How to write a Motion To Dismiss for CPS Juvenile Court In Alabama

The goal here is to show the court that the assessment of harm and neglect against you should have been UNFOUNDED (you are not guilty) and therefore the court has no jurisdiction over the child and should close the case.

You will also want to show that the intake worker lied and coerced you which means that the judges decisions to make your child a ward of the court was based on more than hearsay (which is legal in most juvenile courts) but was based on distortion, misrepresentation, lies, and omission. This would mean that the judge would have to reconsider the evidence.

If you actually DID neglect or harm your child according to the state statutes, and they have shown evidence of it, this will not work for you.

Check out our LEGAL DISCLAIMER before you get started.

Step 1. Download this FREE program to write your Motion To Dismiss in.

It is called Open Office.

Step 2. Download this template and open it using the Open Office program.

Step 3. Download this EXAMPLE and open it in Open Office to see what yours should look like.

CLICK HERE to see a online version - Motion To Dismiss

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

Comes now Petitioner Jeramey Tipaloo (Father) based upon the attached Declaration, moves the court for a Judgment dismissing the above-captioned cases.

DATED this day of November _____, 2016

 

_____________________________________

Petitioner, signature

 

 

Submitted by:

________________________________________________________________________________

Petitioner, Print Name Address or Contact Address

________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip Telephone or Contact Telephone

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

I, Jeramey Tipaloo (Father), Petitioner in the above proceeding, make this declaration in support of my motion to dismiss the above-captioned cases. I request the court dismiss these cases for the following reasons:

On January 12th, 2016, at 2 p.m.,CPS intake caseworkers Brooke Sinclair, Megan Favreau and (4) Florence P.D. Police Officers made face to face contact with Jeramey J. Tullis.

Intake Worker Brooke Sinclair stated at the door that “We are here to investigate a report of child abuse and neglect,”

I felt I had nothing to hide and was sure that my children had never been abused or neglected, welcomed the intake caseworkers and Florence P.D. Officers into the home.

I have a naturaly loud voice. Mix that with the emotional stress of 4 police and 2 caseworkers entering my home and accusing me of neglect and abuse of my children. My demeanor was as any normal father would be to protect his children from being taken away. My voice was loud and demanding of proof of harm.

The intake worker would not give me any specifics of how I had harmed my children.

I stationed myself leaning backwards on the kitchen bar with my legs crossed and demanded the caseworker for documentation of proof of the allegations.

The intake worker, Brooke Sinclair, sat on the couch silent, looking aimlessly around at coworker Megan Favreau and police officers for answers. 

Meanwhile the two older boys were scared of the situation and kept behind my legs where they felt safe. The oldest boy was intuitivly following my demenor by peeking out from my legs and telling the intakeworker “GO! GO!”

The intake worker made a decision from that scene that there would be inpending danger caused to the children and that it was an emergency to take all 3 children.

I called my wife at work saying “Come home quick! CPS is here and they are taking our children.”

She arrived at home and met the intake workers Brooke Sinclair, and Megan Favreau outside on front step. Brooke Sinclair said “There is reasonable cause to believe that there is a threat of harm in the household.”

When my wife entered the home, she saw me leaning against the kitchen island with my back and Haiden and Jaiden are behind me giggling and playing with each other. They were running around with smiles on their faces while playing

The youngest child was sound asleep in his bassinet in the bedroom.

Intake worker Brooke Sinclair stated to my wife “The children were cowering behind the father.”

My wife asked the CW for a CPS handbook so that we could know our rights. The CW handed her a pamphlet that explained nothing of what was happening at this time and why she had the right to take our children.

My wife asked to speak to Brooke Sinclair’s supervisor (Julie Harper).

The caseworker got on her phone and walked out towards the driveway. After a few minutes she hung up the phone and returned to the front step.

My wife asked why she did not allow her to speak to her supervisor while she had her on the phone.

The CW stated she was not allowed to let her use her phone and she preceded to give my wife her supervisors business card.

My wife immediately attempted to call the supervisor from the house phone and got the answering machine. She then left a voicemail for Julie Harper to contact her as soon as possible.

My wife asked for a court order and the caseworker walked out to her car and grabbed a piece of paper and wrote “Threat of Harm” on it.

Meanwhile, I called his Domestic Violence Advocate Pamela Long at Siuslaw Outreach Services. I stated that Pamela wanted to speak to Brooke Sinclair.

The CW refused to talk to her and stated “I do not have time to talk to her.”

One of the Police officers got on the phone and advised Pamela that CPS was here and they are taking the children into CPS care.

The DV advocate asked to speak to me again, in return she asked me to hand the phone to the CW and that she needed to speak to her.

I handed the CW the phone. As soon as she had it in her hand, she hung it up refusing to speak to the Domestic Violence Advocate.

We both objected to the caseworker’s decision. The Florence Police Department officers and CPS caseworkers both stated that if we interfere with the taking of the children, we would both would be arrested.

Both caseworkers and a officer all cornered Haiden, Jaiden, and my wife all in the laundry room. The intake caseworker said to my wife, “Meaghan if you come with us and leave Jeramey we can get you and your boys into a Hotel room tonight and you can keep your kids, but Jeramey cannot come and cannot have contact with you or the children.”

My wife begged with the caseworker, “Please don’t take our boys, Our boys need us, you don’t how how much trauma you are causing them right now.”

We asked if we could feed the children the meal I had just made for them. The CW said “No we will get them something to eat.”

The caseworker proceeded to get Haiden and Jaiden into the bedroom to get clothes on them.

My wife then asked the CW “Can I please breastfeed our newborn please before you take him? You just woke him up and I do not have a breastpump.

The CW said “No, we have some formula at the DHS office we could give him.”

The second CW, Megan Favreau went into the master bedroom grabbed the baby (Kaiden) from his bassinet where he was asleep. Immediately put him into the car seat and could not figure out how to buckle the infant into the car seat. She then took him to the CPS vehicle.

While we were in the boys bedroom getting the boys clothes, the CW came into the room with clothes too small from a bag marked S.O.S. for donation and put them on the children.

The CW asked for our car seats to transport them and began searching around in closets and rooms for them without any permission. We pulled the car seats out of the living room closet. The CW’s then put the children into the back of their car.

The CW suggested that my wife go with the police escort up to the DHS office in Florence to speak with her more about the reason why CPS was taking our children into protective care.

My wife offered to get some juice for the kids but the CW would not wait for her. I then gave it to a police officer to give to the CW.

My wife took the escort ride up to the local DHS office in Florence. She then waited for the CW half an hour in a room by herself. All she could hear was our children screaming at the top of their lungs.

The intake CW entered the room and said that she had me on the speaker phone. I was distraught and was crying and blaming myself for the children being taken away. My loudness again was taken as proof that there was a impending safety threat.

The CW then preceded to use coercion by telling my wife “You should leave Jeramey and if you want any chance of getting your children back you should sign these papers.” She asked for a copy of them and has never received the copies to this date.

We object to the coercion from the CW to get my wife to sign a plea of guilt at the DHS office in Florence Oregon. She did not know at that time that that paper she signed was a plea of guilt. She hearby resinds her signiture on this form. “Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991). Coercion can be mental as well as physical. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US (1960)

Again, neither of us were told what specific impending threat of harm caused our children to be taken away.

I asked the CW if our children had anything to eat. The CW stated “ We gave them some snacks.”

The pleading filed by the agency contained no information indicating any actual imminent danger to our children or that any one of them had been injured on the day they were removed. The allegations and contentions in the pleading filed by the agency had no factual support. This went against the requirement of 419B.866 (3)(d)

The pleading filed by the agency stated the reason that the children were taken as, “One or both parents’ or caregivers’ behavior is violent and/or they are acting (behaving) dangerously.” CPS has never shown this court any evidence that there was any violence involved between us at any time. The evidence that was submitted to the court only showed that there were arguments and yelling. Never any violence. This went against the requirement of 419B.866 (3)(d)

Oregon law provides that a child may be removed without a court order only if, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse. Moreover, the agency must show that it is contrary to the welfare of the child to remain in our home, and consistent with the circumstances and ensuring that the child is safe, that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal from their home.

After a child is removed without a court order, Oregon law mandates that CPS show that: (1) there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child if the child is returned home, or there is evidence of sexual abuse and the child is at substantial risk of future sexual abuse; (2) it is contrary to the child’s welfare to remain in the home; and (3) reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate need for removal.” All of these things must be shown by the agency in order to meet their burden of proof under Oregon Juvinile laws.

CPS did not show this court any one of these mandated requirements were fulfilled because they did not first meet their burden of proof with evidence that there was any violence. This went against the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(c)(d)

CPS could not show that there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child if the child is returned home or that it is contrary to the children’s welfare to remain in the home because they have never proven that there was a safety threat of violence in the first place. This went against the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(c)(d)

If there is no imminent or inpending dangers such as “severe abuse” “severe harm” according to the definitions of 419B.005, OAR 413-015-0425, OAR 413-015-0115, and OAR 413-015-0115 (47) then there is no safety threat. If there is no safety threat, then this allegation of “One or both parents’ or caregivers’ behavior is violent and/or they are acting (behaving) dangerously.” should have been UNFOUNDED.

CPS has failed to fulfill the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(c)(d) in that they failed to show the court WHAT imminent abuse or severe harm would have befell the children if left at home. Oregon law states that that the intakeworker should be able to describe it. CPS failed to describe it as per OAR 413-015-0115. If it cannot be described then the accusations should have been UNFOUNDED.

The intake worker and the CW have never clearly described and articulated what severe harm was imminant or about to happen. The intake worker and CW have clearly based her finding on a gut feeling.

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

  1. Observable” means specific, real, can be seen and described. Observable does not include suspicion or gut feeling.”

 

CPS knowingly misled the Court with statements in the caseworker’s sworn affidavit and with sworn testimony at the ex parte hearing required by the Oregon Juvinile Code. CPS knowingly misled the court with lies of ommission by not showing the court that there was NO violence in the mother and fathers relationship and there was no violence on the day of the children’s abduction. There was no imminent danger to the children on the evening that the children were removed.

By intentionally and consciously ommiting this important information, shows a doing wrong for dishonest purpose. This went against the requirements of 419B.866 (3)(a)

419B.866 Signing pleadings required; effect of signing or not signing.

(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d) of this subsection, by signing, filing or otherwise submitting an argument in support of a petition, answer, motion or other paper, an attorney or party makes the certifications to the court identified in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this subsection and further certifies that the certifications are based on the person’s reasonable knowledge, information and belief formed after the making of any inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances.

(b) A party or attorney certifies that the petition, answer, motion or other paper is not being presented for any improper purpose including, but not limited to, harassing or causing unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(c) An attorney certifies that the claims and other legal positions taken in the petition, answer, motion or other paper are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(d) A party or attorney certifies that the allegations and other factual assertions in the petition, answer, motion or other paper are supported by evidence. An allegation or other factual assertion that the party or attorney does not wish to certify is supported by evidence must be specifically identified. The party or attorney certifies that the party or attorney reasonably believes that an allegation or other factual assertion so identified will be supported by evidence after further investigation and discovery. [2001 c.622 §20]

This case should have been closed at screening because it did not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005

(4) Close at Screening: A report will be closed at screening if one of the following subsections applies:

(a) The screener determines that information received:

(A) Does not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005 or, when applicable, Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 106, section 36, and the screener determines:

  1. That the information describes behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that pose a risk to a child;

Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 106, section SECTION 38. (1) The investigation conducted by the Department of Human Services under section 37 of this 2016 Act must result in one of the following findings:

(a) That the report is substantiated. A report is substantiated when there is reasonable cause to believe that the abuse of a child in care occurred.

(b) That the report is unsubstantiated. A report is unsubstantiated when there is no evidence that the abuse of a child in care occurred.

  1. That the report is inconclusive. A report is inconclusive when there is some indication that the abuse occurred but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that the abuse occurred.

SECTION 39. ORS 419B.005 is amended to read: 419B.005. As used in ORS 419B.005 to 419B.050, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

(A) Any assault, as defined in ORS chapter 163, of a child and any physical injury to a child which has been caused by other than accidental means, including any injury which appears to be at variance with the explanation given of the injury.

(B) Any mental injury to a child, which shall include only observable and substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child.

(G) Threatened harm to a child, which means subjecting a child to a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.

Neither the intakeworker or the caseworker have reported in any way that the children suffered from any “assault”, “Physical injury”, “observable and substantial impairment” or “ substantial risk of harm”. This report should have been unsubstantiated or NOT FOUNDED. There was insufficient information to support this being a disposition of child abuse or neglect.

The Case Progress Evaluation Summary reads; “On January 5th, 2016, the agency received a call of concern for the children in the care of Mr. Tullis and Ms. Gotterba. The agency responded on 1/13/2016 and CPS caseworkers Brook Sinclair, Megan Favreau and Florence Police Officers made face to face contact with Mr. Tullis at his residence in Florence, Oregon.”

The law at ORS 413-015-0210 states that the caseworker must make contact within 5 calendar days. The law also states that the information from an informant must constituted a report of child abuse or neglect as defined in ORS 419B.005. If it does not, then the report must be closed at screening. No where in the caseworkers report to the court or in the original petition to the court did DHS or CPS show that they had met these requirements.

According to 413-015-0210

Determining Department’s Response and Required Time Lines for CPS Information

(1) After the screener completes screening activities required by OAR 413-015-0205, and the screener determines the information received is CPS information, the screener must determine the Department response, either CPS assessment required or close at screening. If a CPS assessment is required, the screener must then determine the time line for the Department response, either within 24 hours or within five calendar days.

(2) CPS assessment required. A CPS assessment is required if:

(a) The screener determines that information received constitutes a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005, and the information indicates:

(A) The alleged perpetrator is a legal parent of the alleged child victim;

(B) The alleged perpetrator resides in the alleged child victim’s home;

  1. The alleged perpetrator may have access to the alleged child victim, and the parent or caregiver may not be able or willing to protect the child;

(3) Response Time Lines. If the screener determines that a CPS assessment is required, the screener must:

(a) Determine the CPS assessment response time line. The time line for the Department response refers to the amount of time between when the report is received at screening and when the CPS worker is required to make an initial contact. When determining the response time, the screener must take into account the location of the child, how long the child will be in that location, and access that others have to the child.

(A) Within 24 hours: This response time line is required, unless paragraph (B) of this subsection applies, when the information received constitutes a report of child abuse or neglect as defined in ORS 419B.005 or, when applicable, Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 106, section 36.

(B) Within five calendar days: This response time line must only be used when the screener can clearly document how the information indicates the child’s safety will not be compromised by not responding within 24 hours and whether an intentional delay to allow for a planned response is less likely to compromise the safety of the child.

(4) Close at Screening: A report will be closed at screening if one of the following subsections applies:

(a) The screener determines that information received:

(A) Does not constitute a report of child abuse or neglect, as defined in ORS 419B.005

419B.005 Definitions. As used in ORS 419B.005 to 419B.050, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

(A) Any assault, as defined in ORS chapter 163, of a child and any physical injury to a child which has been caused by other than accidental means, including any injury which appears to be at variance with the explanation given of the injury.

(B) Any mental injury to a child, which shall include only observable and substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function caused by cruelty to the child, with due regard to the culture of the child.

(D) Sexual abuse, as described in ORS chapter 163.

(F) Negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including but not limited to the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of the child.

(G) Threatened harm to a child, which means subjecting a child to a substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.

I object to the intake workers witch hunt to try and find something to pin on me. The law states that there must already be a known exigent circumstance existing before conducting a search or seizure without a warrant or court order. This exigent circumstance must directly be associated with harm to the childs life or limb. “Government officials are required to obtain prior judicial authorization before intruding on a parent’s custody of her child unless they possess information at the time of the seizure that establishes ‘reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.’” Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)

 

I object that the intake worker has clearly violated our children’s Fourth Amendment rights. A man demanding his rights and his childrens rights with a loud voice does not equal “violence”.The father was not directing his negative attention to the children. The father was not violently in a physical fight with anyone where a child could get in the way and be harmed. The children had no bruises or marks to show that abuse had already happened to them and that it was impending that it would happen again soon. Two children playing behind their fathers legs does not equal “cowering” as the CW insinuates. Two children hiding behind their fathers legs when 6 people are in the same room arguing with the parent does not equal impending doom, exigent circumstances or imminent danger to the children.

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991).

Being there was no evidence of an imminent threat of harm to any one of our children, the CPS investigator violated our childen’s clearly established fourth amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Our children are undeniably entitled to stay with their parents without governmental interference.

The CPS investigater had neither a warrant nor probable cause to seize our children.

In order to prevail, therefore, she must have demonstrate a governmental interest sufficient to justify dispensing with constitutional protections. The record before us is devoid of such.

As previously noted, there was no evidence of danger to our children sufficient to implicate the state’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of them as minors.

You cannot seize childern simply because their parent is yelling.

The social workers were specifically charged with protecting children where there were allegations of abuse. There is no indication in this record of any threat to our children’s safety, nor was she investigating allegations that our children had previously suffered abuse at the hands of their parents.

Under the circumstances, our children enjoyed a clearly established right to maintain their relationship free from interference by state actors.

According to OAR 413-015-0400, when the agency makes a determination of the presence of a safety threat, there are 5 factors that all have to be met and present at the same time in order for it to be FOUNDED.

  1. A family condition is out-of-control.

According to OAR 413-015-0425 “Out of control” means”

  1. (d) “family behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that can affect a child’s safety are unrestrained, unmanaged, without limits or monitoring, not subject to influence or manipulation within the control of the family, resulting in an unpredictable and chaotic family environment.”

The father was in control of himself and restrained by leaning against the kitchen bar and crossing his legs. He only argued his points with a loud voice. He did not threaten anyone, throw things, or break things. He was simply reacting to a situation where officials were trying to take his children without due cause. Even if these actions and attitudes resulted in a chaotic family environment, it did not fullfill the other factors that would have entitled the intakeworker to take the children.

 

  1. A family condition is likely to result in harm.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 “Harm” means:

  1. “….. any kind of impairment, damage, detriment, or injury to a child’s physical, sexual, psychological, cognitive, or behavioral development or functioning. “Harm” is the result of child abuse or neglect and may vary from mild to severe.”

A father leaning up against a kitchen bar did not show any actions that would likely result in direct harm to his children.

  1. The severe effect is imminent: reasonably could happen soon.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 (47) “Severe harm” means:

(a) Significant or acute injury to a child’s physical, sexual, psychological, cognitive, or behavioral development or functioning;

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

  1. Life threatening damage.

Even if it were true that the children were cowering behind their father, the intake worker and CW have never seen anything even close to a severe effect or severe harm that was imminent.

  1. The family condition is observable and can be clearly described and articulated.

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

  1. Observable” means specific, real, can be seen and described. Observable does not include suspicion or gut feeling.”

The intake worker and the CW have never clearly described and articulated what severe harm was imminant or about to happen. The intake worker and CW have clearly based her finding on a gut feeling.

  1. There is a vulnerable child.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 “Vulnerable child” means:

(53) …..a child who is unable to protect himself or herself. This includes a child who is dependent on others for sustenance and protection.

A “vulnerable child” is defenseless, exposed to behaviors, conditions, or circumstances that he or she is powerless to manage, and is susceptible and accessible to a threatening parent or caregiver.

Vulnerability is judged according to physical and emotional development, ability to communicate needs, mobility, size, and dependence.

According to OAR 413-015-1000

Threat of harm, includes all activities, conditions, and circumstances that place the child at threat of severe harm of physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, mental injury, or other child abuse or neglect.

According to OAR 413-015-0425

Present Danger is an IMMEDIATE, SIGNIFICANT, and clearly observable severe harm or threat of severe harm occurring in the present.

According to OAR 413-015-0425

Impending Danger is a state of danger in which family conditions, behaviors, attitudes, motive, emotions and /or situations are out of control and , while the danger may not be currently active, it can be anticipated to have severe effects on a child at any time.

The key word here is severe as in SEVERE HARM and SEVERE EFFECTS.

According to OAR 413-015-0115 statute (47) “Severe harm” means:

(a) Significant or acute injury to a child’s physical, sexual, psychological, cognitive, or behavioral development or functioning;

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

(c) Life threatening damage.

The CPS’s evaluation should have been decided as UNFOUNDED according to Oregon law and CPS’s own rules. This claim of Neglect and Threat of Harm should never have been brought to this court because it does not fit the statutory definition of child abuse or neglect.

CPS has not shown evidense in any manner that our children have suffered ANY severe harm. Nor have they shown that any severe effects were imminent such as:

  • Significant or acute injury
  • Immobilizing impairment
  • or Life threatening damage

CPS has never proven that our current mental condition placed or will place our children at a threat of severe harm.

 

The CW has also stated in her Ongoing Safety Plans and the Child Welfare Case Plans that,”There is a long history of domestic violence occuring between Meaghan Gotterba and Jeramy Tullis. The children have wittnessed the DV betweem their parents.”

Although arguing or talking in foul language is not appropreate in front of children or anywhere else, arguing is not part of CPS’s own examples of this mentioned safety threat. CPS has never shown evidence that any of our children “…demonstrates an observable, significant effect.” The term “Family Discord” is not even used in the discriptions of any of the Oregon Safety Threats.

Below is the examples of this peticular Safety Threat as brought out in CPS’s own Screening and Assessment Handbook, Chapter II –

  • Examples:
  • Violence includes hitting, beating or physically assaulting a child, spouse or other family member.
  • Violence includes acting dangerously toward a child or others, including throwing things, brandishing weapons, aggressively intimidating and terrorizing. This includes making believable threats of homicide or suicide.
  • Family violence involves physical and verbal assault on a parent, caregiver or member of the child’s household in the presence of a child; the child witnesses the activity; and the child demonstrates an observable, significant effect.
  • Family violence occurs and a child has been assaulted or attempted to intervene.
  • Family violence occurs and a child could be inadvertently harmed even though the child may not be the actual target of the violence.
  • Parent/caregiver whose behavior outside of the home (e.g., drugs, violence, aggressiveness, hostility) creates an environment within the home which threatens child safety (e.g., drug labs, gangs, drive-by shootings).
  • Due to the batterer’s controlling behavior, the child’s basic needs are unmet.

The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Oregon law require Child Welfare caseworkers to make efforts to prevent the need to remove a child from his or her home prior to placing the child in protective custody, to return the child to a parent, and to achieve permanency for a child who cannot be returned to his or her home.

The intakeworker’s wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness of the intakeworker’s conduct.

This blatant disregard for the childrens 4th amendment rights, the states rules and regulations and Federal laws has striped the intakeworker and caseworker of their Qualified Immunity. They both have been trained in their scope of work and clearly went against what a reasonable person would have known.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396(1982);

 

Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . .” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)

 

 

I object to the intakeworkers “fishing expedition” and “witch hunt” to try and find a reason to take our children. Even if it was true that the children were “cowering” behind me, the intakeworker clearly did not see a exigent circumstances that would harm life or limb.

Under “Reasons Services Could Not be Provided to Prevent removal Of the Child from the home” in the report to the court, the CW gives the reason “During the initial assessment, Mr Tullis was angry and volatile with the DHS intakeworker. The agency was unable to develop an in-home plan due to Mr Tullis’ lack of cooperation.

Nowhere in the law of OAR 413-015-0400 and nowhere in CPS statutes does it require that an in-home-plan be put into place if there is no reason­able cause to believe that child abuse or neglect occurred or was about to occur soon.

Nowhere in the law of OAR 413-015-0400 and nowhere in CPS statutes does it require that an in-home plan should be put into place if the parent is angry that someone is there trying to take their children away.

It is to only be put into place IF the intakeworker has reason­able cause to believe that child abuse or neglect occurred or it is going to occur soon.

This claimed exigent is less than the real, genuine or bona fide emergency required by the constitutions, federal and state.

The only reason that the intakeworker took the children was because the fathers yelling was of inconvenience to the intakeworker and not of exigent circumstances relating to the children. The fathers yelling was only an excuse to take the children instead of real cause mandated by law.

Being there was NO true exigent circumstances, the caseworker would need a warrant or court order to take the children. If she had persuded a court for a court order or warrant, It would have been based on lies and ommissions as the original petition to the court was.

As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 590 [100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639].)

A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)

The CW has never presented to this court any evidence that was explicitly documented that showed any reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal of two boys that were playing behind their father legs and one infant sleeping in its bed. Just using one of Oregons 16 safety threats title as a reason to take a child and not backing it up with evidence does not fulfill the letter of the law.

Judicial determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that reasonable efforts are not required, must be explicitly documented, made on a case-by-case basis, and stated in the court order. A transcript of the court proceeding is the only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable. 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d). The court, after hearing the evidence, must be satisfied that reasonable efforts . . . have been made. Review and approval of the [state] agency’s report and recommendation alone are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act; the court must make a determination that the agency’s efforts were, in the judgment of the court, reasonable for preventing placement. With regard to emergency situations, if the agency’s judgment was that services could not have prevented removal of the child, the court at the time of the adjudicatory hearing must find that the lack of preventive efforts was reasonable.

CPS was never required by the court to provide specific and detailed documentation to prove that Reasonable Efforts were in fact made. 42 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(d) requires documentation of judicial determinations concerning both reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare findings. They are to be explicitly documented on a case by case basis and so stated in the court order. Facts substantiating the legal conclusion must be stated in the order. Lack of compliance results in denial of federal funds for the child’s foster placement.

According to OAR 413-040-0013

Every 30 days the Ongoing Safety Plan is to be reviewed and updated to be current. Any previously identified Safety Threats that have been reduced or eliminated will be shown to be so.

The caseworker, Stacie Navarro, has never done this.

According to OAR 413-040-0013

Every 30 days there is to be a face-to-face review with parent on progress toward achieving the current Conditions For Return and Expected Outcomes.

This has never been done by the caseworker.

According to OAR 413-040-0016 and OAR 413-040-0010

Every 90 days (or any time within the 90 days) there is to be a full face-to-face current Case Plan review with the parent. This would include reviewing and updating the Ongoing Safety Plan, Action Agreement, Expected Outcomes, and Conditions For Return.

The fact is, after the first separate Action Agreements were signed back in 3/10/16 by both parents, the caseworker has NEVER visited our home or updated anything thru a face-to-face with either parent. To date over 6 months have passed by.

This means that the caseworker has committed malfeasance 28 times (14 times with each parent.)

In fact, the caseworker STILL to this date has not talked to the parents specifically about the conditions for return, expected outcomes, nor has she talked to the parents personally about a case plan where everything is updated. She also has not updated any visitation plan with them. They have never seen any visitation plan other than the original one made at intake almost 6 months ago. In fact, the visitation plan dated 3/2/16 submitted to court in the case file was not even signed by the caseworker or the parents.

And because of the CW’s lack of mandated monthly updates, this means that the caseworker presented false information in the CRB on 7/7/16 and the Oregon Family Decision Meeting on 9/15/16. This also means that the CW passed on false information to the caseworker’s supervisor. This also means that false information was presented to Dr. Basham for the Psych Evaluations by stateing that the parents were in a violent relationship.

And because of the caseworker, Stacie Navarro, not doing her mandated obligations of updating anything, she has thus given false testimony to this court at every hearing so far.

The CW lack of updating the case causes the court to not know the truth. This is basicly a lie of ommission. A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s (the judge’s) capacity to make an informed decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).

We are therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that we strongly challenge that any lawfull reason existed to remove our children.

Therefore, we strongly challenge this courts jurisiction over this matter.

We withdraw and rescind any and all signatures to “voluntary” safety and service plans or any other “agreements”. Such signatures were obtained through duress, threat, and coercion. We now explicitly withdraw any consents we gave.

We withdraw any plea of guilt that we were coerced and tricked into signing.

I am petitioning the court to dismiss jurisdiction, close the case, and order that the children are returned home immediately.

I hereby declare that the above statements are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand they are made for use as evidence in court and I am subject to penalty for perjury.

DATED this day of ___________, 20____ .

Petitioner (signature) _________________________________________

Print Name _________________________________________________

Address or Contact Address ____________________________________

City, State, Zip Code __________________________________________

Telephone or Contact Telephone ________________________________

STATE OF OREGON           )

)     ss.

County of Lane )

 

 

SIGNED AND SWORN to before me on this ______ day of ______________, 2016.

_____________________

SEAL

 

 

 

 

Attorney’s signature______________________________________________

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LANE COUNTY

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

 

Based upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by the plaintiff , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED these cases be dismissed

___ resolving and disposing of all remaining issues and parties (general)

___ disposing of defendant (s) _______________________________________________________ (limited) and it is further ordered this case is dismissed

___ with prejudice

___ without prejudice

 

DATE: ___________________

______________________________________________

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

 

 

Step 4. Start writing your story of who you are and how you got involved with CPS using the format of the template. Everything that is printed in red must be changed or taken off.

Step 5. When it comes time to talk about a certain subject, use the case law citations and CPS statutes and state law below to back your claims.

 

Click on the links below to start your research

Alabama

Main Website

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (426 KB) of this publication.

Current Through April 2016

Circumstances That Constitute Witnessing

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Consequences

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (587 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2016

Physical Abuse

Abuse’ means harm or threatened harm to the health or welfare of a child through:

  • Nonaccidental physical injury
  • Sexual abuse or attempted sexual abuse
  • Sexual exploitation or attempted sexual exploitation
Neglect

‘Neglect’ means negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child, including the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, or supervision.

Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

‘Sexual abuse’ includes:

  • The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in or to have a child assist any other person engage in sexually explicit conduct
  • Any simulation of the conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of the conduct
  • The rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children
  • Incest with children

‘Sexual exploitation’ includes:

  • Allowing, permitting, or encouraging a child to engage in prostitution
  • Allowing, permitting, encouraging, or engaging in obscene or pornographic photographing, filming, or depicting a child for commercial purposes
Emotional Abuse

The term ‘abuse’ includes non-accidental mental injury.

Abandonment

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

I know this is scary, overwhelming, and confusing. Let me show you what to do first to get your child back.

CLICK HERE!

Standards for Reporting

Citation: Ala. Code § 26-14-3
A report is required when a mandatory reporter knows or suspects a child is a victim of child abuse or neglect.

Persons Responsible for the Child

Responsible persons include the child’s parent or legal guardian.

Exceptions

A parent who fails to provide medical treatment to a child due to the legitimate practice of religious beliefs shall not be considered negligent for that reason alone. This exception shall not preclude a court from ordering that medical services be provided to the child.

Definitions of Domestic Violence

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (533 KB) of this publication.

Current Through August 2013

Defined in Domestic Violence Civil Laws

In this chapter [concerning the issuance of civil protection orders], the term ‘abuse’ means the occurrence of conduct directed at a plaintiff as defined by this chapter, including the following:

  • Arson, as defined under §§ 13A-7-40 to 13A-7-43
  • Assault, as defined under §§ 13A-6-20 to 13A-6-22
  • Attempt, which means the intent to commit any crime under this section or any other criminal act under the laws of this State or performing any overt act towards the commission of the offense
  • Child abuse, as defined under title 26, chapter 15
  • Criminal coercion, as defined under § 13A-6-25
  • Criminal trespass, which means entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so either orally or in writing by the owner of the premises or other authorized person
  • Harassment, as defined under § 13A-11-8
  • Kidnapping, as defined under §§ 13A-6-43 and 13A-6-44
  • Menacing, as defined under § 13A-6-23
  • Any other conduct directed toward a plaintiff covered by this chapter that could be punished as a criminal act under the laws of this State
  • Reckless endangerment, as defined under § 13A-6-24
  • Any sexual offenses, as defined under title 13A, chapter 6, article 4
  • Stalking, as defined under §§ 13A-6-90 to 13A-6-94
  • Theft, which means knowingly obtaining or exerting unauthorized control or obtaining control by deception over property owned by or jointly owned by the plaintiff and another
  • Unlawful imprisonment, as defined under §§ 13A-6-41 and 13A-6-42
Defined in Child Abuse Reporting and Child Protection Laws

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Defined in Criminal Laws

‘Domestic violence’ means any incident resulting in the abuse, assault, harassment, or the attempt or threats thereof, between family, household, or dating or engagement relationship members.

‘Harassment’ means any offense under § 13A-11-8.

A person commits the crime of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

  • Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him or her to physical contact
  • Directs abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture toward another person

For purposes of this section, harassment shall include a threat, verbal or nonverbal, made with the intent to carry out the threat that would cause a reasonable person who is the target of the threat to fear for his or her safety.

A person commits the crime of ‘harassing communications’ if, with intent to harass or alarm another person, he or she does any of the following:

  • Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of written or electronic communication in a manner likely to harass or cause alarm
  • Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication
  • Telephones another person and addresses to or about such other person any lewd or obscene words or language
Persons Included in the Definition

In criminal law: ‘Family, household, or dating or engagement relationship members’ includes a spouse, former spouse, parent, child, or any other person related by marriage or common law marriage, a person with whom the victim has a child in common, a present or former household member, or a person who has or had a dating or engagement relationship.

In civil law: For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘plaintiff’ is a person in need of protection from domestic violence who is age 18 or older, is or has been married or is emancipated, and has one of the following relationships:

  • Is related by marriage to the defendant, including a common law marriage
  • Had a former marriage or common law marriage with the defendant
  • Has a child in common with the defendant
  • Has a dating relationship with the defendant
  • Is a current or former household member

A dating relationship means a recent frequent, intimate association, primarily characterized by the expectation of affectionate or sexual involvement within the last 6 months. A dating relationship does not include a casual or business relationship.

A household member is a person maintaining or having maintained a living arrangement with the defendant where he or she is in, or was engaged in, a romantic or sexual relationship.

 

I know this is scary, overwhelming, and confusing. Let me show you what to do first to get your child back.

CLICK HERE!

Case Planning for Families Involved With Child Welfare Agencies

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (811 KB) of this publication.

Current Through April 2014

When Case Plans Are Required

A written case plan must be developed for the child within 30 days from the time of placement. For children in foster care or related care less than 30 days, this case plan requirement is waived. A brief case plan statement will suffice.

Who May Participate in the Case Planning Process

The parents or other relatives and the child, if of appropriate age, may participate in the development of the plan.

Contents of a Case Plan

The case plan must include the following:

  • A description of the type of home or child care facility in which the child is to be, or has been, placed
  • Justification of the appropriateness of the placement as to whether it is:
    • In the least restrictive, family-like setting available, with relative placement to be given first consideration, after which foster family care, group home care, and institutional care are to be considered, in that order
    • In close proximity to the parent’s or family home
    • Consistent with the best interests and special needs of the child
  • An analysis of the circumstances that necessitate the child’s placement, together with a statement of:
    • What efforts were made and what services were provided to prevent the child’s placement
    • What conditions in the child’s own home need improving before the child can be returned
    • What services are to be provided to improve these conditions
  • A statement of the plan for ensuring that the child receives proper care while in placement that encompasses:
    • Placement in a duly licensed facility or approved home, together with appropriate supervision
    • Services to the providers to facilitate and support the child’s adjustment in placement
    • Services to the child to address his or her needs and a discussion of the appropriateness of the services provided
    • A statement of the transitional independent living plan based upon an assessment of the needs of each child age 16 or older
  • A statement of the child’s permanent plan, developed in conjunction with the child’s family and the child, as appropriate
  • A description of the extent to which the parents or other relatives and, if of appropriate age, the child participated in the development of the permanent plan for the child
  • A statement of the requirements of the court or the recommendations of the administrative review panel in connection with the required 6-month case review and how the department will meet those requirements and recommendations
  • An estimated date by which a decision will be made to return the child to the parents or seek an alternative permanent placement
  • A summary of what efforts will be or have been made and what services will be or have been provided to reunite the child with his or her family
  • The health and education records of the child, to the extent available and accessible

Concurrent Planning for Permanency for Children

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (295 KB) of this publication.

Current Through November 2012

Concurrent planning is a case management method that emphasizes candor, goal setting, and completion of selected activities within specified time limits in work with children and families in order to facilitate a more timely achievement of permanence and stability. This method encourages all individualized service plan (ISP) team members to achieve the most desirable permanency goal while, at the same time, establishing and pursuing an alternate permanency goal. Such planning should occur from the time of initial engagement with a family rather than sequentially thereafter.

Court Hearings for the Permanent Placement of Children

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (772 KB) of this publication.

Current Through January 2016

Schedule of Hearings

If reasonable efforts are not made with respect to a child as a result of a determination made by a juvenile court, a permanency hearing shall be held for the child within 30 days after the determination.

Within 12 months of the date a child is removed from the home and placed in out-of-home care, and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter during the continuation of the child in out-of-home care, the juvenile court shall hold a permanency hearing.

In regulation: A review of the case plan for every child in foster care either by court review or administrative review must be completed at least every 6 months. These review requirements apply to all children in the custody of the Department of Human Resources or for whom the department has planning responsibility whether or not they are in foster care. For foster children age 16 and older, the written transitional independent living plan must be reviewed at the 6-month review.

Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

Relative caregivers, preadoptive parents, and foster parents of a child in foster care under the responsibility of the State shall be given notice, verbally or in writing, of the date, time, and place of any juvenile court proceeding being held with respect to a child in their care. Foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers of a child in foster care have a right to be heard in any juvenile court proceeding held with respect to a child in their care. No foster parent, preadoptive parent, or relative caregiver of a child in foster care shall be made a party to a juvenile court proceeding solely on the basis of this notice and right to be heard pursuant to this section.

Determinations Made at Hearings

At the permanency hearing, the department shall present to the juvenile court a permanent plan for the child. If a permanent plan is not presented to the court at this hearing, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the child should be returned home. In the case of a child who will not be returned home, the court shall consider in-State and out-of-State placement options at the permanency hearing.

If the court determines the permanent plan shall be placement in another planned permanent living arrangement, the department must document a compelling reason for determining that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return home, be placed for adoption, be permanently placed with a relative, be placed with a kinship guardian, or be placed in adult custodial care. If the child has been placed in foster care outside the State of Alabama, at the permanency hearing the court shall determine whether the out-of-State placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.

In the case of a child who has attained age 16, the court shall consider the services needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent living. In any permanency hearing held with respect to the child, including any hearing regarding the transition of the child from foster care to independent living, the juvenile court shall consult, in an age-appropriate manner, with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child.

Permanency plans may be concurrent, and the department may make reasonable efforts concurrently toward multiple permanency goals. The permanency hearing order of the court shall address whether the department has made reasonable efforts to finalize any existing permanency plan for the child.

Permanency Options

The purpose of the permanency hearing shall be to determine the permanency plan for the child that may include whether, and, if applicable, when, the child shall be:

  • Returned home on a specific date
  • Placed for adoption with no identified resource or with the current foster parent wherein the department shall file a petition for termination of parental rights
  • Placed permanently with a relative with a transfer of legal and physical custody to the relative or with a transfer of physical custody to the relative but with the department retaining legal custody
  • Placed permanently with a kinship guardian pursuant to a written request filed by the department. The written request shall contain the following:
    • That the kinship guardianship is in the best interests of the child and that a permanency goal of return of the child to his or her parents or adoption would not be in the best interests of the child
    • That granting a kinship guardianship will provide the child with a safe and permanent home
    • That the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the relative caregiver and the relative caregiver demonstrates a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child
    • That the relative caregiver has been approved as a foster parent by the department, has completed a criminal history and child abuse and neglect central registry clearances, and that results of these clearances have been provided to the court
    • That the child has been in foster care in the care of the prospective kinship guardian for no less than 6 consecutive months
    • That if the child is age 14 or older, he or she has indicated his or her position regarding the prospective kinship guardianship and, if the child is age 18 or older, he or she has consented to the kinship guardianship if capable of giving effective consent
  • Placed in adult custodial care
  • Placed in another planned permanent living arrangement

 

I know this is scary, overwhelming, and confusing. Let me show you what to do first to get your child back.

CLICK HERE!

Determining the Best Interests of the Child

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (397 KB) of this publication.

Current Through March 2016

The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the care, protection, and discipline of children who come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, while acknowledging the responsibility of the juvenile court to preserve the public peace and security. In furtherance of this purpose, the following goals have been established for the juvenile court:

  • To preserve and strengthen the child’s family whenever possible, including improvement of home environment
  • To remove the child from the custody of his or her parents only when it is judicially determined to be in his or her best interests or for the safety and protection of the public
  • To reunite a child with his or her parents as quickly and as safely as possible when the child has been removed from the custody of his or her parents unless reunification is judicially determined not to be in the best interests of the child
  • To secure for any child removed from parental custody the necessary treatment, care, guidance, and discipline to assist him or her in becoming a responsible, productive member of society
  • To promote a continuum of services for children and their families from prevention to aftercare, considering wherever possible, prevention, diversion, and early intervention
  • To achieve the foregoing goals in the least restrictive setting necessary, with a preference at all times for the preservation of the family and the integration of parental accountability and participation in treatment and counseling programs

This chapter shall be liberally construed to the end that each child coming within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court shall receive the care, guidance, and control, preferably in his or her own home, necessary for the welfare of the child and the best interests of the State.

Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (652 KB) of this publication.

Current Through January 2013

Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence that the parents of a child are unable or unwilling to discharge their responsibilities to their child, it may terminate the parental rights of the parents. In making this determination, the court shall consider, but not be limited to, the following:

  • The parent has abandoned the child.
  • Emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency of the parent, or excessive use of alcohol or controlled substances has rendered the parent unable to care for the child.
  • The parent has tortured, abused, cruelly beaten, or otherwise maltreated the child, or attempted to torture, abuse, cruelly beat, or otherwise maltreat the child, or the child is in clear and present danger of being thus tortured, abused, cruelly beaten, or otherwise maltreated as evidenced by the treatment of a sibling.
  • The parent has been convicted of and imprisoned for a felony.
  • The parent has committed any of the following:
    • Murder or manslaughter of another child of that parent
    • Aiding, abetting, attempting, conspiring, or soliciting to commit murder or manslaughter of another child of that parent
    • A felony assault or abuse that results in serious bodily injury to the surviving child or another child of that parent
  • Unexplained serious physical injury to the child proved to be the result of the intentional conduct or willful neglect of the parent.
  • Reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the parent have failed.
  • Parental rights to a sibling of the child have been involuntarily terminated.
  • The parent has failed to provide for the material needs of the child or to pay a reasonable portion of support of the child when the parent is able to do so.
  • The parent has failed to maintain regular visits with the child in accordance with a visitation plan.
  • The parent has failed to maintain consistent contact or communication with the child.
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights

The Department of Human Resources is required to file a petition for termination of parental rights when the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months unless:

  • The child is being cared for by a relative.
  • The Department of Human Resources has documented in the individualized service plan, which shall be available for review by the juvenile court, a compelling reason for determining that filing a petition would not be in the best interests of the child.
  • The department has not provided to the family of the child, consistent with the time period in the individualized service plan of the department, such services as the department deems necessary for the safe return of the child to his or her home, if reasonable efforts are required to be made with respect to the child.
Circumstances Allowing Reinstatement of Parental Rights

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

I know this is scary, overwhelming, and confusing. Let me show you what to do first to get your child back.

CLICK HERE!

Placement of Children With Relatives

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (627 KB) of this publication.

Current Through July 2013

Relative Placement for Foster Care and Guardianship

When a child has been removed from his or her home and is in the care, custody, or guardianship of the Department of Human Resources, the department shall attempt to place the child with a relative for kinship foster care. If the relative is approved by the department to provide foster care services, in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the department regarding foster care services, and a placement with the relative is made, the relative may receive payment for the full foster care rate only as provided by Federal law for the care of the child and any other benefits that might be available to foster parents, whether in money or in services.

A relative shall be an individual who is legally related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption within the fourth degree of kinship, including only a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, great-aunt, great-uncle, niece, nephew, grandniece, grandnephew, or a stepparent. For the purposes of kinship foster care, the blood relationship will continue to be recognized in defining a relative after termination of parental rights.

Requirements for Placement with Relatives

The kinship foster parent shall be age 21 or older unless the department provides otherwise by rule to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

The department may waive standards for kinship foster care as provided by department rule and as permitted by other State and Federal law.

A person may become a kinship foster parent only upon the completion of an investigation to ascertain if there is a State or Federal record of criminal history for the prospective kinship foster parent or any other adult residing in the prospective foster parent’s home.

The department shall determine whether the person is able to care effectively for the foster child by the following methods:

  • Reviewing personal and professional references
  • Observing the kinship foster parent with household members during a home visit
  • Interviewing the kinship foster parent
Requirements for Placement of Siblings

If the permanency plan for a child is with a kinship guardian, the individualized service plan must contain the reasons for any separation of siblings during placement.

Relatives Who May Adopt

Relatives include grandparents, great-grandparents, great-uncles or great-aunts, siblings, half-siblings, aunts or uncles of the first degree, and their respective spouses.

Requirements for Adoption by Relatives

The adopted person must have resided for 1 year with the relative. The court may waive this provision.

The relative is exempt from the preplacement investigation required by § 26-10A-19 (that includes a criminal background check), unless one is requested by the court. No report of fees or charges under § 26-10A-23 is required unless ordered by the court.

Reasonable Efforts to Preserve or Reunify Families and Achieve Permanency for Children

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (539 KB) of this publication.

Current Through March 2016

What Are Reasonable Efforts

‘Reasonable efforts’ are efforts made to preserve and reunify families prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from his or her home, and to make it possible for a child to return safely to his or her home. ‘Reasonable efforts’ also refers to efforts made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanency placement of the child.

In determining the reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, and in making these reasonable efforts, the health and safety of the child shall be the paramount concern.

When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

As used in this chapter, reasonable efforts refers to efforts made to preserve and reunify families prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from his or her home, and to make it possible for a child to return safely to his or her home. In determining the reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, and in making these reasonable efforts, the health and safety of the child shall be the paramount concern. If continuation of reasonable efforts is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan including, if appropriate, through an interstate placement, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize a permanent plan for the child.

When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required

Reasonable efforts shall not be required to be made if the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been involuntarily terminated or the parent has done any of the following:

  • Subjected the child or a sibling to an aggravated circumstance that made the risk of abuse or neglect too high for the child to remain at home or return home. An aggravated circumstance includes, but is not limited to, rape, sodomy, incest, aggravated stalking, abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, or sexual abuse. An aggravated circumstance may also include any of the following:
    • A child is allowed to use alcohol or illegal drugs to the point of abuse, neglect, or substantial risk of harm.
    • Substance misuse or abuse, or both, by a parent interferes with the ability to keep the child safe, and the parent refuses to participate in or complete treatment or treatment has been unsuccessful.
    • A parent demonstrates extreme disinterest in the child by either not complying with a case plan for more than 6 months or repeatedly leaving the child with someone who is unwilling or incapable of providing care, and the parent does not return for the child as promised.
    • An infant or young child has been abandoned, the identity of the child is unknown, and the parent is unknown or unable to be located after a diligent search.
    • The parent has an emotional or mental condition, and there is clearly no treatment that can improve or strengthen the condition enough to allow the child to remain at home safely or to return home safely.
    • The parent is incarcerated and the child is deprived of a safe, stable, and permanent parent-child relationship.
  • Committed murder or manslaughter of another child or the child’s other parent
  • Aided, abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit murder or manslaughter of another child or the child’s other parent
  • Committed a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child, another child, or the child’s other parent

I know this is scary, overwhelming, and confusing. Let me show you what to do first to get your child back.

CLICK HERE!

Alabama Department of Human Resources Social Services Division Administrative Code

Statute defines child abuse as harm or threatened harm of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury against a child under the age of 18. Statute contains an exemption for religious reasons for a parent’s failure to obtain medical help for the child.

Neglect.  Harm to a child’s health or welfare by a person responsible for the child’s health or welfare which occurs through negligent treatment, including the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.

It is important to know that when you make up your motion to dismiss, you will only be able to use opinions from the right court of appeals for YOUR area. There are 11 of them. If you do not know which district you would choose from CLICK HERE. Each have reconsidered court cases from the area that they represent.

For each subject you would like to consider in your motion, choose the correct reviewed case from the appeal court, US Law, or State law. Insert them into your motion as needed.

 

5. I was told by caseworkers name that if I did not tell her anything that CPS would take my child away.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

Coercive or intimidating behavior supports a reasonable belief that compliance is compelledCassady v. Tackett, 938 F. 2d (6th Cir. 1991).

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 (1991).  

Coercion can be mental as well as physical.Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US (1960)

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

10.  HH told me that if I did not answer a few questions, my child would be taken into DHS custody and placed in foster care. I was coerced into speaking with her and did so under duress. 

11.  The evidence used to gain entry did not satisfy the standard of probable cause.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

ANY type of communication, which conveys the idea to the parent that they have no realistic alternative but to allow entry negates any claim that the entry was lawfully gained through the channel of consent.  “Consent to warrantless entry must be voluntary and not the result of duress or coercion. Lack of intelligence, not understanding the right not to consent, or trickery invalidate voluntary consent”.Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (1973). 

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

13.  

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

Police officers and social workers are not immune from coercing or forcing entry into a person’s home without a search warrant.  Calabretta v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999).

However, when determining whether the court has jurisdiction because of conditions and circumstances, the focus must be on the child’s current conditions and circumstances and not on some point in the past. Father caused injury to child, court took jurisdiction. Mother left father and improved her life. Court had no more jurisdiciton of child. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. S. A., 230 Or App 346, 347, 214 P3d 851 (2009)

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

16.  There are two and only two recognized exceptions to the requirement of having a warrant for the conduct of a child abuse investigation:

a.) The adult in charge of the premises gives the social worker his/her free and voluntary consent to enter the home.

b.) The social worker possesses evidence that meets two standards:

(1) it satisfies the legal standard of establishing probable cause; and

(2) the evidence demonstrates that there are exigent circumstances relative to the health of the children.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

17.  CPS worker HH was in fact, acting under the authority or color of state law at the time this occurred in her official capacity as a social worker for Iowa DHS.

18.  Her execution of Iowa Department of Human Services’ “customs” and/or “policies” were the moving force behind her unconstitutional acts, and that personally, her individual unconstitutional acts violated my clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would have knownDavis v. Scherer (1984).

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 590 [100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639].)

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

 

25.  There was no court order for this, nor did exigent circumstances exist as stated by Caseworkers Name in her initial assessment. 

26.  .    

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

Social workers and police cannot lawfully seize a child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe the child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, (5th Cir. 2000).

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment.  Seizure is unconstitutional without a court order or exigent circumstances. Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000)

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a “seizure” of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. Persons may not be “seized” without a court order or being placed under arrest. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 (1991).

As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 590 [100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639].)

“Exigent circumstances” means “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” ( People v. Ramey, supra, at p. 276.)

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F. 3d 333, 342-346 (4th Cir. 1994) (” The State’s removal of a child from his parent’s home indisputably constitutes an interference with a liberty interest of the parents and thus triggers the procedural protections of the 14th amendment. . . . Forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious impingement on those rights.”)

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. An ex parte hearing based on misrepresentation and omission does not constitute notice and an opportunity to be heard. Procurement of an order to seize a child through distortion, misrepresentation and/or omission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Parents may assert their children’s Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of their children as well as asserting their own Fourteenth Amendment claim. Malik v.Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services, (10th Cir. 1999)

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

38.  The CPS Assessment report falsely states that I told her I used meth once a week for the past several months.  I did NOT make this statement to anyone, and my UA on March 11, 2011 was negative.  

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

Court orders obtained based on knowingly false information violates Fourth Amendment.  Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000).

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

39.  On March 12, 2011, I signed over temporary legal guardianship of my child to Don and Sarah Boeckholt, for a period not to exceed 6 months.

40.  CPS removed my child after I informed Ms. Hewitt of this fact, which she failed to disclose to the court during the removal hearing. This is a lie of omission. A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s (the judge’s) capacity to make an informed decision.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

 

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

23.  I was coerced into signing a “voluntary” Safety Plan.  The CPS worker, Caseworkers Name, threatened me that if I did not sign the “voluntary” service plan that my child would be TPR’ed. 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

 According to Amanda C., by and through Gary Richmond, natural parent and next friend, appellee, v. Kelly Case, appellant. N.W.2d  Filed May 23, 2008. No. S-06-1097 this is unauthorized practice of law and acting under the Color of Law.

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

27.  The assessment by Caseworker’s name does not specify what exigent circumstances existed or what immediate danger to life or health my child was in to justify an emergency situation. None of the following apply:

Put CPS rules of exigent circumstances here

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

If anything, this case shows you that you must challenge the court or you will not get another chance.

SAMPLE:   I am therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that I strongly challenge that an emergency existed to remove my child, and most certainly do withdraw any “voluntary” agreements I was coerced into entering into.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

In the opinion of Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. in the majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri, In the Interest of: P.L.O. and S.K.O., minor children. SC85120 (3/30/2004):  “The mother voluntarily consented to the court’s jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily transferred their custody to the division and never challenged the circumstances of their removal. Accordingly, she cannot now challenge whether an ’emergency’ existed to justify removal of her child under (the statute in question) and this court need not address such a challenge.”

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

CPS Statutes

36.  The CPA falsely states that there are domestic violence issues in the home. My child herself states that Steve was never mean to us, and that she did not witness any violence.

37.  CPS worker caseworkers name states that my child witnessing domestic abuse constitutes as neglect/denial of critical care and is basis for her removal.  

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

In a landmark class action suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jack Weistein ruled on Nicholson v. Williams, Case No.: 00-cv-2229, the suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends.  Judge Weistein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped.

3rd Circuit

The Department failed to show any evidence to support that father himself caused injuries.
The trial court found that something happened to the child over the weekend and that the injuries were consistent with “child physical abuse.” The Third District Court of Appeal (Third DCA) agreed with the trial court that the child was harmed pursuant to the statutory definition of harm but found the Department failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Father inflicted or allowed someone else to inflict the injuries to the child. Specifically, the Third DCA pointed to a lack of any evidence to support that Father caused the injuries and noted that the child was exposed to a number of individuals over the weekend, including Father’s wife, her children and a number of other relatives. H.C. v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian ad Litem Program, 141 So.3d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

Judicial determinations that remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and to finalize the permanency plan in effect, as well as judicial determinations that reasonable efforts are not required, must be explicitly documented, made on a case-by-case basis, and stated in the court order.  A transcript of the court proceeding is the only other documentation that will be accepted to verify that these determinations have been made. Affidavits, nunc pro tunc orders, and references to state law are not acceptable.  45 C.F.R. §1356.21(d). The court, after hearing the evidence, must be satisfied that reasonable efforts . . . have been made.  Review and approval of the [state] agency’s report and recommendation alone are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act; the court must make a determination that the agency’s efforts were, in the judgment of the court, reasonable for preventing placement. With regard to emergency situations, if the agency’s judgment was that services could not have prevented removal of the child, the court at the time of the adjudicatory hearing must find that the lack of preventive efforts was reasonable.

43.  The reasonable efforts claimed to have been made by CPS were inconsistent in the various court documents, which was not questioned before making a determination.

44.  CPS was never required to provide specific and detailed documentation to prove that Reasonable Efforts were in fact made.  

 

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

The juvenile court is required to make factual findings to support its conclusion that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the home. It is not sufficient to merely conclude that reasonable efforts have been made without more. In Interest of B.L., 491 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa App. 1992).

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

42 C.F.R. Section 1356.21(d) requires documentation of judicial determinations concerning both reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare findings. They are to be explicitly documented on a case by case basis and so stated in the court order. Facts substantiating the legal conclusion must be stated in the order. Lack of compliance results in denial of federal funds for the child’s foster placement.

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances.  Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat.  Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Goodv. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989)

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

 

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

A police officer and a social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home.  Good v. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989).

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

Children may not be removed from their home by police officers or social workers without notice and a hearing unless the officials have a reasonable belief that the children were in imminent danger.  Ram v. Rubin, (9th Cir. 1997)

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

1st Circuit

2nd Circuit

3rd Circuit

The Department failed to show any evidence to support that father himself caused injuries.
The trial court found that something happened to the child over the weekend and that the injuries were consistent with “child physical abuse.” The Third District Court of Appeal (Third DCA) agreed with the trial court that the child was harmed pursuant to the statutory definition of harm but found the Department failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Father inflicted or allowed someone else to inflict the injuries to the child. Specifically, the Third DCA pointed to a lack of any evidence to support that Father caused the injuries and noted that the child was exposed to a number of individuals over the weekend, including Father’s wife, her children and a number of other relatives. H.C. v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian ad Litem Program, 141 So.3d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

4th Circuit

5th Circuit

Defendants could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, (5th Cir. 2000)

6th Circuit

7th Circuit

8th Circuit

9th Circuit

10th Circuit

11th Circuit

US Supreme Court

CPS Statutes

C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations)

 

 

CLICK HERE To Ask An Alabama CPS Attorney a FREE Question

Ask an Attorney a FREE question about your CPS case.

Even if there are no questions listed here yet, please go ahead and ask yours. An attorney will be invited to answer questions here soon.

No questions found.