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

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 to see what yours should look like.

CLICK HERE to see an 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.

Colorado

 

OVERVIEW OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman

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’ or ‘child abuse or neglect’ means an act or omission that threatens the health or welfare of a child in one of the following categories:

  • Skin bruising, bleeding, malnutrition, failure to thrive, burns, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling, or death and:
    • The condition or death is not justifiably explained.
    • The history given concerning the condition is inconsistent with the degree or type of such condition or death.
    • The circumstances indicate that the condition may not be the result of an accidental occurrence.
  • A controlled substance is manufactured in the presence of a child, on the premises where a child is found, or where a child resides.
  • A child tests positive at birth for either a schedule I or schedule II controlled substance, unless the child tests positive for a schedule II controlled substance as a result of the mother’s lawful intake of such substance as prescribed.
Neglect

The term ‘child abuse or neglect’ includes any case in which a child is in need of services because the child’s parent has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision that a prudent parent would take.

A child is ‘neglected’ or ‘dependent’ if:

  • The parent, guardian, or legal custodian has subjected the child to mistreatment or abuse or has allowed another to mistreat or abuse the child without taking lawful means to stop such mistreatment or abuse and prevent it from recurring.
  • The child lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian.
  • The child’s environment is injurious to his or her welfare.
  • The parent, guardian, or legal custodian fails or refuses to provide the child with proper or necessary subsistence, education, medical care, or any other necessary care.
  • The child is homeless, without proper care, or not domiciled with his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian through no fault of such parent, guardian, or legal custodian.
  • The child has run away from home or is otherwise beyond the control of his or her parent, guardian, or legal custodian.
  • The child tests positive at birth for either a schedule I or schedule II controlled substance, unless the child tests positive for a schedule II controlled substance as a result of the mother’s lawful intake of such substance as prescribed.
Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

‘Abuse’ or ‘child abuse or neglect’ means an act or omission in which a child is subjected to unlawful sexual behavior as defined in § 16-22-102(9).

‘Unlawful sexual behavior’ means any of the following offenses or criminal attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the following offenses:

  • Sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, sexual assault on a child, or sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust
  • Enticement of a child
  • Incest or aggravated incest
  • Human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude, as described in § 18-3-504(2)
  • Sexual exploitation of children
  • Procurement of a child for sexual exploitation
  • Indecent exposure
  • Soliciting for child prostitution
  • Pandering or pimping of a child
  • Keeping a place of child prostitution
  • Inducement of child prostitution
  • Patronizing a prostituted child
  • Promotion of obscenity to a minor
  • Internet luring of a child
  • Internet sexual exploitation of a child
Emotional Abuse

The terms ‘abuse’ or ‘child abuse or neglect’ include any case in which a child is subjected to emotional abuse. ‘Emotional abuse’ means an identifiable and substantial impairment or a substantial risk of impairment of the child’s intellectual or psychological functioning or development.

Abandonment

Citation: Rev. Stat. § 19-3-102
A child is ‘neglected’ or ‘dependent’ if a parent, guardian, or legal custodian has abandoned the child.

Standards for Reporting

Citation: Rev. Stat. § 19-3-304
A report is required when a mandatory reporter has reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect or has observed the child being subjected to circumstances or conditions that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.

Persons Responsible for the Child

‘Intrafamilial abuse’ means any case of abuse that occurs within a family context by a child’s parent, stepparent, guardian, legal custodian, a relative, or a spousal equivalent, or by any other person who resides in the child’s home or who is regularly in the child’s home for the purpose of exercising authority over or care for the child. ‘Intrafamilial abuse’ shall not include abuse by a person who is regularly in the child’s home for the purpose of rendering care for the child if that person is paid for rendering care and is not related to the child.

‘Responsible person’ means a child’s parent, legal guardian, custodian, or any other person responsible for the child’s health and welfare.

‘Spousal equivalent’ means a person who is in a family-type living arrangement with a parent and who would be a stepparent if married to that parent.

Exceptions

Those investigating cases of child abuse shall take into account child-rearing practices of the culture in which the child participates, including the work-related practices of agricultural communities.

The reasonable exercise of parental discipline is not considered abuse.

No child who, in lieu of medical treatment, is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with a recognized method of religious healing shall, for that reason only, be considered neglected. The religious rights of the parent shall not limit the access of a child to medical care in a life-threatening situation.

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

‘Contact’ means any interaction or communication with another person, directly or indirectly through a third party, and electronic and digital forms of communication, including, but not limited to, communication through social media.

‘Domestic abuse’ means any act, attempted act, or threatened act of violence, stalking, harassment, or coercion that is committed by any person against another person to whom the actor is currently or was formerly related, or with whom the actor is living or has lived in the same domicile, or with whom the actor is involved or has been involved in an intimate relationship. A sexual relationship may be an indicator of an intimate relationship but is never a necessary condition for finding an intimate relationship.

The term ‘coercion’ includes compelling a person by force, threat of force, or intimidation to engage in conduct from which the person has the right or privilege to abstain, or to abstain from conduct in which the person has a right or privilege to engage.

‘Domestic abuse’ also may include any act, attempted act, or threatened act of violence against:

  • The minor children of either of the parties
  • An animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either of the parties or by a minor child of either of the parties when the threat, act, or attempted act is intended to coerce, control, punish, intimidate, or exact revenge upon either of the parties or a minor child of either of the parties
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 an act or threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship. ‘Domestic violence’ also includes any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, or any municipal ordinance violation against a person or against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.

Persons Included in the Definition

‘Intimate relationship’ means a relationship between spouses, former spouses, past or present unmarried couples, or persons who are both the parents of the same child regardless of whether the persons have been married or have lived together at any time.

Immunity for Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (481 KB) of this publication.

Current Through March 2015

Any person, other than the perpetrator, complicitor, coconspirator, or accessory, who participates in good faith in making a report pursuant to the reporting laws, the facilitation of the investigation of such a report or a judicial proceeding resulting therefrom, the taking of photographs or x-rays, the placing in temporary protective custody of a child, or otherwise performing his or her duties or acting pursuant to law, shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability or termination of employment that otherwise might result by reason of such acts of participation, unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines that such person’s behavior was willful, wanton, and malicious.

For the purpose of any proceedings, civil or criminal, the good faith shall be presumed of any such person reporting child abuse, any such person taking photographs or x-rays, and any such person who has legal authority to place a child in protective custody.

Making and Screening Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (849 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2013

Individual Responsibility to Report

A mandated reporter who has reasonable cause to know or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect or who has observed the child being subjected to circumstances or conditions that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect shall report immediately to the county department or a law enforcement agency. The reporter shall promptly follow up with a written report.

A film processor shall report any suspicion of sexual abuse to a law enforcement agency, immediately by telephone, and shall prepare and send a written report of it with a copy of the film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide attached within 36 hours of receiving the information concerning the incident.

Content of Reports

The county department shall submit a report of confirmed child abuse or neglect within 60 days of receipt of the report to the State department. The report, when possible, shall include the following information:

  • The name, address, age, sex, and race of the child
  • The name and address of the person responsible for the suspected abuse or neglect
  • The nature and extent of the child’s injuries, including any evidence of previous cases of abuse or neglect of the child or the child’s siblings
  • Family composition
  • The source of the report, including the name, address, and occupation of the person making the report
  • Any action taken by the reporting source
  • Any other information that might be helpful
Reporting Suspicious Deaths

A mandated reporter who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has died as a result of abuse or neglect shall report that fact immediately to a local law enforcement agency and the appropriate medical examiner. The county department shall forward a copy of such report to the State Department of Human Services.

In regulation: The county department shall assess an incident of egregious abuse or neglect against a child, a near fatality, or a child fatality in intrafamilial and institutional settings in those cases in which:

  • There is reason to know or suspect that abuse or neglect caused or contributed to the egregious abuse or neglect, a near fatality, or a fatality of a child.
  • The cause of the incident of egregious abuse or neglect, near fatality, or fatality is unknown or the information given is not consistent with the degree or type of injury and/or subsequent death.

The county department shall coordinate with law enforcement, the district attorney’s office, the coroner’s office, and hospitals to ensure that prompt notification is made of an incident of egregious abuse or neglect, near fatality, or fatality of a child, that is suspicious for child abuse or neglect.

Assessments shall be coordinated with law enforcement. At a minimum in cases in which there are no surviving children, the county department shall provide law enforcement and the coroner with information related to any prior involvement with the child, the family, or the alleged perpetrator.

When there are surviving or noninjured children, the county department shall assess the condition of those children and take the action necessary to ensure their protection.

Reporting Substance-Exposed Infants

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Agency Receiving the Reports

The county department shall receive the reports of abuse or neglect.

Initial Screening Decisions

The county department shall respond immediately upon receipt of any report of a known or suspected incident of intrafamilial abuse or neglect to assess the abuse involved and the appropriate response to the report. The assessment shall be in accordance with rules adopted by the State Board of Social Services to determine the risk of harm to such child and the appropriate response to such risks.

Appropriate responses shall include, but are not limited to, screening reports that do not require further investigation, providing appropriate intervention services, pursuing reports that require further investigation, and conducting immediate investigations.

In regulation: The county department shall assign a referral for assessment and investigation if it:

  • Contains specific allegations of known or suspected abuse or neglect as defined in statutes and regulations
  • Provides sufficient information to locate the alleged victim
  • Identifies a victim younger than age 18

A ‘known’ incident of abuse or neglect would involve those reports in which a child has been observed being subjected to circumstances or conditions that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect. ‘Suspected’ abuse or neglect would involve those reports that are made based on patterns of behavior, conditions, statements, or injuries that would lead to a reasonable belief that abuse or neglect has occurred or that there is a serious threat of harm to the child.

Agency Conducting the Assessment/Investigation

The county department shall be the agency responsible for the coordination of all investigations of all reports of known or suspected incidents of intrafamilial abuse or neglect. The county department shall conduct the investigation in conjunction with the local law enforcement agency, to the extent a joint investigation is possible and deemed appropriate, and any other appropriate agency.

If a local law enforcement agency receives a report of a known or suspected incident of intrafamilial abuse or neglect, it shall attempt to contact the county department in order to refer the case for investigation.

Local law enforcement agencies shall have the responsibility for the coordination and investigation of all reports of third-party abuse or neglect by persons age 10 or older. Upon receipt of a report, if the local law enforcement agency reasonably believes that the protection and safety of a child is at risk due to an act or omission on the part of persons responsible for the child’s care, that agency shall notify the county department of social services for an assessment regarding neglect or dependency. In addition, the local law enforcement agency shall refer to the county department of social services any report of third-party abuse or neglect in which the person allegedly responsible for such abuse or neglect is younger than age 10.

Assessment/Investigation Procedures

If a county department that is participating in the differential response pilot program determines from an assessment that the known or suspected incident of intrafamilial abuse or neglect that was the basis for the assessment is of low or moderate risk, the county department, in lieu of performing an investigation may proceed in accordance with the provisions of §19-3-308.3.

The investigation, to the extent that it is reasonably possible, shall include:

  • The credibility of the source or the report
  • The nature, extent, and cause of the abuse or neglect
  • The identity of the person responsible for the abuse or neglect
  • The names and conditions of any other children living in the same place
  • The environment and the relationship of any children to the person responsible for the suspected abuse or neglect
  • All other data deemed pertinent

The investigation shall include an interview with or observance of the child who is the subject of a report of abuse or neglect. The investigation may include a visit to the child’s place of residence, place of custody, or wherever the child may be located, as indicated by the report. In addition, in connection with any investigation, the alleged perpetrator shall be advised as to the allegation of abuse and neglect and the circumstances surrounding such allegation and shall be afforded an opportunity to respond.

Upon receipt of a report, if the county department reasonably believes that an incident of abuse or neglect has occurred, it shall immediately notify the local law enforcement agency responsible for investigation of violations of criminal child abuse laws. The local law enforcement agency may conduct an investigation to determine if a violation of any criminal child abuse law has occurred.

Timeframes for Completing Investigations

The county department’s decision on how quickly to initiate an investigation is based on specific reported information that is credible and that indicates whether a child may be unsafe or at risk of harm. The county department shall assign priority in response time using the following criteria:

  • Immediate and/or same day response is required when the report indicates that:
    • Without immediate response, the child is in danger of moderate to severe harm.
    • The child’s vulnerability or factors such as drug and alcohol abuse, violence, isolation, or risk of flight from one county to another county or State increase the need for immediate response.
  • If the report is received after regular business hours, the timeframe is immediate and/or up to 8 hours.
  • Response is required by the end of the third calendar day following receipt of the report when the report indicates that:
    • Without a response within 3 days, the child is in danger of moderate to severe harm.
    • Factors such as drug and alcohol abuse, violence, isolation, or risk of flight from one county to another county or State increase the need for intervention in the near future.
  • Response is required within 5 working days from the date the report is received when the report indicates maltreatment or risk of maltreatment to a child and indicates an absence of safety concerns.

An investigation shall be completed within 30 calendar days of date the referral was received, unless there are circumstances that have prevented this from occurring. Such circumstances shall be documented in the department’s automated reporting system.

Classification of Reports

Reports may be classified as follows:

  • ‘Founded’: The child abuse or neglect investigation established that an incident of child abuse or neglect has occurred, by a preponderance of evidence.
  • ‘Inconclusive’: There was some likelihood that abuse or neglect occurred but the child abuse or neglect investigation could not obtain the evidence necessary to make a founded report of child abuse or neglect.

Upon completion of an investigation, the county department shall consider a report founded if there is a preponderance of evidence to support that abuse occurred.

Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (554 KB) of this publication.

Current Through April 2015

‘Abuse’ or ‘child abuse or neglect’ means an act or omission in one of the following categories that threatens the health or welfare of a child:

  • Any case in which, in the presence of a child or on the premises where a child is found or resides, a controlled substance as defined in § 18-18-102(5) is manufactured or attempted to be manufactured
  • Any case in which a child tests positive at birth for either a Schedule I controlled substance, including opiates, opiate derivatives, hallucinogens, stimulants, and depressants that have no legitimate medical use [as defined in § 18-18-203], or a Schedule II controlled substance, including any potentially addictive substance that is used or manufactured contrary to its current accepted medical use [as defined in § 18-18-204], unless the child tests positive for a Schedule II controlled substance as a result of the mother’s lawful intake of such substance as prescribed

A person commits child abuse if, in the presence of a child, on the premises where a child is found or resides, or in a vehicle containing a child, the person knowingly engages in the manufacture or attempted manufacture of a controlled substance as defined by § 18-18-102(5); or knowingly possesses ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or their salts, isomers, or salts of isomers with the intent to use the product as an immediate precursor in the manufacture of a controlled substance. It shall be no defense to the crime of child abuse that the defendant did not know that a child was present, a child could be found, a child resided on the premises, or a vehicle contained a child.

A parent or lawful guardian of a child, or a person having the care or custody of a child, who knowingly allows the child to be present or reside at a premises or to be in a vehicle where the parent, guardian, or person having care or custody of the child knows or reasonably should know that another person is engaged in the manufacture or attempted manufacture of methamphetamine commits child abuse.

A parent or lawful guardian of a child, or a person having the care or custody of a child, who knowingly allows the child to be present or reside at a premises or to be in a vehicle where the parent, guardian, or person having care or custody of the child knows or reasonably should know that another person possesses ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or their salts, isomers, or salts of isomers with the intent to use the product as an immediate precursor in the manufacture of methamphetamine commits child abuse.

A newborn child who is in a hospital setting shall not be taken into temporary protective custody without an order of the court. The order must include findings that an emergency situation exists and that the newborn child is seriously endangered. A newborn child may be detained in a hospital by a law enforcement officer upon the recommendation of a county department of social services, a physician, a registered nurse, a licensed practical nurse, or a physician’s assistant while a court order is being pursued, but the newborn child must be released if a court order is denied. Court orders shall not be required in the following circumstances:

  • When a newborn child is identified by a physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or physician’s assistant engaged in the admission, care, or treatment of patients as being affected by substance abuse or demonstrating withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure
  • When the newborn child is subject to an environment exposing the newborn child to a laboratory for manufacturing controlled substances

A child is neglected or dependent if the child tests positive at birth for either a Schedule I controlled substance, as defined in § 18-18-203, or a Schedule II controlled substance, as defined in § 18-18-204, unless the child tests positive for a Schedule II controlled substance as a result of the mother’s lawful intake of such substance as prescribed.

Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (806 KB) of this publication.

Current Through August 2014

Making The Appointment

The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the child in all dependency or neglect cases under this title.

The court may appoint a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) volunteer if the court finds that the appointment would be in the best interests of the child. The court may direct the manner in which a CASA volunteer and any GAL appointed in a case shall collaborate.

Upon the filing of a petition under § 19-3-502 that alleges abuse or neglect of a minor child, the court shall appoint a GAL. Nothing in this section shall limit the power of the court to appoint a GAL prior to the filing of a petition for good cause.

The Use of Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)

Any judge or magistrate may appoint a CASA volunteer in any action brought pursuant to titles 14, 15, and 19, when, in the opinion of the judge or magistrate, a child who may be affected by such action requires services that a CASA volunteer can provide. At the discretion of the judge or magistrate, a CASA volunteer may be a party to the action if so provided for in the memorandum of understanding.

A CASA volunteer shall be appointed at the earliest stages of an action pursuant to a court order that gives him or her the authority to review all relevant documents and interview all parties involved in the case, including parents, other parties in interest, and any other persons having significant information relating to the child.

The CASA volunteer’s appointment shall conclude:

  • When the court’s jurisdiction over the child terminates
  • Upon discharge by the court on its own motion or at the request of the program director of the CASA program to which the CASA volunteer is assigned

A CASA volunteer shall not:

  • Accept any compensation for the duties and responsibilities of his or her appointment
  • Have any association that creates a conflict of interest with his or her duties
  • Be related to any party or attorney involved in a case
  • Be employed in a position that could result in a conflict of interest or give rise to the appearance of a conflict
  • Use the CASA volunteer position to seek or accept gifts or special privileges
Qualifications/Training

A GAL who is appointed to represent a child in a dependency or neglect proceeding shall be an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in Colorado.

All CASA volunteers shall participate fully in preservice training, including instruction on recognizing child abuse and neglect, cultural awareness, child development, the juvenile court process, permanency planning, volunteer roles and responsibilities, advocacy, information gathering, and documentation. Volunteers shall be required to participate in observation of court proceedings prior to appointment.

All volunteers shall receive training manuals that shall include guidelines for their service and duties.

Each CASA program shall provide a minimum of 10 hours of inservice training per year to CASA volunteers.

The minimum qualifications for any prospective volunteer are that he or she shall:

  • Be at least age 21 and have demonstrated an interest in children and their welfare
  • Be willing to commit to the court for a minimum of 1 year of service to a child
  • Complete an application, including providing background information required below
  • Participate in a screening interview
  • Participate in the required training
  • Meet other qualifications as determined by the CASA program director and the chief judge of the judicial district

A prospective volunteer’s application shall include:

  • A copy of any criminal history record and motor vehicle record
  • Written authorization for the CASA program to obtain information contained in any records or reports of child abuse or neglect concerning the prospective volunteer
  • At least three references of people who can address his or her character, judgment, and suitability for the position
  • Records from any other jurisdictions in which he or she resided during the 1-year time period prior to the date of the application if the prospective volunteer has resided in Colorado for less than 12 months

In court rules: Attorneys appointed as GALs, child’s representatives, or counsel for children shall possess the knowledge, expertise, and training necessary to perform the court appointment. In addition, GALs, child’s representatives, and counsel for children shall obtain 10 hours of the required continuing legal education courses or any other modified training requirements established by subsequent Chief Justice Directive practice standards, rule, or statute that are relevant to the appointment and that enhance the attorney’s knowledge of the issues in best interests and child client-directed representation. These requirements should be met prior to the attorney’s first appointment and per legal education reporting period. The attorney shall provide the Office of the Child’s Representative (OCR) with proof of compliance with this requirement with his or her application to provide attorney services or contract renewal for the OCR.

Specific Duties

The GAL shall represent the child’s interests. To that end, he or she shall:

  • Investigate as necessary to ascertain the facts
  • Talk with or observe the child involved
  • Examine and cross-examine witnesses in both the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings
  • Introduce and examine his or her own witnesses
  • Make recommendations to the court concerning the child’s welfare
  • Appeal matters to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court
  • Participate in further proceedings as needed

In addition, the GAL, if in the best interests of the child, shall seek to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to prevent unnecessary placement of the child out of the home and to facilitate reunification of the child with the child’s family or, if reunification is not possible, to find another safe and permanent living arrangement for the child. In determining whether reasonable efforts are made with respect to a child, the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern.

Upon appointment, a CASA volunteer may:

  • Conduct an independent investigation regarding the best interests of the child to provide factual information to the court regarding the child and the child’s family, including:
    • Interview and observe of the child
    • Interview other appropriate individuals
    • Review relevant records and reports
  • Determine whether an appropriate treatment plan has been created for the child and family, appropriate services are being provided, and treatment is progressing in a timely manner
  • Make recommendations consistent with the best interests of the child regarding placement, visitation, and appropriate services
  • Prepare written reports to be distributed to the parties of the action
  • Monitor the case to ensure that the child’s essential needs are met and that the terms of the court’s orders are fulfilled
How the Representative Is Compensated

The OCR shall establish fair and realistic State rates by which to compensate State-appointed GALs that will take into consideration the caseload limitations placed on GALs and that will be sufficient to attract and retain high-quality, experienced attorneys to serve as GALs.

There is hereby created in the State treasury the Guardian ad Litem Fund. The money in the fund shall be subject to annual appropriation by the general assembly to the State Judicial Department for allocation to the OCR for the provision of GAL services in Colorado.

There is also created in the State treasury the Court-Appointed Special Advocate Fund. The money in the fund shall be subject to annual appropriation by the general assembly to the State Judicial Department for allocation to the OCR for the purposes of funding the CASA programs established in each judicial district or in adjacent judicial districts, and the work of the OCR relating to the enhancement of CASA programs.

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

An individual case plan, developed with the input or participation of the family, is required to be in place for all abused and neglected children and the families of such children in each case that is opened for the provision of services beyond the investigation of the report of child abuse or neglect, regardless of whether the child or children involved are placed out of the home or under court supervision.

In regulation: The Family Service Plan document must be completed:

  • Within 60 calendar days of opening an assessment in the automated case management system for children in their own homes, including Core Services program cases in which the children are not in out-of-home placement. There may be one Family Services Plan for the family in these cases.
  • Within 60 calendar days of opening an assessment in the automated case management system for children in out-of-home placement, including those cases in which the children are receiving Core Services. There may be one Family Services Plan for the family; however, discrete sections in the treatment plan and in the placement information are required for each child in placement.
  • For children age 16 and older in out-of-home placement, the plan for transition to independent living/emancipation shall be completed within 60 calendar days of the child’s 16th birthday or of case opening.
Who May Participate in the Case Planning Process

The family may participate in the development of the individual case plan.

In regulation: The county shall ensure that the following parties participate in the development of the Family Services Plan:

  • The caseworker
  • The parents or legal guardians
  • The child
  • Immediate and extended family members as appropriate to the family and child’s service needs
  • Service providers, including kin caregivers and other out-of-home caregivers

All parties shall sign the plan and the caseworker’s supervisor shall approve and sign the plan. The caseworker shall provide all parties with a copy of the signed plan. The reasons for any absence of signatures shall be documented on the plan. If the caseworker is unable to involve both parents, the child, or the provider, the efforts to do so and the reasons for the inability to do so shall be documented on the plan.

Contents of a Case Plan

The Family Services Plan shall document that the services provided:

  • Are directed at the areas of need identified in the assessment
  • Are designed to ensure that the child receives safe and proper care
  • Are culturally and ethnically appropriate, including, but not limited to, consideration of the child’s family, community, neighborhood, faith or religious beliefs, school activities, friends, and primary language

Outcomes to be achieved as a result of the services provided will be described in terms of specific, measurable, agreed-upon, realistic, time-limited objectives to be accomplished by the parents, child, service providers, and county staff.

For children in out-of-home placement, the plan shall document:

  • That the child meets out-of-home placement criteria
  • That when the child is part of a sibling group and the sibling group is being placed out of the home, it shall be presumed that placing the siblings together is in the best interests of the children
  • The problems to be resolved in order to facilitate reunification of the child and family
  • A description of the type of facility in which the child is placed and why the placement is appropriate and safe for the child
  • For children placed a substantial distance from the home of the parents or an out-of-State placement, how the placement meets the best interests of the child
  • A description of how the home is in reasonable proximity to the home of the parents or relatives and to the school the child has attended, including requirements regarding planning for educational stability
  • That the placement is the least restrictive, safe, and most appropriate setting available consistent with the best interests and specific needs of the child
  • Documentation of initial and ongoing efforts to place the child with kin
  • Health and educational information
  • Specific plans for how the county will carry out any court orders concerning the child
  • A description of the services and resources needed by the foster parents or kinship providers to meet the needs of the child and how those services and resources will be provided
  • A description of the services provided to reunite the family, including the plan for visitation, or to accomplish another permanency goal
  • For youth under age 16, a description of services and a plan for accomplishing tasks to prepare youth to be age-appropriately self-sufficient, when independent living services are provided
  • For youth age 16 and older, a description of services and a plan for accomplishing tasks to assist the youth in preparation for self-sufficiency and independent living, as early in placement as possible but no later than 60 days after the youth’s 16th birthday
  • That reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the child in the home, prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from home, or make it possible for the child to return home
  • The specified permanency goal for the child, based on the individual needs and best interests of the child, including one of the following:
    • Remain home
    • Return home
    • Permanent placement with a relative through adoption
    • Permanent placement with a relative through legal guardianship or permanent custody
    • Adoption by a nonrelative
    • Legal guardianship/permanent custody with a nonrelative
    • Other planned permanent living arrangement through emancipation, relative long term-foster care, or nonrelative long-term foster care

County departments shall coordinate with local school districts to ensure there is a plan for educational stability. The family services plan shall document:

  • Efforts to maintain the child in the same school attended prior to the out-of-home placement
  • If remaining in the same school is not in the child’s best interests, efforts to enroll the child in a new school, including timely transfer of the educational records

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

Permanency hearings shall be held:

  • As soon as possible after the dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the child has entered foster care
  • Every 12 months thereafter while the child remains in an out-of-home placement
  • Within 30 days after a finding that reasonable efforts are not required
  • Within 3 months in counties with expedited permanency planning for children under age 6

In regulation: An administrative review is conducted by the Department of Human Services, Administrative Review Division. If there is no objection by any party to the action, the court may order that an administrative review substitute for a 6-month periodic review.

Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

The following persons shall be present at all hearings:

  • The parents of the child
  • The child, if appropriate
  • The foster parents, preadoptive parents, or relative caregivers, if any

In regulation: An administrative review is open to the participation of the parents of the child, the child (if age appropriate, as determined by the caseworker), and the out-of-home care provider, preadoptive parents, or relatives/kin who are providing out-of-home care for the child. All attorneys of record must be invited to court-ordered administrative reviews.

Determinations Made at Hearings

At the permanency hearing, the court shall first determine whether the child shall be returned to the child’s parent, and, if applicable, the date on which the child shall be returned, and whether reasonable efforts have been made to find a safe and permanent placement for the child. If the child is not returned to his or her parent, the court shall determine whether there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned within 6 months.

At any permanency hearing conducted by the court, the court shall make determinations as to the following:

  • Whether procedural safeguards to preserve parental rights have been applied in connection with any change in the child’s placement or any determination affecting parental visitation of the child
  • Whether reasonable efforts have been made to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect at the time of the hearing
  • If a child resides in a placement out of State, whether the out-of-State placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child
  • If the child is age 16 or older, whether the permanency plan includes independent living services

Periodic reviews conducted by the court–or, if there is no objection by any party to the action and at the court’s discretion, through an administrative review conducted by the department–shall determine the following:

  • Whether the child’s safety is protected in the placement
  • Whether reasonable efforts have been made to find a safe and permanent placement
  • The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement
  • The extent of compliance with the case plan, and the extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement in foster care
  • A likely date by which the child may be returned to and safely maintained at home or placed for adoption, legal guardianship, or another permanent safe placement setting
Permanency Options

If the child cannot be returned to the parent, the court shall determine the future placement of the child. Options for placement may include:

  • Adoption
  • Legal guardianship or custody
  • Placement with a fit and willing relative
  • Another permanent living arrangement

In counties with expedited permanency planning, placement options for a child under age 6 include:

  • Reunification with the parent
  • Placement with a relative
  • Placement with an adoptive parent
  • Permanent custody granted to another
  • If the child cannot be returned home, placement in the least restrictive level of care

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 General Assembly declares that the purposes of this title are:

  • To secure for each child subject to these provisions such care and guidance, preferably in his or her own home, as will best serve his or her welfare and the interests of society
  • To preserve and strengthen family ties whenever possible, including improvement of the home environment
  • To remove a child from the custody of his or her parents only when his or her welfare and safety or the protection of the public would otherwise be endangered and, in either instance, for the courts to proceed with all possible speed to a legal determination that will serve the best interests of the child
  • To secure for any child removed from the custody of his or her parents the necessary care, guidance, and discipline to assist him or her in becoming a responsible and productive member of society

The General Assembly declares that it is in the best interests of the child who has been removed from his or her own home to have the following guarantees:

  • To be placed in a secure and stable environment
  • To not be indiscriminately moved from foster home to foster home
  • To have assurance of long-term permanency planning

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

The court may order a termination of the parent-child legal relationship upon the finding by clear and convincing evidence of any one of the following:

  • The child has been abandoned by his or her parents.
  • The parent has been found to be unfit due to one of the following:
    • Emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency of the parent of such duration or nature as to render the parent unlikely within a reasonable time to care for the ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs and conditions of the child
    • A single incident resulting in serious bodily injury or disfigurement of the child
    • Long-term incarceration of the parent of such duration that the parent is not eligible for parole for at least 6 years after the date the child was adjudicated dependent or neglected or, if the child is under age 6, the parent is not eligible for parole for at least 36 months
    • Serious bodily injury or death of a sibling due to proven parental abuse or neglect
    • An identifiable pattern of habitual abuse
    • An identifiable pattern of sexual abuse of the child
    • The torture of or extreme cruelty to the child, a sibling of the child, or another child of either parent
  • The parent has not attended visitations with the child as set forth in the treatment plan unless good cause can be shown for failing to visit.
  • The parent exhibits the same problems addressed in the treatment plan without adequate improvement.
  • The parent is unfit, and the conduct or condition of the parent is unlikely to change within a reasonable time.

In determining unfitness, the court shall consider, but not be limited to, the following:

  • Conduct toward the child of a physically or sexually abusive nature
  • History of violent behavior
  • A single incident of life-threatening or serious bodily injury or disfigurement of the child
  • Excessive use of intoxicating liquors or controlled substances that affects the ability to care and provide for the child
  • Neglect of the child
  • Injury or death of a sibling due to proven parental abuse or neglect, murder, voluntary manslaughter, or circumstances in which a parent aided, abetted, or attempted the commission of or conspired or solicited to commit murder of a child’s sibling
  • Reasonable efforts by child-caring agencies that have been unable to rehabilitate the parent or parents
  • Prior involvement with the Department of Human Services concerning an incident of abuse or neglect involving the child followed by a subsequent incident of abuse or neglect
  • Felony assault committed by a parent that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent
  • That the child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the county department for 15 of the most recent 22 months
  • Whether, on two or more occasions, a child in the physical custody of the parent has been adjudicated dependent or neglected
  • Whether, on one or more prior occasions, a parent has had his or her parent-child legal relationship terminated with another child
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights

A petition to terminate parental rights will be filed when the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months unless:

  • The child is placed with a relative of the child.
  • The department has documented in the case plan that such motion would not be in the best interests of the child.
  • Reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the parent, as identified in the case plan, have not been provided.
  • The child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the county department for such period of time due to circumstances beyond the control of the parent, such as incarceration of the parent for a reasonable period of time, court delays or continuances that are not attributable to the parent, or such other reasonable circumstances that the court finds are beyond the control of the parent.

The county Department of Social Services may not be required to petition for termination of parental rights when:

  • The parents or guardians have maintained regular parenting time and contact with the child, and the child would benefit from continuing this relationship.
  • A child who is age 12 or older objects to the termination of the parent-child legal relationship.
  • The child’s foster parents are unable to adopt the child because of exceptional circumstances but are willing and capable of providing the child with a stable and permanent environment, and the removal of the child from the physical custody of his or her foster parents would be seriously detrimental to the emotional well-being of the child.
  • The criteria listed above have not yet been met.
Circumstances Allowing Reinstatement of Parental Rights

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Infant Safe Haven Laws

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (556 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2013

Infant’s Age

A child who is 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished.

Who May Relinquish the Infant

The parent of the child may voluntarily relinquish the child.

Who May Receive the Infant

A child may be delivered to:

  • A firefighter
  • A hospital staff member who engages in the admission, care, or treatment of patients
Responsibilities of the Safe Haven Provider

When a firefighter is at a fire station or a hospital staff member is at a hospital, the firefighter or hospital staff member shall, without a court order, take temporary physical custody of the child if:

  • The child is 72 hours old or younger.
  • The parent did not express an intent to return for the child.

If a firefighter or hospital staff member takes temporary physical custody of a child, he or she shall:

  • Perform any act necessary, in accordance with generally accepted standards of professional practice, to protect, preserve, or aid the physical health or safety of the child during the temporary physical custody
  • Notify a law enforcement officer and the county department of social services of the abandonment within 24 hours after the abandonment
Immunity for the Provider

A firefighter or hospital staff member shall incur no civil or criminal liability for any good-faith acts or omissions performed pursuant to this section.

Protection for Relinquishing Parent

A parent who utilizes the provisions of this section shall not, for that reason alone, be found to be responsible in a confirmed report of abuse or neglect.

If a parent is charged with permitting a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, and the child was 72 hours old or younger at the time of the alleged offense, it shall be an affirmative defense to such charge that the parent safely, reasonably, and knowingly handed the child over to a firefighter or to a hospital staff member who engages in the admission, care, or treatment of patients, when such firefighter is at a fire station or such hospital staff member is at a hospital.

Effect on Parental Rights

A county department of social services shall:

  • Place an abandoned child with a potential adoptive parent as soon as possible
  • Proceed with a motion to terminate the parental rights of a parent who abandons a child

Kinship Guardianship as a Permanency Option

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (1337 KB) of this publication.

Current Through December 2014

Definitions

Kinship care is the full time nurturing and protection of children and youth by kin. Kin are relatives, persons ascribed by the family as having a familylike relationship, or they may be individuals that have a prior significant relationship with the child or youth. These relationships take into account cultural values and continuity of significant relationships.

For the purpose of the Relative Guardianship Assistance Program, a relative is defined as:

  • An adult who is related to the youth or child in the fifth degree of kinship
  • An adult who is related to the youth or child through marriage or adoption
  • A person ascribed by the family as having a familylike relationship
  • An individual that had a prior significant relationship with the youth or child
Purpose of Guardianship

Kinship care shall be utilized to:

  • Maintain children in their families in order to provide meaningful emotional and cultural ties across the life span
  • Minimize the trauma of out-of-home placement
  • Support and strengthen families’ ability to protect their children and to provide permanency
A Guardian’s Rights and Responsibilities

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

Qualifying the Guardian

When the county department has not assumed legal authority for placement or taken legal custody of the child, the county department shall enable the family to make voluntary arrangements for temporary custody or guardianship by kin. The county department is not required to complete the kinship care or foster care certification process in these cases. A family assessment may be completed using the Department of Human Services’ modified Structured Analysis Family Evaluation (SAFE) for uncertified kinship families to determine the character and suitability of the family, appropriateness of the home, and child care practices.

The county department shall complete a background check in all cases for each adult (age 18 and older) living the home, including the following:

  • Child abuse/neglect records in every State where the adult has resided in the 5 years preceding the date of application
  • Fingerprint-based criminal history checks from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which shall be initiated by the county department the next working day following the placement of a child, except when the placement is completed in compliance with §19-3-406, C.R.S.

When the county department has assumed legal authority for placement or taken legal custody, the county department shall determine whether there are available and willing kin to provide for the child. Parents shall be included as part of the planning process for placement with kin unless there are documented reasons for their unavailability to participate. If kin are available and willing, the county department shall assess the suitability of kin in accordance with the foster care certification requirements found at §§ 7.500 and 7.708.

Procedures for Establishing Guardianship

Following an order of termination of parental rights, the court shall consider, but shall not be bound by, a request that guardianship and legal custody of the child be placed with a relative of the child. When ordering guardianship of the child, the court may give preference to a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, half-sibling, or first cousin of the child when such relative has made a timely request and the court determines that such placement is in the best interests of the child.

In making placement determinations, the court may consider all pertinent information related to modifying the placement of the child, giving strong consideration to whether:

  • The child’s placement at the time of the hearing is a safe and potentially permanent placement for the child.
  • The child has significant psychological ties to a person who could provide a permanent placement for the child, including a relative, and, if so, whether this person maintained contact with the child during the child’s placement out of the home.
  • That person is aware of the child’s culture and willing to provide the child with positive ties to his or her culture.
  • That person could meet the child’s medical, physical, emotional, or other specific needs.

The court also shall consider the child’s attachment to the child’s current caregiver and the possible effects on the child’s emotional well-being if the child is removed from the caregiver’s home.

In regulation: When a child has been placed by the county department into temporary kinship care and reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the parents are not successful, the county department shall consider permanent placement with the kinship care provider or other appropriate kin. The preferred permanent placement shall be adoption, legal guardianship, or permanent custody.

Contents of a Guardianship Order

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

Modification/Revocation of Guardianship

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations reviewed.

Eligibility for Guardianship Subsidy

Assistance from the guardianship assistance program shall be made available to relatives, persons who have a familylike relationship with the child, or persons who have had a prior significant relationship with the child who:

  • Are committed to the child’s permanency
  • Were the foster parent or parents of the child at the time they assumed guardianship
  • Have assumed guardianship of the child

In regulation: The Relative Guardianship Assistance Program provides assistance to a relative guardian so that permanency is achieved for an eligible child. Relative guardianship assistance is intended to help or remove financial or other barriers for a relative guardian by providing assistance to the relative guardian to care for and raise the child. All requirements of this section relate solely to the Relative Guardianship Assistance Program and exclude any other type of guardianship.

Eligibility requirements for the prospective relative guardian and child are as follows:

  • The most recent removal occurred through a court order or a voluntary placement agreement that includes a judicial determination that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child.
  • The prospective relative guardian was the certified kinship family foster care parent for the child for a minimum of 6 consecutive months while the child resided in the home.
  • Reunification and adoption are not appropriate permanency goal options for the child.
  • The child demonstrates a strong attachment to the relative.
  • Youth who are age 12 or older are consulted about their expressed wishes to be placed in a relative guardianship.
  • The prospective relative guardian has a strong commitment to caring for the child permanently.
  • A permanent placement with a prospective relative guardian and receipt of a relative guardianship assistance payment is in the best interests of the youth or child.
Links to Agency Policies

Colorado Code of Regulations, Section 7.304.21, Kinship Care, Social Services Rules, 12 Cexternal linkCR 2509-4 (PDF – 1,018 KB)

Colorado Kinship Connection, Navigating Kinship Care: A Resource Guide for Kinship Families in Coloradoexternal link

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

If the court finds that placement out of the home is necessary and is in the best interests of the child and the community, the court shall place the child with a relative, including the child’s grandparent if such placement is in the child’s best interests.

Following an order of termination of parental rights, the court shall consider, but shall not be bound by, a request that guardianship and legal custody of the child be placed with a relative of the child. When ordering guardianship and legal custody of the child, the court may give preference to a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, half-sibling, or first cousin of the child when such relative has made a timely request and the court determines that such placement is in the best interests of the child.

In regulation: When the county department has assumed legal authority for placement or taken legal custody of a child and out-of-home placement is necessary, the county department shall determine whether there are available and willing kin to provide for the child. If kin are available and willing, the county department shall assess the suitability of kin in accordance with the foster care certification requirements found at Sections 7.500 and 7.708.

Requirements for Placement with Relatives

The court may consider and give preference to giving temporary custody to a child’s relative who is appropriate, capable, willing, and available for care if it is in the best interests of the child.

Any time a relative is identified as a potential emergency placement for the child, the local law enforcement agency shall conduct an initial criminal history record check of the relative prior to the county department placing the child in the emergency placement.

In regulation: Requirements for approving kinship care services when the department has not assumed legal authority for placement or taken legal custody include:

  • When the child’s parents do not pose an ongoing threat to the child, the department shall enable the family to make voluntary arrangements for temporary custody or guardianship by kin.
  • The department is not required to complete the kinship care or foster care certification process in these cases. A family assessment may be completed to determine the character and suitability of the family, appropriateness of the home, and child care practices.
  • The department shall complete a background check in all cases for each adult living in the home for the following:
    • Child abuse/neglect records in every State where the adult has resided in the preceding 5 years
    • Fingerprint-based criminal history checks

In the decision-making process, funding and support options that encourage kinship care as a form of family preservation rather than a placement service shall be a primary consideration. If the kinship caregivers meet all of the standards for family foster home certification, they may choose to be certified as a family foster home. Kinship providers for title IV-E eligible children are entitled to the same level of reimbursement as nonrelated providers.

Relative kinship care providers shall be informed about the relative guardianship assistance program.

Requirements for Placement of Siblings

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19-3-605(1) to the contrary, when the child is part of a sibling group and the sibling group is being placed out of the home, if the county department locates an appropriate, capable, willing, and available joint placement for all of the children in the sibling group, the court shall presume that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is in the best interests of the children. Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that placement of the entire sibling group in the joint placement is not in the best interests of a child or of the children.

Relatives Who May Adopt

A kinship adoption refers to the adoption of a child by a grandparent, brother, sister, half-sibling, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, and the spouses of such relatives.

Requirements for Adoption by Relatives

The relative is eligible to adopt the child if he or she has had physical custody of the child for a period of 1 year or more, and the child is not the subject of a pending dependency and neglect proceeding.

The adoption petition shall contain a statement informing the court whether the relative was ever convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in one of the following areas:

  • Child abuse or neglect
  • Spousal abuse
  • Any crime against a child
  • Domestic violence; violation of a protection order; or any crime involving violence, rape, sexual assault, or homicide
  • Any felony physical assault or battery

The relative must undergo a criminal background check.

In the petition, the relative shall state that he or she has consulted with the appropriate departments to determine eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, and subsidized adoption.

A home study is not required to be filed with an adoption petition in the case of a kinship adoption.

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

The term ‘reasonable efforts’ means the exercise of diligence and care for children who are in out-of-home placement or are at imminent risk of out-of-home placement. In determining whether it is appropriate to provide, purchase, or develop the supportive and rehabilitative services that are required to prevent unnecessary placement of a child outside of a child’s home or to foster the safe reunification of a child with a child’s family, or whether it is appropriate to find and finalize an alternative permanent plan for a child, In making reasonable efforts, the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern. Services provided by a county or city agency in accordance with § 19-3-208 are deemed to meet the reasonable effort standard described in this subsection.

The term ‘appropriate treatment plan,’ as used in § 19-3-508(1)(e), means a treatment plan approved by the court that is reasonably calculated to render the particular respondent fit to provide adequate parenting to the child within a reasonable time and that relates to the child’s needs.

When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

Reasonable efforts must be made:

  • To prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home
  • To reunite the child and the family if legal custody has been awarded to the Department of Human Services
When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required

Reasonable efforts are not required to prevent the child’s removal from the home or to reunify the child and the family in the following circumstances:

  • The court finds that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances to such an extent that grounds exist for termination of the parent’s parental rights, as described in § 19-3-604(1).
  • The parental rights of the parent with respect to a sibling of the child have been involuntarily terminated, unless the prior sibling termination resulted from a parent delivering a child to a firefighter or a hospital staff member pursuant to § 19-3-304.5.
  • The court finds that the parent has been convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent; aiding, abetting, or attempting to commit such crimes; or a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent.

Standby Guardianship

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (354 KB) of this publication.

Current Through February 2015

Who Can Nominate a Standby Guardian

A guardian may be appointed in a will or another signed writing by a parent for any minor child the parent has. A guardian may also be appointed in a will or another signed writing by a guardian of a minor child. A guardian may not appoint a surviving parent who has no parental rights to be a successor guardian.

How to Establish a Standby Guardian

The appointment may specify the desired limitations on the powers to be given to the guardian.

Upon petition of an appointing parent or guardian and a finding that the appointing parent or guardian will likely become unable to care for the child within 2 years, the court, before the appointment becomes effective, may confirm the selection of a guardian by a parent or guardian and terminate the rights of others to object. If the child is age 12 or older, he or she must consent to the appointment of a guardian.

How Standby Authority is Activated

Subject to § 15-14-203, the appointment of a guardian becomes effective upon the death of the appointing parent or guardian, an adjudication that the parent or guardian is an incapacitated person, or a written determination by a physician who has examined the parent or guardian that the parent or guardian is no longer able to care for the child, whichever occurs first.

The guardian becomes eligible to act upon the filing of an acceptance of appointment, which must be filed within 30 days after the guardian’s appointment becomes effective. Unless the appointment was previously confirmed by the court, within 30 days after filing the notice and the appointing instrument, a guardian shall petition the court for confirmation of the appointment.

Involvement of the Noncustodial Parent

Citation: Rev. Stat. §§ 15-14-203; 15-14-204; 15-14-205
Until the court has confirmed an appointee, the other parent may prevent or terminate the appointment at any time by filing a written objection with the court.

Consent is required unless either the parent’s parental rights have been terminated or the parent is unwilling or unable to exercise such rights.

After a petition for appointment of a guardian is filed, the court shall schedule a hearing. Notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition must be given to the noncustodial parent.

Authority Relationship of the Parent and the Standby

The appointment of a guardian by a parent does not supersede the parental rights of either parent.

Withdrawing Guardianship

The appointing parent or guardian may revoke or amend the appointment at any time before it is confirmed by the court. The authority of the guardian terminates upon the appointment of another guardian by the court, the filing of an objection by another person, or the refusal of the minor age 12 or older to consent.

The guardianship terminates upon a minor’s death, adoption, emancipation, or attainment of majority, or as ordered by the court.

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 A Colorado CPS Attorney a FREE Question

Ask an Attorney a FREE question about your CPS case in Colorado.

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.

Answers
Views
Question
0
answers
7
views
asked 1 month ago by
Category: Colorado
Public question