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

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 a online version - Motion To Dismiss

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

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

DATED this day of November _____, 2016

_____________________________________

Petitioner, signature

Submitted by:

________________________________________________________________________________

Petitioner, Print Name Address or Contact Address

________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip Telephone or Contact Telephone

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

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The screener determines that information received:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to 413-015-0210

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The screener determines that information received:

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

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

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fourth Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

You cannot seize childern simply because their parent is yelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

  1. Life threatening damage.

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

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

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

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

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

  1. There is a vulnerable child.

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

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

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

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

According to OAR 413-015-1000

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

According to OAR 413-015-0425

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

According to OAR 413-015-0425

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

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

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

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

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

(c) Life threatening damage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to OAR 413-040-0013

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

The caseworker, Stacie Navarro, has never done this.

According to OAR 413-040-0013

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

This has never been done by the caseworker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATED this day of ___________, 20____ .

Petitioner (signature) _________________________________________

Print Name _________________________________________________

Address or Contact Address ____________________________________

City, State, Zip Code __________________________________________

Telephone or Contact Telephone ________________________________

STATE OF OREGON           )

)     ss.

County of Lane )

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

_____________________

SEAL

Attorney’s signature______________________________________________

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

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

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

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

___ with prejudice

___ without prejudice

DATE: ___________________

______________________________________________

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

 

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

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

Connecticut

 

Policy Manual

Another Policy Manual

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

The Office of Victim Services or, on review, a victim compensation commissioner may order that services be provided for the restitution of any person eligible for such services in accordance with the provisions of §§ 54-201 to 54-233, inclusive. Such services may include, but shall not be limited to, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and social services and social rehabilitation services.

The Office of Victim Services or, on review, a victim compensation commissioner may order that such restitution services be provided to victims of child abuse and members of their families, victims of sexual assault and members of their families, victims of domestic violence and members of their families, members of the family of any victim of homicide, and children who witness domestic violence, including, but not limited to, children who are not related to the victim. For the purposes of this subsection, ‘members of their families’ or ‘member of the family’ does not include the person responsible for such child abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, or homicide.

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

The term ‘abused’ means that a child or youth:

  • Has been inflicted with physical injury or injuries by other than accidental means
  • Has injuries that are inconsistent with the history given of them
  • Is in a condition that is the result of maltreatment that includes, but is not limited to, malnutrition, sexual molestation or exploitation, deprivation of necessities, emotional maltreatment, or cruel punishment
Neglect

A child or youth may be found ‘neglected’ who, for reasons other than being impoverished:

  • Has been abandoned
  • Is being denied proper physical, educational, emotional, or moral care and attention
  • Is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to the well-being of the child or youth
  • Has been abused

A child or youth may be found ‘uncared for’ who is homeless; whose home cannot provide the specialized care that the physical, emotional, or mental condition of the child requires; or who has been identified as a victim of trafficking, as defined in § 46a-170.

Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

The term ‘abuse’ includes sexual molestation or exploitation.

Emotional Abuse

The term ‘abuse’ includes emotional maltreatment.

Abandonment

Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120
A child or youth may be found ‘neglected’ who has been abandoned.

Standards for Reporting

Citation: Gen. Stat. § 17a-101a
A report is required when a mandatory reporter, in the ordinary course of his or her employment or profession, has reasonable cause to suspect or believe that any child under age 18:

  • Has been abused or neglected
  • Has suffered a nonaccidental physical injury or an injury that is inconsistent with the history given of such injury
  • Is placed at imminent risk of serious harm
Persons Responsible for the Child

Responsible persons include the child’s parents or guardian.

Exceptions

The treatment of any child by an accredited Christian Science practitioner, in lieu of treatment by a licensed practitioner of the healing arts, shall not of itself constitute neglect or maltreatment.

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

‘Family violence’ means an incident resulting in physical harm, bodily injury, or assault, or an act of threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members. Verbal abuse or argument shall not constitute family violence unless there is present danger and the likelihood that physical violence will occur.

‘Family violence crime’ means a crime as defined in § 53a-24, other than a delinquent act, which, in addition to its other elements, contains as an element an act of family violence to a family or household member. ‘Family violence crime’ does not include acts by parents or guardians disciplining minor children, unless such acts constitute abuse.

If any person is convicted of a violation of the crimes listed below against a family or household member, as defined in § 46b-38a, or a person in a dating relationship, the court shall include a designation that such conviction involved domestic violence on the court record for the purposes of criminal history record information. The crimes include:

  • Assault
  • Assault on an elderly, blind, disabled, or pregnant person, or a person with an intellectual disability
  • Assault on a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage
  • Assault with a firearm
  • Threatening
  • Reckless endangerment
  • Strangulation
  • Sexual assault
  • Aggravated sexual assault
  • Sexual assault in a spousal or cohabiting relationship
  • Aggravated sexual assault of a minor
  • Sexual assault with a firearm
  • Stalking
  • Harassment
  • Criminal violation of a protective order, a standing criminal restraining order, or a restraining order
Defined in Child Abuse Reporting and Child Protection Laws

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Defined in Criminal Laws

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Persons Included in the Definition

‘Family or household member’ means:

  • Spouses or former spouses
  • Parents and their children
  • Persons related by blood or marriage
  • Persons, other than those persons listed above, presently residing together or who have resided together
  • Persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they are or have been married or have lived together at any time
  • Persons in, or who have recently been in, a dating relationship

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, institution, or agency that in good faith makes, or in good faith does not make, a report shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed and shall have the same immunity with respect to any judicial proceeding that results from such report, provided such person did not perpetrate or cause such abuse or neglect.

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 suspect that a child has been abused or neglected shall make an oral report, by telephone or in person, not later than 12 hours after the reporter has cause to suspect. The report shall be made to the Commissioner of Children and Families or a law enforcement agency.

No later than 48 hours after making an oral report, a mandated reporter shall submit a written report to the Commissioner of Children and Families. When a mandated reporter is a member of the staff of a public or private institution or facility that provides care for the child or public or private school, the reporter also shall submit a copy of the written report to the person in charge of such institution, school, or facility. In the case of a report concerning a school employee holding a certificate, authorization, or permit issued by the State Board of Education, a copy of the written report also shall be sent by the Commissioner of Children and Families to the Commissioner of Education. In the case of an employee of a facility or institution that provides care for a child that is licensed by the State, a copy of the written report also shall be sent by the Commissioner of Children and Families to the executive head of the State licensing agency.

A person reporting child abuse or neglect shall provide any person authorized to conduct an investigation with all information related to the investigation that is in the possession or control of the reporter, except as expressly prohibited by State or Federal law.

Content of Reports

All oral and written reports shall contain, if known:

  • The names and addresses of the child and the child’s parents or other persons responsible for the child’s care
  • The age and gender of the child
  • The nature and extent of the child’s injuries, maltreatment, or neglect
  • The approximate date and time the child’s injuries, maltreatment, or neglect occurred
  • Any information about previous injuries or maltreatment to the child or the child’s siblings
  • The circumstances in which the maltreatment came to be known to the reporter
  • The name of the person suspected to be responsible for the maltreatment
  • The reasons the person is suspected of causing the maltreatment or neglect
  • Any information concerning any prior cases in which the person has been suspected of causing an injury, maltreatment, or neglect of a child
  • Whatever action, if any, was taken to assist the child
Reporting Suspicious Deaths

If the Commissioner of Children and Families receives a report that a child has died, the commissioner shall, within 12 hours of receipt of the report, notify the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Reporting Substance-Exposed Infants

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Agency Receiving the Reports

The Commissioner of Children and Families shall provide a telephone hotline for child abuse that shall be dedicated to receive reports of child abuse. The hotline shall accept all reports of abuse or neglect regardless of the relationship of the alleged perpetrator to the child who is the alleged victim and regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s affiliation with any organization or other entity in any capacity.

Initial Screening Decisions

Upon receiving a report of child abuse or neglect in which the alleged perpetrator is a person who is responsible for the child’s health, welfare, or care; given access to the child; or entrusted with the care of the child, the commissioner shall cause the report to be classified and evaluated immediately. If the report contains sufficient information to warrant an investigation, best efforts shall be made to commence an investigation of a report concerning an imminent risk of physical harm to a child or other emergency within 2 hours of receipt of the report and to commence an investigation of all other reports within 72 hours.

A report classified by the commissioner as lower risk may be referred for family assessment and services. Any such report may thereafter be referred for standard child protective services if safety concerns for the child become evident. A report referred for standard child protective services may be referred for family assessment and services at any time if the department determines there is a lower risk to the child.

Agency Conducting the Assessment/Investigation

The child protective services investigation shall be conducted by the Department of Children and Families. If the report is a report of child abuse or neglect in which the alleged perpetrator is not a person specified above, the commissioner shall refer the report to the appropriate local law enforcement authority.

For reports classified as lower risk, the commissioner may establish a program of differential response whereby the report may be referred to appropriate community providers for family assessment and services without an investigation or at any time during an investigation, provided there has been an initial safety assessment of the circumstances of a family and child and criminal background checks have been performed on all adults involved in the report.

Any person authorized to conduct an investigation of abuse or neglect shall coordinate investigatory activities in order to minimize the number of interviews of any child and share information with other persons authorized to conduct an investigation of child abuse or neglect, as appropriate.

Assessment/Investigation Procedures

The investigation shall include a home visit at which the child and any siblings are observed, if appropriate; a determination of the nature, extent, and cause or causes of the reported abuse or neglect; a determination of the person or persons suspected to be responsible for such abuse or neglect; the name, age, and condition of other children residing in the same household; and an evaluation of the parents and the home. The report of the investigation shall be in writing. The investigation also shall include, but not be limited to, a review of criminal conviction information concerning the person or persons alleged to be responsible for the abuse or neglect and previous allegations of abuse or neglect relating to the child or other children residing in the household or relating to family violence.

Timeframes for Completing Investigations

Upon receipt of the report, the department shall make an initial assessment of the potential risk to the child and shall designate the report as:

  • ‘Emergency,’ which will require same-day commencement of the investigation
  • ‘Severe,’ which will require commencement of the investigation within the following day
  • ‘Nonsevere,’ which will require commencement of the investigation within 3 working days

All investigations of reports will be completed within 45 calendar days.

Classification of Reports

The investigation is considered complete when the department staff have secured sufficient information through personal contact with the child, family, and/or other collateral sources (as appropriate) to:

  • Determine whether the report is founded or unfounded
  • Determine whether or not further department actions are required to protect and promote the well-being of the child or to assist the parent(s) or other child-caring person to more appropriately respond to and care for the child’s needs

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

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

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

In proceedings in the Superior Court for a neglected, uncared-for, or dependent child under § 46b-129, the child shall be represented by counsel knowledgeable about representing such children who shall be assigned to represent the child by the office of Chief Public Defender, or appointed by the court if there is an immediate need for the appointment of counsel during a court proceeding. The court shall give the parties prior notice of such assignment or appointment. Counsel for the child shall act solely as attorney for the child.

If a child requiring assignment of counsel in a dependency proceeding is represented by an attorney for a minor child in an ongoing probate or family matter proceeding, the court may appoint the attorney to represent the child in the dependency proceeding provided that the counsel is knowledgeable about representing such children, and the court notifies the office of Chief Public Defender of the appointment. Any child who is subject to an ongoing probate or family matters proceeding who has been appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) in such proceeding shall be assigned a separate GAL in a dependency proceeding if it is deemed necessary.

The Use of Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Qualifications/Training

The Division of Public Defender Services shall provide legal services and GALs to children, youth, and indigent respondents:

  • In family relations matters in which the State has been ordered to pay the cost of such legal services
  • In proceedings before the superior court for juvenile matters

To carry out these requirements, the office of Chief Public Defender may contract with:

  • Appropriate not-for-profit legal services agencies
  • Individual lawyers or law firms for the delivery of legal services to represent children
  • Mental health professionals as GALs in family relations matters

Any contract entered into pursuant to this subsection may include terms encouraging or requiring the use of a multidisciplinary agency model of legal representation.

The division shall establish a system to ensure that attorneys providing legal services are assigned to cases in a manner that will avoid conflicts of interest, as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The division shall establish training, practice, and caseload standards for the representation of children. The standards shall apply to each attorney who represents children and shall be designed to ensure high-quality legal representation. The training standards for attorneys required by this subdivision shall be designed to ensure proficiency in the procedural and substantive law related to such matters and to establish a minimum level of proficiency in relevant subject areas including, but not limited to, family violence, child development, behavioral health, educational disabilities, and cultural competence.

Specific Duties

The primary role of any counsel for the child shall be to advocate for the child in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, except that if the child is incapable of expressing the child’s wishes to the child’s counsel because of age or other incapacity, the counsel for the child shall advocate for the best interests of the child.

If the court, based on evidence before it, or counsel for the child, determines that the child cannot act adequately in his or her own best interests, and the child’s wishes, as determined by counsel, if followed, could lead to substantial physical, financial, or other harm to the child unless protective action is taken, counsel may request and the court may order that a separate GAL be assigned for the child. In that case the court shall either appoint a GAL to serve on a voluntary basis or notify the office of Chief Public Defender who shall assign a separate GAL for the child. The GAL shall conduct an independent investigation of the case and may present information that is pertinent to the court’s determination of the best interests of the child at any hearing. The GAL shall be subject to cross-examination upon the request of opposing counsel.

The GAL is not required to be an attorney-at-law but shall be knowledgeable about the needs and protection of children and relevant court procedures. If a separate GAL is assigned, the person previously serving as counsel for the child shall continue to serve as counsel for the child and a different person shall be assigned as GAL, unless the court for good cause shown also determines that a different person should serve as counsel for the child, in which case the court shall notify the office of Chief Public Defender who shall assign a different person as counsel for the child. No person who has served as both counsel and GAL for a child shall thereafter serve solely as the child’s GAL.

How the Representative Is Compensated

The counsel and GAL’s fees, if any, shall be paid by the office of Chief Public Defender unless the parents, guardian, or the estate of the child are able to pay, in which case the court shall assess the rate the parent or guardian is able to pay and the office of Chief Public Defender may seek reimbursement for the costs of representation from the parents, guardian, or estate of the child.

The Chief Public Defender shall:

  • Maintain one or more lists of trial lawyers who may be available to represent parents or guardians and children in child protection and family relations matters from which lawyers shall be selected by a judge of the court before which the matter is to be heard
  • Establish compensation for lawyers assigned to these cases for their services, to be paid from the budget of the Public Defender Services Commission

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

The commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall prepare and maintain a written plan for care, treatment, and permanent placement of every child and youth under the commissioner’s supervision.

In policy: Initial and ongoing family case plans shall be developed for:

  • All families with an open case
  • Families with a child in placement whose permanent or concurrent plan is reunification
  • Families with a child in placement (regardless of the child’s permanency plan) for whom the department is providing services (other than visitation) to address a parent’s or guardian’s identified needs

Initial and ongoing child in placement (CIP) case plans shall be developed for:

  • Children who are at home but committed to the department
  • Youth age 18 and older while their case remains open
  • Children in out-of-home care regardless of age or placement type when the legal basis for the placement is:
    • A Voluntary Services Program placement
    • A court order
    • A voluntary placement agreement
Who May Participate in the Case Planning Process

The child and his or her parent or guardian may request a hearing to contest any provision in the plan.

In policy: The goal of case planning shall be to assess and address the family’s needs in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner through engagement and partnership with family members and service providers.

Contents of a Case Plan

The plan shall include, but not be limited to:

  • A diagnosis of the problems of each child or youth
  • The proposed plan of treatment services and temporary placement
  • A goal for permanent placement of the child or youth that may include reunification with the parent, long-term foster care, independent living, transfer of guardianship, or adoption

The child or youth’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern in formulating the plan.

In policy: All of the following elements shall be included and discussed in the child’s case plan:

  • A description of the conditions and safety factors that resulted in the child’s placement
  • A description of the child, including the date of birth; race, ethnicity, and gender; languages spoken; immigration status; physical description; and strengths, skills, and interests
  • The child’s emotional or behavioral status, including current diagnoses and medication and any unresolved issues
  • The child’s educational development, including:
    • Grade level and performance
    • Special education needs, if applicable
    • Proximity to the school of origin from home at the time of removal
    • If applicable, the reason the child did not remain in school of origin
  • A description of child’s social support, including family and community resources
  • A description of the child’s current placement
  • The rationale for visitation or other contact with parents, siblings, and others who have a significant role in the life of the child
  • A discussion of the child’s physical health, including medical, dental, and vision information; immunizations and medications; and any diagnoses
  • An assessment of adult relatives and other potential permanency resources, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins, and step- and half-relatives

The plan for a child who is age 13 or older shall include, but not be not limited to, the following topics:

  • The child’s need to develop life skills and knowledge to enable self-sufficient living
  • The need for an assessment to determine the child’s educational or vocational interests and level of ability, and/or post-high school educational interests
  • Whether the child has taken a career interest assessment/learning style inventory
  • Issues of sexual orientation
  • Issues of cultural awareness
  • The need for future referral to adult services
  • Medical coverage
  • Housing
  • Finances (including any ongoing sources of income and any survivor benefits)
  • Parenting issues
  • Independent Living Passport and essential documents
  • The identification of workforce supports or employment services

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

A review hearing shall be held within 60 days of the child’s removal from the home.

A permanency hearing must be held:

  • Nine months after the child or youth has been placed in the care and custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families
  • Nine months after a permanency plan has been approved by the court
  • Every 12 months after the initial permanency hearing while the child or youth remains in care or, if the youth is age 18 or older, while the youth remains in voluntary placement with the Department of Children and Families

In policy: Administrative case reviews are conducted by the department for all children in the custody of the department no less frequently than once every 6 months (180 days). The initial review is determined from the date of the most recent removal from the child’s home. The date of placement is the date when the department becomes legally responsible for the child.

Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

The court shall provide notice to the child and the parent or guardian of the child of the time and place of the court hearing no less than 14 days prior to such hearing.

A foster parent, prospective adoptive parent, or relative caregiver shall receive notice and have the right to be heard in any proceeding concerning a foster child living with such foster parent, prospective adoptive parent, or relative caregiver. A foster parent, prospective adoptive parent, or relative caregiver who has cared for a child shall have the right to be heard and comment on the best interests of such child in any proceeding that is brought no later than 1 year after the last day the foster parent, prospective adoptive parent, or relative caregiver provided such care.

Upon motion of any sibling of any child committed to the Department of Children and Families, such sibling shall have the right to be heard concerning visitation with, and placement of, any such child. In awarding any visitation or modifying any placement, the court shall be guided by the best interests of all siblings affected by such determination.

In policy: The persons invited to the case review meeting should include, but not be limited to:

  • The parents or guardians
  • The child (when age appropriate)
  • Anyone the parents, guardians, or child see as a support
  • Attorneys for the parents and child or guardians ad litem
  • Community and placement providers
  • Any professional involved with the child or family
  • School personnel
  • Any department staff who provide services to the child and family
Determinations Made at Hearings

At the review hearing, the court shall determine whether the department made reasonable efforts to keep the child with his or her parents or guardian prior to the removal of the child from home and, if such efforts were not made, whether such reasonable efforts were not possible, taking into consideration the child’s best interests, including his or her health and safety.

At the permanency hearing, the court shall ask the child or youth about his or her desired permanency outcome and shall review:

  • The status of the child
  • The progress being made to implement the permanency plan
  • The timetable for attaining the permanency plan
  • The services to be provided to the parent if the court approves a permanency plan of reunification and the timetable for such services
  • Whether the department has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan

In policy: At the case review meeting, the following determinations are made:

  • The physical and psychological safety of the child
  • The appropriateness and continuing necessity for the placement
  • The treatment and monitoring of any trauma associated with maltreatment and removal from home
  • The extent of compliance with the case plan
  • The extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement in foster care
  • A projected likely date by which the child may be returned to and safely maintained in the home or placed for adoption or legal guardianship
Permanency Options

At the permanency hearing, the court shall approve a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child and takes into consideration the child’s need for permanency. The child’s health and safety shall be of paramount concern in formulating the plan. Such permanency plan may include the goal of:

  • Revocation of commitment and reunification of the child with the parent, with or without protective supervision
  • Transfer of guardianship or permanent legal guardianship
  • Filing of termination of parental rights and adoption
  • For a child age 16 or older, another planned permanent living arrangement

Another planned permanent living arrangement may be ordered by the court only after the commissioner of the department has documented a compelling reason why it would not be in the best interests of the child for the permanency plan to include another permanency goal. Such other planned permanent living arrangement shall, whenever possible, include an adult who has a significant relationship with the child, and who is willing to be a permanency resource, and may include, but not be limited to, placement of a youth in an Independent Living program or long-term foster care with an identified foster parent.

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

‘Best interests of the child’ shall include, but not be limited to, a consideration of the age of the child, the nature of the relationship of the child with his or her caregiver, the length of time the child has been in the custody of the caregiver, the nature of the relationship of the child with the birth parent, the length of time the child has been in the custody of the birth parent, any relationship that may exist between the child and siblings or other children in the caregiver’s household, and the psychological and medical needs of the child. The determination of the best interests of the child shall not be based on a consideration of the socioeconomic status of the birth parent or the caregiver.

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 Commissioner of Children and Families shall file a petition to terminate parental rights if:

  • The child has been foster care for at least 15 consecutive months, or at least 15 months during the 22 months immediately preceding the filing of such petition.
  • The parent has abandoned the child.
  • The parent has inflicted sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or severe physical abuse on the child or has engaged in a pattern of abuse of the child.
  • The parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.
  • The parent was convicted of a sexual assault that resulted in the conception of a child. The court may terminate the rights of the parent to such child at any time after the conviction.
  • A court has found that the parent has:
    • Killed, through a deliberate, non-accidental act, a sibling of the child
    • Requested, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit the killing of the child or a sibling of the child
    • Assaulted the child or sibling of the child, and such assault resulted in serious bodily injury to the child
  • The parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.
  • The parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated within 3 years of the filing of a petition, provided the commissioner has made reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with the child for a period of at least 90 days.
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights

A petition to terminate rights shall be filed when the child has been in the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families for at least 15 of the most recent 22 months unless:

  • The child has been placed in the care of a relative.
  • There is a compelling reason to believe that termination of rights is not in the best interests of the child.
  • The parent has not been offered the services specified in the permanency plan to reunify the parent with the child.
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 30 days old or younger may be relinquished.

Who May Relinquish the Infant

The child may be relinquished by his or her parent or a lawful agent of the parent.

Who May Receive the Infant

Each hospital operating an emergency room shall designate all members of the emergency room nursing staff as employees authorized to take physical custody of an infant pursuant to § 17a-58. There shall be a designated employee on duty at each hospital emergency room during regular business hours. There shall be a designated place inside such hospital emergency room where physical custody may be taken.

Responsibilities of the Safe Haven Provider

The designated employee shall take physical custody of any infant age 30 days or younger if the parent or lawful agent of the parent voluntarily surrenders physical custody of the infant unless the parent or agent clearly expresses an intent to return for the infant. The designated employee may request the parent or agent to provide the name of the parent or agent and information on the medical history of the infant and parents.

The designated employee may provide the parent or agent with a numbered identification bracelet to link the parent or agent to the infant. The bracelet shall be used for identification only and shall not be construed to authorize the person who possesses the bracelet to take custody of the infant on demand. The designated employee shall provide the parent or agent with a pamphlet describing the process of safe relinquishment.

No more than 24 hours after taking physical custody of the infant, the designated employee shall notify the Department of Children and Families of such custody.

Immunity for the Provider

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Protection for Relinquishing Parent

Information concerning a parent or agent or infant left with a designated employee shall be confidential, except that the provider shall furnish to the Commissioner of Children and Families all medical history information provided by the parent.

Leaving an infant with a safe haven provider is not a violation of the law of child abandonment.

Effect on Parental Rights

The Commissioner of Children and Families shall assume the care and control of the infant immediately upon receipt of notice and shall take any action authorized under State law to achieve safety and permanency for the infant. Any infant in the care and control of the commissioner under the provisions of this section shall be considered to be in the custody of the department.

If a person claiming to be a parent or agent of an infant left with a designated employee submits a request to the Commissioner of Children and Families for reunification with the infant, the commissioner may identify, contact, and investigate such person or agent to determine if such reunification is appropriate or if the parental rights of the parent should be terminated.

Possession of a bracelet linking the parent or agent to an infant left with a designated employee if parental rights have not been terminated creates a presumption that the parent or person has standing to participate in a custody hearing for the infant and does not create a presumption of maternity, paternity, or custody.

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

As used in this section, the term ‘relative caregiver’ means a person who is caring for a child related to that person because the parent of the child has died or has become otherwise unable to care for the child for reasons that make reunification with the parent and adoption not viable options within the foreseeable future. ‘Permanent guardianship’ means a guardianship that is intended to endure until the minor reaches the age of majority without termination of the parental rights of the minor’s parents.

In regulation: The term ‘guardian’ means one who has the authority and obligations of ‘guardianship,’ as defined below. The term ‘subsidized guardian’ means a person to whom legal guardianship has been awarded and who otherwise qualifies for a subsidy under §§ 17a-126-1 through 17a-126-23, inclusive, of the regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

Purpose of Guardianship

The court shall issue an order for permanent legal guardianship if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the permanent legal guardianship is in the best interests of the child and that the following have been proven by clear and convincing evidence:

  • One of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists or the parents have voluntarily consented to the establishment of the permanent legal guardianship.
  • Adoption of the child or youth is not possible or appropriate.
  • If the child is as least age 12, the child consents to the proposed permanent legal guardianship.
  • If the child is under age 12, the proposed permanent legal guardian is a relative or already serving as the permanent legal guardian of at least one of the child’s siblings, if any.
  • The child has resided with the proposed permanent legal guardian for at least 1 year.
  • The proposed permanent legal guardian is a suitable and worthy person and is committed to remaining the permanent legal guardian and assuming the right and responsibilities for the child or youth until the child or youth attains the age of majority.
A Guardian’s Rights and Responsibilities

The term ‘guardianship’ means guardianship of the person of a minor, which includes:

  • The obligation of care or control
  • The authority to make major decisions affecting the child’s welfare, which the child cannot make on his own, including, but not limited to, consent determinations regarding marriage; enlistment in the armed forces; and major medical, psychiatric, or surgical treatment

In regulation: Certified relatives shall:

  • Have the right to attend administrative case review and treatment plan review hearings and to provide pertinent information regarding their child’s care
  • Comply with the guardian’s plan for the child and work cooperatively with the guardian in all matters pertaining to the child’s welfare
  • Accept and cooperate with arrangements made for the child to have contact with his or her parents and with the frequency indicated by the commissioner
Qualifying the Guardian

The commissioner may place a child with a relative who is not certified for a period of up to 45 days provided:

  • A satisfactory home visit is conducted and a basic assessment of the family is completed.
  • The relative attests that he or she and any adult living within the household have not been convicted of any crime or arrested for a felony against a person; for injury or risk of injury to or impairing the morals of a child; or for the possession, use, or sale of any controlled substance.

A certified relative shall comply with all relevant regulations unless a waiver for specific requirements has been granted by the commissioner. A waiver shall be issued only if the relative is in substantial compliance with the intent of the relevant statutes or regulations being waived or that the intent of the specific requirement to be waived will be satisfactorily achieved in a manner other than that prescribed by the requirement.

Certified relatives and all other members of the household shall attest to whether they are or are not free of communicable disease and physical, mental, or emotional infirmities that would interfere with their ability to care for children. Certified relatives and other members of the household shall be of good character, habits, and reputation.

Certified relatives shall be capable of providing:

  • Care, guidance, and supervision of the child, including the handling of emergency situations involving the child
  • Adequate opportunities for recreational, cultural, and educational activities both within the family and in the community
  • The child with the opportunity for religious training appropriate to the child’s religious denomination
  • For the child to attend school regularly
  • Cooperation with the proper authorities in relation to the child’s educational needs
  • For the child’s physical and emotional needs
Procedures for Establishing Guardianship

Upon finding and adjudging that any child or youth is uncared-for, neglected, or abused the court may:

  • Vest such child’s or youth’s legal guardianship with any person or persons found to be suitable and worthy of such responsibility by the court, including, but not limited to, any relative of the child or youth by blood or marriage
  • Vest the child’s or youth’s permanent legal guardianship in any person or persons found to be suitable and worthy of such responsibility by the court, including, but not limited to, any relative of such child or youth by blood or marriage

If the court determines that someone other than the respondent parent, parents, or former guardian should have custody of the child, or if parental rights are terminated at any time, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that an award of legal guardianship or permanent legal guardianship to, or adoption upon termination of parental rights by, any relative who is licensed as a foster parent for the child or youth, or who is, pursuant to an order of the court, the temporary custodian of the child or youth, shall be in the best interests of the child or youth and that the relative is a suitable and worthy person to assume legal guardianship or permanent legal guardianship. The presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that an award of legal guardianship or permanent legal guardianship to, or an adoption by, the relative would not be in the child’s or youth’s best interests and the relative is not a suitable and worthy person.

Contents of a Guardianship Order

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

Modification/Revocation of Guardianship

An order of permanent legal guardianship may be reopened and modified, and the permanent legal guardian removed upon the filing of a motion with the court, provided it is proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the permanent legal guardian is no longer suitable and worthy. A parent may not file a motion to terminate a permanent legal guardianship.

If the court has ordered legal guardianship of a child or youth to be vested in a suitable and worthy person, the child’s parent or former legal guardian may file a motion to reinstate guardianship of the child in the parent or former legal guardian. Upon the filing of such a motion, the court may order the Commissioner of Children and Families to investigate the home conditions and needs of the child and the home conditions of the person seeking reinstatement of guardianship, and to make a recommendation to the court. Upon finding that the cause for the removal of guardianship no longer exists, and that reinstatement is in the best interests of the child, the court may reinstate the guardianship of the parent or the former legal guardian. No such motion may be filed more often than once every 6 months.

Eligibility for Guardianship Subsidy

The commissioner shall establish a program of subsidized guardianship for the benefit of children in foster care who have been living with relative caregivers, who are licensed foster care providers, and who have been in foster care for not less than 6 consecutive months.

In regulation: A relative caregiver may request a guardianship subsidy from the Department of Children and Families for a child in the care or custody of the commissioner for not less than 18 months.

The commissioner may classify a child and the child’s relative caregiver as qualified for the subsidized guardianship program if it is determined that the child is in the care or custody of the commissioner, is living with the relative caregiver, has been in foster care or certified relative care for not less than 18 months, the relative caregiver is the proposed guardian for the child, and reunification with the parent is not a viable option within the foreseeable future because of one or more conditions including, but not limited to:

  • Death of the parent
  • Abandonment of the child by the parent
  • Physical or mental disability of the parent
  • Serious emotional maladjustment of the parent
  • Failure of the parent to achieve rehabilitation that is adequate to provide for the child
  • Age of the child when considered with other factors in the child’s functioning, and circumstances that present a barrier to reunification

The department shall determine through an assessment period not less than 12 nor more than 18 months from the time the child was placed with the relative caregiver, who is requesting the subsidy, that the relative caregiver is capable of providing for the care of the child’s physical, mental, emotional, educational, and medical needs without the continued provision of services by or through the department beyond the subsidies.

Links to Agency Policies

Department of Children and Families Agency Regulations:

Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Report on Kinship Care (PDF – 569 KB)

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

A relative caregiver is a person related to and caring for a child because the parent of the child has died or has become otherwise unable to care for the child for reasons that make reunification with the parent and adoption not viable options within the foreseeable future.

Immediately upon the removal of a child from the custody of the child’s parent or guardian pursuant to § 17a-101g(e) or § 46b-129, the Department of Children and Families shall exercise due diligence to identify all grandparents and other adult relatives of the child, including any adult relatives suggested by the parents, subject to exceptions due to family or domestic violence. No later than 30 days after the removal, the department shall provide such grandparents and other relatives with notice that:

  • Informs them that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of the child’s parent or guardian
  • Explains the options that the relative has under Federal, State, and local law to participate in the care and placement of the child, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond to the notice
  • Describes the requirements:
    • To obtain a foster care license pursuant to § 17a-114
    • To access additional services and supports that are available for children placed in such a home
  • Describes the subsidized guardianship program under § 17a-126, including:
    • Eligibility requirements
    • The process for applying to the program
    • Financial assistance available under the program
Requirements for Placement with Relatives

No child shall be placed with any person unless such person is licensed for that purpose.

Each applicant for licensure and any person age 16 or older living in the household of such applicant must submit to State and national criminal history records checks prior to issuing a license.

The commissioner may place a child with a relative who is not licensed, an unlicensed nonrelative if the child is being placed with a sibling who is related to the caregiver, or, if the child is age 10 or older, with a special study foster parent for a period of up to 90 days when:

  • The placement is in the best interests of the child.
  • A satisfactory home visit is conducted.
  • A basic assessment of the family is completed.
  • The caregiver attests that he or she and any adult living within the household has not been convicted of a crime or arrested for a felony against a person; for injury or risk of injury to or impairing the morals of a child; or for the possession, use, or sale of a controlled substance.

Any such relative, nonrelative, or special study foster parent who accepts placement of a child shall be subject to licensure by the commissioner. The commissioner may grant a waiver from such regulations for a child placed with a relative on a case-by-case basis, including any standard regarding separate bedrooms or room-sharing arrangements, if such placement is otherwise in the best interests of such child, provided no procedure or standard that is safety-related may be waived. The commissioner shall document, in writing, the reason for granting any waiver from such regulations.

The department shall establish a kinship navigator program to ensure that:

  • The department informs the relative caregiver of the procedures to become licensed as a foster parent.
  • Grandparents and other relatives caring for a minor child are provided with information on the array of State services and benefits for which they may be eligible.
Requirements for Placement of Siblings

When placing siblings, the department shall, if possible, place such children together.

Upon motion of any sibling of any child committed to the Department of Children and Families pursuant to this section, such sibling shall have the right to be heard concerning visits with, and placement of, any such child. In approving any plan for visiting or modifying any placement, the court shall be guided by the best interests of all siblings affected by such determination.

Relatives Who May Adopt

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Requirements for Adoption by Relatives

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

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’ refers to the services to be provided to the parents and the steps the parents may take to address the problems that prevent the child from safely reuniting with the parents.

When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

The Department of Children and Families must make reasonable efforts to keep the child or youth with his or her parents prior to the issuance of an order to remove the child from the home. If the child is removed from the home, reasonable efforts must be made to achieve the goals of the permanency plan.

The Commissioner of Children and Families shall make reasonable efforts to reunify a parent with a child unless the court (1) determines that such efforts are not required pursuant to § 17a-111b(b) or § 17a-112(j), or (2) has approved a permanency plan other than reunification pursuant to § 46b-129(k).

When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required

The commissioner or any other party may, at any time, file a motion with the court for a determination that reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with the child are not required. The court may determine that such efforts are not required if the court finds upon clear and convincing evidence that:

  • The parent has subjected the child to the following aggravated circumstances:
    • The parent has abandoned the child.
    • The parent has inflicted or knowingly permitted another person to inflict sexual molestation or exploitation or severe physical abuse on the child or engaged in a pattern of abuse of the child.
  • The parent has killed, through deliberate, nonaccidental act, another child of the parent or a sibling of the child; or has requested, commanded, importuned, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit or knowingly permitted another person to commit the killing of the child, another child of the parent, or a sibling of the child.
  • The parent has committed or knowingly permitted another person to commit an assault, through deliberate, nonaccidental act, that resulted in serious bodily injury of the child, another child of the parent, or a sibling of the child.
  • The parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated within 3 years of the filing of a petition pursuant to this section, provided the commissioner has made reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with the child for at least 90 days.
  • The parent was convicted of sexual assault, except a conviction of a violation of § 53a-71 or 53a-73a resulting in the conception of the child.
  • The child was placed in the care and control of the commissioner pursuant to the provisions of §§ 17a-57 to 17a-61, inclusive.

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 parent or guardian, as principal, may designate a standby guardian of a minor in accordance with the provisions of §§ 45a-624 to 45a-624g, inclusive.

How to Establish a Standby Guardian

A designation of a standby guardian shall be in writing and signed and dated by the principal with at least two witnesses. The principal shall provide a copy of such designation to the standby guardian.

The form for a written designation of a standby guardian is provided in § 45a-624b.

How Standby Authority is Activated

The designation shall take effect upon the occurrence of a specified contingency, including, but not limited to, the mental incapacity, physical debilitation, or death of the principal, provided a written statement signed under penalty of false statement has been executed pursuant to § 45a-624c that such contingency has occurred.

If a designation of a standby guardian is effective at the time of death of the principal, the designation shall remain in effect for a period of 90 days after the death. At the end of the 90-day period, the authority of the standby guardian shall cease, unless the standby guardian files an application for guardianship with the probate court in the district in which the minor resides and temporary custody of the minor is granted to the standby guardian or the court appoints the standby guardian as guardian of the person of the minor.

Involvement of the Noncustodial Parent

Citation: Ann. Stat. § 45a-624a
If both parents are alive at the time the designation is made, both must consent to the designation unless either has been removed as guardian or has had parental rights terminated.

Authority Relationship of the Parent and the Standby

When a designation of a standby guardian becomes effective upon the occurrence of a specified contingency, the standby guardian shall have the authority and obligations of a guardian, as defined in § 45a-604(5). That designation shall be effective for a period of 1 year.

The standby guardian’s authority ends when the specified contingency no longer exists or after 1 year, whichever is sooner.

Withdrawing Guardianship

The principal may revoke a designation of a standby guardian at any time by written notification of the revocation to the standby guardian.

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 Connecticut CPS Attorney a FREE Question

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

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

No questions found.