This case is an example of how Knox County CPS works, and how CPS agencies all over the country are permitted to operate if we do not stand up for our rights. 

 

All of these claims will be supported with court transcripts and case documents but those documents are not provided online to protect the identity of the family with an ongoing case. 

 

           “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.  In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher.  For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example.  Crime is contagious.  If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law.  It invites every man to become a law unto himself.  It invites anarchy.  U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Brandeis.

In the case described below the agency did not have enough evidence to support criminal charges .

This was an accusation made by a child after attending a child abuse awareness assembly at school . Despite there being no physical evidence, and no abuse indicators or concerns raised prior to this allegation the agency still believes it happened, and as outlined below are willing to violate court order, proper process and ethics to prolong a case they have no evidence is even necessary .

The child recanted the story and wants to return home and has a right to be home.

          A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent. Ward v. San Jose (9th Cir. 1992)

 Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority.  Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)

          The private, fundamental liberty interest involved in retaining custody of one’s child and the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance. Weller v. Dept. of Social Services for Baltimore (4th Cir. 1990)

The agency won’t allow the child to return home with the position that the child’s mental health requires continued support from the agency and sued the parent for custody of the child in civil court which was supposed to be guided by the child’s counselor .

However, CPS has forced a change in counselor number one when the counselor recommended reunification and refused to acknowledge verbal or email requests from the counselor to start reunification; Stating in court the mother had to obtain the request on letterhead from the counselor. 

The second counselor was ready to start to reunify the family when CPS prevented the parent from talking to the child’s counselor . The agency then also questioned the child without informing or requesting the presence of the child’s attorney, parent or licensed social worker . The child was asked questions repeatedly until she answered the questions to support the agency’s case . 

The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)

This child has been separated from her mother, step father and two brothers for seven months and is increasingly isolated from them . The worker assigned to the case does not answer the questions of the family - sometimes for weeks ,  led the family to believe the case plan had been fulfilled and then interpreted the case plan differently in court. This is by design to delay the process of reunification. 

          Child’s four-month separation from his parents could be challenged under substantive due process.  Sham procedures don’t constitute true procedural due process. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir 2000)

During the investigation and further during court proceedings CPS has attempted to coerce confessions from the original party to the allegations. Offering to let the child come home if the parents Admitted to abuse or seperated. 

CPS worker assigned to present this case documented conversations between CPS and our child’s counselors inaccurately to better support their case.

Plaintiff’s were arguable deprived of their right to procedural due process because the intentional use of fraudulent evidence into the procedures used by the state denied them the fight to fundamentally fair procedures before having their child removed, a right included in Procedural Due Process. Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999)

CPS and the GAL interviewed the child against an order from the court, in Greene Vs Deschutes County the Supreme Court ruled  the parents have a constitutional right to be present for examinations of the child even after removal. At minimum the parent must be at the facility with access to child immediately after exam. This was a violation of substantive due process rights of the mother and child under 14th Amendment. 

The CPS worker assigned to this case testified in court the agency directed her to lie to the parents regarding this child’s case. The CPS worker told the parents even after the interview took place that there were no updates to the child’s condition or case and the family did not even learn of the interview until their next court hearing  

 

The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.

          The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice, i.e. the “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.

          Individuals aren’t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders.  Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity. Grossman v. City of Portland, (9th Cir. (1994)

 Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.  In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher.  For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example.  Crime is contagious.  If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law.  It invites every man to become a law unto himself.  It invites anarchy.  U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Brandeis.

When the parent searched the social worker , licensed counselor licensing database NONE of the workers assigned to the case are licensed to be doing social work or counseling ,

The parent researched the job requirements for this job and while a bachelors degree is desired you don’t have to have any kind of college degree to be considered for this job .

Yet these individuals have the power to remove children from their homes without enough evidence to even warrant criminal charges. Without the support of licensed professionals, and against the desires of the children they are supposed to be serving . 

Our elected officials need to examine these agencies and cases . Our family rights need better protection . CPS has too much free rein to violate the human right to parent our child. Communities NEED CPS . I don’t doubt that - however the current policies and procedures CPS follows destroys at least as many families as it helps. 

CPS should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intervention is necessary before removing a child . 

CPS should be the professionals we can trust to guide the court - the agency is not currently doing enough to make sure that their employees are qualified to be doing that . CPS is hiring individuals without licensure, allowing employees licenses to expire etc. This provides more freedom for the agency to move beyond the ethical binding of professional licensure .