance is what the Plaintiff would like
to know as to "WHY" it was turned into an
"Appearance" and not a "Scheduled Trial / Hearing."
VIOLATING THE PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS &
EQUAL PROTECTION AFFORDED TO HIM AND AFFORDED TO
THE MINOR CHILD LOGAN C. PINE.
42 U.S.C. 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress, except that in
any action brought against a judicial officer for
an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia
shall be considered to be a statute of
the District of Columbia.
(R.S. §?1979; Pub. L. 96–170, §?1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284;
Pub. L. 104–317, title III, §?309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
CPS Case Law
Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906, (9th Cir. 2008)
Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, charging
constitutional violations in removing child from their custody
and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state
by fabricating evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and
reversed the district court's ruling that defendants were
entitled to absolute immunity.
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000In 1983,
three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents' home
based on allegations of child neglect. After she turned
eighteen, she sued her paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle,
alleging that they conspired to violate her constitutional
rights by reporting false claims of child neglect. A.D. also
sued the various state actors and agencies involved in removing
her from her parents' custody. The district court held that
A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because,
in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state
removal proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
"This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer
were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a
home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a
child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search
warrant and without a special exigency." Can you guess what the
answer was? "An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end
when the government officials walk across the threshold. It
continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home
in which they have no right to be."

Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New
Mexico Court of Appeals (2001)
Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff's
Department, who were called to assist two social workers from
the Children, Youth & Families Department on a "child welfare
check" at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff's son had not been
attending elementary school. Thus, one reason for the visit to
Plaintiff's home was to investigate suspected truancy or
educational neglect. Held: "At the time of entry into
Plaintiff's home, it was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment
to the United States Constitution prohibited unreasonable
searches and seizures and was intended to protect the sanctity
of an individual's home and privacy."
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d
1123 (3d Cir. 1997)
Holding that "a state has no interest in protecting children
from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable
evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has
been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse."
Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000)
School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are
deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that
violate a student's constitutional rights.
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983)
"The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to
oppose efforts by the state to assume a greater role in
children's development, even if we were confident that the state
were capable of doing so effectively and intelligently." A
brilliant analysis of the fundamental right to be free of
unwarranted state interference between the child-parent bond, in
this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.

Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891
F.2d 1087, (3d Cir. 1989)
"[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which
the ... Fourth Amendment is directed," the Court explained,
while adding: "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law'
that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are
presumptively unreasonable." No qualified immunity claim to be
found here.
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th
Cir.2003)
Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of
Missouri, effected the removal of 115 boarding students from
Heartland Christian Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte
probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding
students, there were no orders of any kind to remove many of the
students who were taken from the school. This case is noted for
its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a
juvenile court. The court held that: "any single violation of
Heartland's federal constitutional rights in this case would be
sufficient to sustain Heartland's claim for injunctive relief
under ' 1983."
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005)
No qualified immunity in this ' 1983 action for alleged
violations of Fourth Amendment rights arising from girl's in-
school seizure by a deputy sheriff and s Social Worker
Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families
Department ("CYFD"). "We conclude that the Fourth Amendment
violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and
outrageous."
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985)
"Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a
parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the
companionship and society of his or her child. The state's
interference with that liberty interest without due process of
law is remediable under section 1983."
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished)

]Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established
that a warrantless search of a private residence is per se
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of "a few
specifically established and well-delineated exceptions"
applies. Defendants maintain that because they had "received
specific information questioning the safety of children," they
acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered
Lopkoff's private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity
for these officers.
Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz.
September 27, 2007)
With respect to Plaintiffs' claim based on violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional
right to live together without governmental interference and
will not be separated without due process of law except in
emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and others who
coerced entry into home denied.
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who,
acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional
rights of another person. Whether reasonable cause to believe
exigent circumstances existed in a given situation, "and the
related questions, are all questions of fact to be determined by
a jury." Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C.
1983.
NEW! Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008)
The court held that: "a reasonable child welfare worker would
have known that conducting a search of a child's body under his
clothes, on private property, without consent or the presence of
any other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth
Amendment, is in direct violation of the child's constitutional
right to be free from unreasonable searches." No qualified
immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the
state statute that allowed for "investigations" on private
property without a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as
applied.
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306,
(10th Cir. 1999)
"The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials
from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for actions
taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their
conduct violates "clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." Court also held that: "it was clearly established law
that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a
liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot
be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures."
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th
Cir. 1993)
Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director
and caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide
adequate medical care, protection, and supervision with respect
to children placed in foster care was well established as of
1991.

Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996)
The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary
judgment by arguing that, even if their conduct violated the
Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity should shield them from
liability. Qualified immunity is available to state actors in
Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed that
their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the
legality of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified
immunity.

Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997)
Holding "a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the
care and custody of his children and he cannot be summarily
deprived of custody without notice and a hearing except when the
children are in imminent danger." No qualified immunity for
social worker who removed child not in imminent danger.
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court held: "the rights of families to be free from governmental
interference and arbitrary state action are also important.
Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect
children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the
preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that
families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of our Constitution." Section 1983 case reinforces
that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a
warrant or exigent circumstances violates those rights, and
therefore no qualified immunity applies to caseworker.

Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003)
Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking
either exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional
protection in the right to maintain a family relationship, Court
held: "the law is now clearly established that, absent probable
cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, social workers may
not enter an individual's home for the purpose of taking a child
into protective custody."

Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999)
"We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical
examination violated the Tenenbaums' and Sarah's procedural due-
process rights and Sarah's Fourth Amendment rights and awards
damages therefor. . . We conclude, however, that there is a
triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' removal of
Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural requirements of
the Due Process Clause and to Sarah's right to be free from
unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment." The Missouri
Bar has an informative Courts Bulletin describing the case.
Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th Cir. 2008)
(Unpublished)
"It was clearly established, at least two years before the
events in question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or
exigent circumstances, neither police nor social workers may
enter a person's home without a valid consent, even for the
purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to conduct a
search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and
detention of a person without probable cause or exigent
circumstances, as alleged in Turner's petition, is
unreasonable."

Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)
"In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide
by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term
consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family.
Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create
significant injury where no problem of any kind previously
existed."

Walsh v. Erie County Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp.
2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003)
"Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the
Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other
officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter,
however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed
door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees
routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to
ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits
on their authority."

Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990)
"Substantive due process does not categorically bar the
government from altering parental custody rights." What I find
interesting about this case is that it was brought pro se, and
that he sued a lot more people than I am.

Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social
workers, claiming they violated plaintiffs' constitutional
rights of familial association, denying plaintiffs due process
of law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that
plaintiffs' claims were not actionable under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
Guess again!

Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000)
Holding that a "childs right to family integrity is concomitant
to that of a parent. No qualified immunity for police officers
who removed young child in this section 1983 action.
________________________________________________
What laws must Child Protective Services follow?
In New York State many other states, Child
Protective Services has operated under the
assumption that parents were not protected by
Constitutional Rights provided for by the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. As a result, social workers often
would conduct child interviews, search homes and
ultimately remove children into custody without
court approval. Recently, the Federal Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held there is no
social worker exception and social workers must
comply with the protections of the Constitution.
This means they must first obtain court approval
before interviewing children and before taking
children into custody.
Exigent Circumstances
An exception to the court warrant process exists if
a social worker can establish exigent
circumstances.
Exigent circumstances means there must exist an
immediate threat of harm to the child. The threat
must be clearly articulatable and not just a
general concern for the general welfare of the
child.
However, this is a high burden for CPS to establish
and the procedure must be closely followed and
provide a hearing to the parents within 72 hours.
THIS NEVER TOOK PLACE VIOLATING THE PLAINTIFFS
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS 42 USC 1983 & VIOLATING THE
MINOR CHILD LOGAN C. PINE HIS HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, DUE
PROCESS OF LAW & EQUAL PROTECTION FROM THE HARM
CAUSED BY ONTARIO COUNTY SOCIAL WORKER LINDSEY
HARRIS, HER SUPERVISOR CHRISTINE ZUCHECK, SENECA
COUNTY DHS PERSONNEL MORGEN ROUSE, CONNIE FOSTER,
MICHELLE PARKER, AUSTIN WILLIAMS, TRACY VANVLECK
(COMMISSIONER) UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY "THE
EMPLOYER IS RESPONSIBILE FOR THE ACTIONS UNDER HIS
OR HER EMPLOY TO INCLUDE THE STATE AND COUNTY
EMPLOY OF THE STATE & COUNTY AGENCY DHS.
CASE WORKERS AND NON-RESPONDENT MOTHER JEAN M.KIRK.
THERE HAS BEEN NEW EVIDENCE THAT SENECA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICES CASEWORKERS MICHELLE PARKER AND
AUSTIN WILLIAMS HAVE THAT WOULD CHANGE THE OUTCOME
OF THIS COURT AND OVERTURN THE PRIOR JUDICIAL
DECISION IN THIS CASE.
LOGAN C. PINE AT SUPERVISED VISITATION
HAS STATED ON HIS OWN TO 2 CHILD PROTECTIVE
CASEWORKERS SUPERVISING THE VISITATION: "NOTHING
MATTERS ANYMORE, I WISH MY LIFE WOULD JUST END, I
JUST WISH I COULD DIE IF I CAN'T BE BACK HOME WITH
YOU, I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ANYMORE IF I CAN'T BE
BACK HOME WITH YOU." THIS WAS STATED IN THE
PRESENCE OF 2 CPS CASEWORKERS AUSTIN WILLIAMS &
JOHN (unknown last name).
THERE WAS A "MEETING BY AND BETWEEN MICHELLE PARKER
SUPERVISOR FOR SENECA COUNTY CPS, AND AUSTIN
WILLIAMS SENECA COUNTY CPS CASEWORKER WITH THE
PLAINTIFF AS OF NOVEMBER 18th, 2018. IT WAS STATED
TO THE PLAINTIFF IN "DISBELIEF" BY MICHELLE PARKER
SUPERVISOR; THAT SHE COULDN'T BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE
SHE WAS BEING PRESENTED TO HER BY THE PLAINTIFF.
SHE EVEN STATED SHE HAS 2 CHILDREN OF HER OWN BEING
DAUGHTERS AND SHE WOULD NOT BE HAPPY IF THE
EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED TO HER, IF HER CHILDREN
HAD EVER BEEN THROUGH WHAT THE PLAINTIFF AND THE
CHILD LOGAN C. PINE HAVE BEEN THROUGH. MICHELLE
PARKER ALSO STATED TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HERSELF
AND AUSTIN WILLIAMS HAVE A PLAN. WHAT THAT PLAN IS;
IS UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF. THE PLAINTIFF WAS
ASKED THE QUESTION: "WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF
LOGAN WERE TO BE BACK HOME LIVING WITH YOU AGAIN?"
THE PLAINTIFF STATED: CLEAN, EVERYTHING THE SAME
WAY IT WAS WHEN LOGAN WAS REMOVED BY HIS MOTHER
JANUARY 2018 BY "LEGAL KIDNAPPING" BY DIRECTION OF
ONTARIO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE CASEWORKER LINDSEY
HARRIS BASED ON HER OWN CONCERN FOR LOGAN AND NOT
THAT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, AND NOT THAT OF HER
LEGAL ETHICS AS A CHILD PROTECTIVE CASE WORKER,
ACTING OUTSIDE OF HER CAPACITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF HER JOB DESCRIPTION. ACTING AS A MEDICAL
PROFESSIONAL WHEN IN FACT, THAT IS NOT PART OF HER
JOB DESCRIPTION NOR HER LEGAL DUTY TO ENFORCE ANY
REMOVAL UNLESS AS STATED ABOVE THE CHILD MUST BE IN
IMMENINENT DANGER / RISK OF HARM TO HIMSELF OR
HERSELF FOR REMOVAL AND SUCH REMOVAL MUST BE BY A
LEGALLY AUTHORIZED COURT ORDER, NOT BASED ON THE
CASE WORKERS OWN ASSUMPTION OF RISK OR CONCERN FOR
THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HER
DUTIES AND JOB DESCRITION. LOGAN C. PINE WAS NOT
IN ANY DANGER, OR IMMEDIATE RISK OF HARM TO HIMSELF
OR OTHERS, UNDER THE SUPERVISION,
CUSTODY, AND CARE OF THE PLAINTIFF.
LOGAN'S DIAGNOSIS OF AUTISM PLAYS A HUGE ROLE IN
THE DECSION MAKING FOR LOGAN IN LIFE, AND
EDUCATIONALLY. LOGAN'S EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE HAS
NEVER BEEN IMPACTED BY THE PLAINTIFF AT ALL.
WHAT THE EDUCAIONAL STAFF AT WAYNE FINGER LAKES
BOCES DOES NOT HAVE A FULL COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING
OF IS THE DIAGNOSIS OF "AUTISM" AND WHAT "AUTISM
CHARACERISTICS & TRAITS ARE" TO HELP LOGAN AND NOT
FALSELY IMPLY OR ALLEGE THAT THE PLAINTIFF CAUSED
HARM ONTO LOGAN. LOGAN'S HYGIENE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN
CARE OF UNTIL THE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT IT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE SENECA COUNTY CASEWORKERS AND
SUPERVISOR MICHELLE PARKER ALSO.
LOGAN IS BEING NEGLECTED EDUCATIONALLY WITH HIS DIAGNOSIS OF AUTISM, LOGAN IS BEING MEDICALLY NEGLECTED
BY NOT PARTICIPATING IN INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING ANYMORE WITH
FAMILY COUNSELING SERVICES OF THE FINGER LAKES WITH SCOTT
OSTROWSKI WHOM LOGAN WAS VERY COMFORTABLE WITH. NOW I'M TOLD
LOGAN IS WITH A NEW THERAPIST / COUNSELOR, AND LOGAN WILL HAVE
TO REVISIT ALL THE HARDSHIP AND HARM HE HAS ADDRESSED WITH SCOTT
OSTROWSKI AT FAMILY COUNSELING SVC OF THE FINGER LAKES.
REVISITING THIS FOR LOGAN WILL CAUSE MORE EMOTIONAL HARM ONTO
LOGAN. MS. JEAN KIRK (NON RESPONDENT MOTHER) HAS LIED TO MANY
AGENCIES TO INCLUDE LOGAN'S PCP OFFICE STATING THAT SHE HAS
"FULL CUSTODY" OF LOGAN C. PINE WHEN IN FACT THAT IS FALSE
INFORMATION PROVIDED (LYING YET AGAIN). MS. KIRK AND FAMILY ARE
WHAT IN THE MENTAL HEALTH WORLD CALL THOSE TYPE OF PEOPLE
"SERIAL LIARS." WHAT'S EVEN WORSE ARE THOSE PEOPLE NOT ASKING
FOR PROOF / COURT ORDER / DOCUMENTATION TO BACK UP HER
ALLEGATION / STATEMENT TO POLICE, SOCIAL SERVICES CPS
CASEWORKERS, SENECA COUNTY SHERIFFS, EVEN LOGAN'S PCP OFFICE.
IF SHE CAN GET AWAY WITH MAKING OTHERS BELIEVE MINOR LIES, SHE
CAN GET AWAY WITH EVEN BIGGER LIES TO ANY PERSON SHE
COMMUNICATES WITH AND IS TEACHING LOGAN TO DO THE SAME. I AM
AFRAID FOR LOGAN, WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR HIM IS HE CONTINUES
TO REMAIN IN THE HOME AROUND CRIMINALLLY ASSOCIATED PERSONS,
SERIAL LIARS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, EMOTIONAL HARRM, PHYSICAL
ABUSE, VERBAL ABUSE; IT'S ALL CAUSING HARM ONTO LOGAN. AS
LOGAN'S FATHER (THE PLAINTIFF) I AM FEARFUL OF WHAT THE FUTURE
HOLDS FOR LOGAN IF HE CONTINUES TO RESIDE IN A HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT LIKE HE HAS BEEN OVER THE PAST 19 MONTHS.

I PRAY ONE LAST TIME TO THIS COURT FOR INJUNCTION RELIEF, TO
STOP THE ACTION OF SENECA COUNTY CPS SOCIAL SERVICES AND TO
CLOSE UP THEIR ABILITY TO REMOVE ANY CHILD FROM LOVING, GOOD
FAMILIES UNDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AFFORDED TO THEM
INCLUDING THE MINOR CHILD. EVEN AN UNBORN CHILD HAS CIVIL
RIGHTS AFFORDED TO HIM OR HER BEFORE BEING BORN. NO STATE OR
COUNTY JUDICIAL SHALL VIOLATE ANY UNITED STATES CITIZENS RIGHT
TO 42 U.S.C. 1983 CIVIL RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION,
FREE FROM IMPARTIALITY, BIAS, INPROPRIETY, LACK OF DIGNITY TO
THE PARTY.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT YOUR HONOR, I AM REQUESTING TO BE AFFORDED
MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL PROTECTION,
UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. IF I AM NOT, THEN
THE PLAINTIFF WILL HOLD ONTARIO COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES, SENECA
COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES, BOTH ONTARIO COUNTY, AND SENECA COUNTY
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL PRACTICES TO INCLUDE "LEGAL
KIDNAPPING" OF MY SON WHO WAS NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER TO HIMSELF
OR OTHERS UNDER THE DIRECT CARE, AND SUPERVISION OF THE
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN C. PINE. AS THE PLAINTIFF I CAN AND WILL FILE
A FEDERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST ONTARIO COUNTY AND SENECA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICES, AND THE COUNTIES THEMSELVES WHO ARE ELECTED
OFFICIALS TO COUNTY SEAT IN JUDICIAL CAPACITY. THIS IS WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT TO YOU AND THIS COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THIS CASE.
AS THE PLAINTIFF, IF NOT AFFORDED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO THIS COURT TO SHOW INNOCENCE AND
RETURN MY SON LOGAN C. PINE BACK HOME WITH THE PLAINTIFF, I WILL
SEEK FEDERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST ALL OF SENECA COUNTY DHS, ALL
CPS CASEWORKERS, THE COMMISSIONER OF SENECA COUNTY BEING TRACY
VANVLECK, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAE MAJOR, MORGEN ROUSE CPS
CASEWORKER, CONNIE FOSTER CPS SUPERVISOR, MICHELLE PARKER CPS
SUPERVISOR, AUSTIN WILLIAMS CPS CASE WORKER, MARIA GRANGER CPS
CASEWORKER, DAVID ETTMAN ESQ, DONNA CATHY ESQ, PAUL BLAKLEY ESQ
FOR THE CHILD LOGAN C. P. I AM PROVIDING ALL INCLUSIVE CASE
LAW, STATUES, STATE AND FEDERAL TO THIS COURT SO THAT NONE OF MY
STATEMENTS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD AS A "THREAT" BECAUSE WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT YOUR HONOR, IT IS NOT A THREAT. IT IS MY LEGAL RIGHT TO
FREE SPEECH WRITTEN AND SPOKEN IN ANY FORMAT TO THIS COURT,
ONTARIO COUNTY CPS, AND TO SENECA COUNTY CPS IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR EMPLOY AND CAPACITY OF TITLE(S) IN THEIR EMPLOY.