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

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.

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

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

CLICK HERE to see an online version - Motion To Dismiss

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

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

DATED this day of November _____, 2016

_____________________________________

Petitioner, signature

Submitted by:

________________________________________________________________________________

Petitioner, Print Name Address or Contact Address

________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip Telephone or Contact Telephone

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

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The screener determines that information received:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to 413-015-0210

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The screener determines that information received:

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

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

(1)(a) “Abuse” means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fourth Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

You cannot seize childern simply because their parent is yelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

  1. Life threatening damage.

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

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

OAR 413-015-0115 Definitions

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

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

  1. There is a vulnerable child.

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

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

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

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

According to OAR 413-015-1000

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

According to OAR 413-015-0425

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

According to OAR 413-015-0425

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

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

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

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

(b) Immobilizing impairment; or

(c) Life threatening damage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to OAR 413-040-0013

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

The caseworker, Stacie Navarro, has never done this.

According to OAR 413-040-0013

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

This has never been done by the caseworker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATED this day of ___________, 20____ .

Petitioner (signature) _________________________________________

Print Name _________________________________________________

Address or Contact Address ____________________________________

City, State, Zip Code __________________________________________

Telephone or Contact Telephone ________________________________

STATE OF OREGON           )

)     ss.

County of Lane )

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

_____________________

SEAL

Attorney’s signature______________________________________________

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

JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

In the matter of

Haiden Tipaloo

Jaiden Tipaloo

Kaiden Tipaloo

Minor Children,

Court Numbers: 16JU00258

16JU00325

16JU00765

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION

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

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

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

___ with prejudice

___ without prejudice

DATE: ___________________

______________________________________________

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

South Dakota

 

Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence

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

Current Through April 2016

Circumstances That Constitute Witnessing

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Consequences

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

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

Current Through February 2016

Physical Abuse

‘Abused or neglected child’ means a child:

  • Whose parent, guardian, or custodian has subjected the child to mistreatment or abuse
  • Who was subject to prenatal exposure to abusive use of alcohol, marijuana, any controlled drug, or a substance not lawfully prescribed by a practitioner
Neglect

The term ‘abused or neglected child’ includes a child:

  • Who lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian
  • Whose environment is injurious to the child’s welfare
  • Whose parent, guardian, or custodian fails or refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, supervision, education, medical care, or any other care necessary for the child’s health, guidance, or well-being
  • Who is homeless, without proper care, or not domiciled with the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian through no fault of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian
  • Whose parent, guardian, or custodian knowingly exposes the child to an environment that is being used for the manufacture, use, or distribution of methamphetamine or any other unlawfully manufactured controlled drug or substance
Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

The term ‘abused or neglected child’ includes a child who is subject to sexual abuse, sexual molestation, or sexual exploitation by the child’s parent, guardian, custodian, or any other person responsible for the child’s care.

Emotional Abuse

The term ‘abused or neglected child’ includes a child who has sustained emotional harm or mental injury as indicated by an injury to the child’s intellectual or psychological capacity, as evidenced by an observable and substantial impairment in the child’s ability to function within the child’s normal range of performance and behavior, with due regard to the child’s culture.

Abandonment

Citation: Ann. Laws § 26-8A-2
The term ‘abused or neglected child’ includes a child whose parent, guardian, or custodian has abandoned the child.

Standards for Reporting

Citation: Ann. Laws § 26-8A-3
A report is required when a mandatory reporter has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected.

Persons Responsible for the Child

Responsible persons include a child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.

Exceptions

No exceptions are specified in statute.

 

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

‘Domestic abuse’ means physical harm, bodily injury, attempts to cause physical harm or bodily injury, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm or bodily injury between family or household members.

Any violation of § 25-10-13 (violation of a protection order) or chapter 22-19A (kidnapping), or any crime of violence as defined in § 22-1-2(9) constitutes domestic abuse if the underlying criminal act is committed between family or household members.

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 members’ means:

  • Spouses or former spouses
  • Persons related by consanguinity, adoption, or law
  • Persons living in the same household
  • Persons who have lived together
  • Persons who have had a child together

 

Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse and Neglect Records

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (651 KB) of this publication.

Current Through June 2013

Confidentiality of Records

All investigative case records and files relating to reports of child abuse or neglect are confidential, and no disclosure of any such records, files, or other information may be made except as authorized in chapter 26-7A or this chapter.

Persons or Entities Allowed Access to Records

The Department of Social Services may release records to the following parties when it is necessary in the performance of official functions:

  • The attorney general, the State’s attorneys, law enforcement agencies, protective services workers, and judges of the courts investigating reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect
  • The attorney or guardian ad litem of the child who is the subject of the information
  • Public officials who require the information in connection with their official duties
  • Institutions and agencies that have legal responsibility or authorization to care for, treat, or supervise a child who is the subject of the information
  • An adoptive parent of the child who is the subject of the information or report
  • A foster parent, kinship provider, or prospective adoptive parent who is or may be caring for a child in the custody of the Department of Social Services who is the subject of the report
  • A State, regional, or national registry of child abuse and neglect cases and courts of record of other States
  • A child protection team
  • A physician who is caring for a child whom the physician reasonably suspects may be abused or neglected
  • State hearing examiners and any person who is the subject of the report
  • A person eligible to submit an adoptive home study report for the purpose of screening applicants

Information received by an authorized receiving party shall be held confidential by the receiving party. However, the court may order the release of the information or any portion of it necessary for determination of an issue before the court.

When Public Disclosure of Records is Allowed

Upon written request, the Department of Social Services shall release findings or information regarding the abuse or neglect of a child that resulted in a fatality or near fatality of the child unless the release of the findings or information would jeopardize a pending criminal investigation or proceeding. The findings or information to be released shall relate to the acts of child abuse or neglect that caused the fatality or near fatality of the child. However, the identity of the child may never be released.

Use of Records for Employment Screening

Upon receipt of a list of names of current or potential employees from a Head Start program director or the name of any person being considered as an adoptive or foster parent from a certified social worker, the Department of Social Services shall compare the list to the central registry for abuse and neglect and report any findings to the requesting program director or social worker.

Upon receipt of names of current or potential employees or volunteers from the Juvenile Division of the Department of Corrections, any adolescent treatment program operated by the Department of Human Services, any entity administering a court-appointed special advocate program, or a court considering appointment of a guardian ad litem for a child, the department shall compare the names to the central registry for abuse and neglect and report any findings to the requesting program director, to the Bureau of Human Resources human resource manager, or to the court.

Upon the receipt of a written request from a child welfare agency, the department shall conduct a check of the central registry for child abuse and neglect for foster care, adoption, or employment applicants and shall provide the results to the requesting agency. Further, upon written request from an agency that provides child welfare services for a federally recognized Tribe, the department shall conduct a check of the central registry for child abuse and neglect for foster care or adoption applicants and shall provide the results to the requesting Tribal agency.

 

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 or party participating in good faith in making a report or submitting copies of medical examination, treatment, or hospitalization records pursuant to the reporting laws is immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed and has the same immunity for participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report.

Immunity also extends in the same manner to persons requesting the taking of photographs and x-rays pursuant to the reporting laws, to persons taking the photographs and x-rays, to child protection teams established by the Secretary of Social Services, to public officials or employees involved in the investigation and treatment of child abuse or neglect or making a temporary placement of the child pursuant to this chapter, or to any person who in good faith cooperates with a child protection team or the Department of Social Services in an investigation, placement, or treatment plan.

The provisions of this section or any other section granting or allowing the grant of immunity do not extend to any person alleged to have committed an act or acts of child 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 younger than age 18 has been abused or neglected shall report that information as required by law. Any person who knows or has reason to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected may report that information.

Content of Reports

The report to the department shall include:

  • The child’s name, address, date, and place of birth
  • The name and address of the child’s parents, guardian, custodian, or responsible persons
  • The date of the report
  • Suspected or proven instances of abuse
Reporting Suspicious Deaths

Any person who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has died as a result of abuse or neglect shall report that information to the medical examiner or coroner. Upon receipt of the report, the medical examiner or coroner shall cause an investigation to be made and submit written findings to the State’s attorney and the Department of Social Services.

Reporting Substance-Exposed Infants

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Agency Receiving the Reports

Reports required from mandated reporters shall be made immediately orally by telephone or otherwise to the State’s attorney, the Department of Social Services, or a law enforcement officer.

Initial Screening Decisions

Children eligible for child protective services are those children younger than age 18 who are alleged or determined to be unsafe because the individuals responsible for the children’s care are unable or unwilling to keep the children safe from harm or threats of harm and children who are abused or neglected as defined in statute.

Agency Conducting the Assessment/Investigation

Upon receipt of a report, the department or law enforcement officers shall investigate.

Assessment/Investigation Procedures

Investigating personnel may personally interview a child out of the presence of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian without advance notice or consent. If the investigation and report indicate that child abuse or neglect has occurred, the State’s attorney shall take appropriate action immediately.

In regulation: The department shall provide for 24-hour receipt of reports of child abuse or neglect through agreements with law enforcement agencies, hospitals, courts, or other community-based human service agencies. The department shall provide immediate or prompt investigation of situations in which a child is alleged to be in need of protective service by reason of a report to the department by a State’s attorney or by any person who shall or may make a report under the reporting laws.

If a report received by the department implicates involvement of a foster parent or person employed by the department, the department shall request an investigation by the State’s attorney. The department shall offer protective service to the family and may make referral to the court of competent jurisdiction upon confirmation of need for child protection service.

Timeframes for Completing Investigations

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

Classification of Reports

A person’s name may be placed on the central registry for child abuse and neglect based upon a substantiated investigation. If an investigation cannot substantiate the abuse, the report will be classified as unsubstantiated. The department may not maintain a record or other information of unsubstantiated child abuse and neglect for longer than 3 years if there has been no further report within that 3-year period.

 

Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (763 KB) of this publication.

Current Through August 2015

Professionals Required to Report

Mandatory reporters include:

  • Physicians, dentists, osteopaths, chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists, hospital interns or residents, nurses, or coroners
  • Teachers, school counselors or officials, or licensed or registered child welfare providers
  • Mental health professionals or counselors, psychologists, social workers, chemical dependency counselors, employees or volunteers of domestic abuse shelters, or religious healing practitioners
  • Employees or volunteers of child advocacy organizations or child welfare service providers
  • Parole or court services officers or law enforcement officers
  • Any safety-sensitive position (as defined in § 23-3-64), including any law enforcement officer authorized to carry firearms and any custody staff employed by any agency responsible for the rehabilitation or treatment of any adjudicated adult or juvenile
Reporting by Other Persons

Any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child younger than age 18 has been abused or neglected may report.

Institutional Responsibility to Report

Any person who has contact with a child through the performance of services as a member of a staff of a hospital or similar institution shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution or his designee of suspected abuse or neglect. The person in charge shall report the information in accordance with the provisions of § 26-8A-8.

Any person who has contact with a child through the performance of services in any public or private school, whether accredited or unaccredited, as a teacher, school nurse, school counselor, school official, or administrator, or any person providing services pursuant to § 13-27-3 shall notify the school principal or school superintendent or designee of suspected abuse or neglect. The school principal or superintendent shall report the information in accordance with the provisions of § 26-8A-8. Each school district shall have a written policy on reporting of child abuse and neglect.

Standards for Making a Report

A report is required when a reporter has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected.

Privileged Communications

The following privileges may not be claimed as a reason for not reporting:

  • Physician-patient
  • Husband-wife
  • School counselor-student
  • Social worker-client
Inclusion of Reporter’s Name in Report

Not addressed in statutes reviewed.

Disclosure of Reporter Identity

The name of the reporter is not disclosed unless:

  • The report is determined to be unsubstantiated.
  • Within 30 days, the subject of the report requests disclosure of the reporter’s identity.
  • A hearing is held to determine whether the report was made with malice and without reasonable foundation and that release of the name will not endanger the life or safety of the reporter.

 

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

‘Abused or neglected child’ includes a child:

  • Who was subject to prenatal exposure to abusive use of alcohol, marijuana, or any controlled drug or substance not lawfully prescribed by a practitioner as authorized by statute
  • Whose parent, guardian, or custodian knowingly exposes the child to an environment that is being used for the manufacture, use, or distribution of methamphetamines or any other unlawfully manufactured controlled drug or substance

 

Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings

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

Current Through August 2014

Making The Appointment

The court shall appoint an attorney for any child alleged to be abused or neglected in any judicial proceeding. The court may designate other persons, including a guardian ad litem (GAL) or special advocate to assist the attorney of the child in the performance of the attorney’s duties.

If a child has been adjudicated an abused or neglected child and is removed from the home of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian, the court shall appoint a GAL or a special advocate to represent the best interests of the child and to assist the child’s attorney.

The Use of Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Qualifications/Training

The GAL or special advocate may or may not be an attorney licensed to practice law.

Specific Duties

The attorney for the child shall represent the child’s best interests and may not be the attorney for any other party involved in the judicial proceedings. A GAL or special advocate shall represent the best interests of the child and assist the child’s attorney in the performance of the attorney’s duties.

The GAL or special advocate is an officer of the court for the purpose of representing the child’s best interests. The GAL or special advocate shall receive all reports concerning the child and may cause the case to be reviewed by the court.

How the Representative Is Compensated

Compensation and expense allowances for the child’s attorney shall be determined and paid according to § 26-7A-31.

Reasonable and just compensation for services of a court-appointed attorney and for necessary expenses and costs incident to the proceedings shall be determined by the court within guidelines established by the presiding judge of the circuit court and shall be paid by the county in which the action is being conducted according to the manner prescribed by the court. If the court-appointed attorney is a party to a contract with the county to provide indigent counsel pursuant to § 23A-40-7(3), the compensation for that attorney shall be what the attorney would receive under the contract. This section does not preclude the court from appointing an attorney for a child as required by provisions of chapter 26-8A.

The Office of the State Treasurer shall maintain an Abused and Neglected Child Defense Fund. All moneys in the fund shall be annually distributed by the State treasurer to the counties on a pro rata basis. The State treasurer shall, within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year, determine and verify from receipts and expenditure records the total expenditures by all counties in the State for the representation of abused and neglected children. He or she shall then establish a percentage ratio between moneys collected in the fund for the past fiscal year and the total expenditures by counties for the representation of abused and neglected children. That percentage ratio shall then be applied to each county’s expenditure for the representation of abused and neglected children to determine its respective payment from the fund.

 

Case Planning for Families Involved With Child Welfare Agencies

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

Current Through April 2014

When Case Plans Are Required

A case plan is to be developed within 30 days after the child’s placement in foster care. A ‘case plan’ is a written plan that explains the client’s social, psychological, medical, or economic problems; contains solutions to the problems; and describes the necessary steps and schedule to resolve the problems.

Who May Participate in the Case Planning Process

The agency shall develop the service plan. The case plan is written in cooperation with a client.

Contents of a Case Plan

The plan shall include:

  • A statement of where the child is being placed and assurances that this placement is the least restrictive setting available for the child
  • A statement regarding the necessity of the foster care placement
  • A description of the services that are to be provided to the child and the child’s family to facilitate a permanent plan for the child
  • Projected dates for attaining the established goals

The plan shall provide for:

  • Continuing casework services to the child’s parents and to the child to prepare them for the child’s eventual return or to prepare them for other permanent plans being made for the child
  • Continuing casework services to the child and the child’s foster parents as indicated in the child’s case plan
  • A plan for the child’s social worker to visit the child and the child’s foster parents at least once a month
  • Continuing contacts between the child’s parents and their children, unless parental rights have been terminated or either the court that has jurisdiction over the child or the child-placing agency that has been assigned care, custody, and control of the child has determined that the contacts would be detrimental to the child’s welfare
  • Regular educational instruction for children of school age
  • Closure of the case after a permanent plan has been established and services are no longer required

 

Concurrent Planning for Permanency for Children

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

Current Through November 2012

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

Court Hearings for the Permanent Placement of Children

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

Current Through January 2016

Schedule of Hearings

If the court places custody of the child in the Department of Social Services, the court shall conduct a review hearing of the foster care status every 6 months. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as a dispositional hearing.

A permanency hearing shall be held:

  • Within 30 days of a finding that reasonable efforts are not appropriate
  • After the child has been in foster care 12 months and every 12 months thereafter
Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

Notice of hearings must be provided to the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian. If the hearing concerns an apparent abused or neglected Indian child, the State’s attorney or department shall make reasonable efforts to inform the Indian custodian and the designated Tribal agent for the Indian child’s Tribe, if known.

Determinations Made at Hearings

The court shall determine:

  • The goal of the foster care placement and the appropriateness of foster care
  • The assistance and services that have been provided to the parents
  • The good faith efforts, or their lack, and ability of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian to cooperate with the department and to effectively utilize the assistance and services
  • If return to the parent is unlikely, efforts made by the department to provide other care
Permanency Options

If it is found that the child cannot be returned to the parent, the court shall determine whether the child should be:

  • Placed for adoption
  • Referred for legal guardianship
  • Placed with a fit and willing relative
  • Placed in another planned permanent living arrangement when a compelling reason is documented with the court that none of the permanent plans listed above would be in the best interests of the child
  • Provided the services needed to transition to independent living if the child is age 16 or older

 

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

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and related chapters 26-8A, 26-8B, and 26-8C, the rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence apply to adjudicatory hearings. All other hearings shall be conducted under rules prescribed by the court. The rules may be designed by the court to inform the court fully of the exact status of the child and to ascertain the history, environment, and the past and present physical, mental, and moral condition of the child and the child’s parents, guardian, and custodian, as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the court to determine suitable disposition of the child according to the least restrictive alternative available in keeping with the child’s best interests and with due regard to the rights and interests of the parents, guardian, custodian, the public, and the State.

 

Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights

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

Current Through January 2013

Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

If it appears at a review hearing that all reasonable efforts have been made to rehabilitate the family, that the conditions that led to the removal of the child still exist, and that there is little likelihood that those conditions will be remedied so the child can be returned to the custody of the child’s parents, the court shall affirmatively find that good cause exists for termination of the parental rights of the child’s parents, and the court shall enter an order terminating parental rights.

In addition, the court may find that good cause exists for termination of parental rights of a parent who:

  • Committed murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual exploitation of a minor, aggravated incest, criminal abuse of a minor, or kidnapping a child under age 14 with intent to conceal the child
  • Aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit a crime listed above
  • Committed aggravated assault against the child or another child of such parent
  • Has been determined by a court by clear and convincing evidence to have subjected the child or another child to torture; sexual abuse; abandonment for at least 6 months; chronic physical, mental, or emotional injury; or chronic neglect, if the neglect was a serious threat to the safety of the child or another child
  • Is incarcerated and is unavailable to care for the child during a significant period of the child’s minority, considering the child’s age and the child’s need for care by an adult
  • Has had his or her parental rights to another child involuntarily terminated by a prior legal proceeding
  • Has a documented history of abuse and neglect associated with chronic alcohol or drug abuse
  • Has exposed the child to or demonstrated an inability to protect the child from substantial harm or the risk of substantial harm, and the child or another child has been removed from the parent’s custody because the removed child was adjudicated abused and neglected by a court on at least one previous occasion
  • Has exposed the child to or demonstrated an inability to protect the child from substantial harm or the risk of substantial harm, the child has been removed from the parent’s custody on two separate occasions, and the Department of Social Services offered or provided family services on each of the two separate occasions the child was removed
  • Has exposed the child to or demonstrated an inability to protect the child from substantial harm or risk of harm resulting from a crime, act, or omission as specified above
  • Is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to chapter 22-24B
  • Has abandoned the child for at least 6 months and during this period the parent has not manifested to the child or to the physical custodian or caregiver of the child a firm intention to resume physical custody of the child and to make suitable arrangements for the care of the child
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Circumstances Allowing Reinstatement of Parental Rights

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

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

The term ‘guardian’ means a person appointed by a court to be responsible for the personal affairs of a minor or protected person, but excludes one who is merely a guardian ad litem.

The term ‘relative’ means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or marriage, and who is the child’s grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, niece, nephew, great-grandparent, great-uncle, great-aunt, first cousin, second cousin, stepparent, or stepsibling.

Purpose of Guardianship

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

A Guardian’s Rights and Responsibilities

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

Qualifying the Guardian

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

Procedures for Establishing Guardianship

If a family service specialist employed by the Division of Child Protection Services within the department is contacted by a relative about the relative’s desire to take temporary or permanent placement of an alleged or adjudicated abused or neglected child who has been removed from the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian, the division shall document the contact in the child’s file. The division shall send information to the relative within 5 business days informing the relative of the steps required in order for the relative to be considered for placement.

A petition for the appointment of a guardian may be filed by the minor, by an interested relative, by the individual or facility that is responsible for or has assumed responsibility for the minor’s care or custody, by the individual or entity that the minor has nominated as guardian, or by any other interested person, including the Department of Human Services or the Department of Social Services.

At the permanency hearing, the court may determine that the child should be referred for legal guardianship or be placed permanently with a fit and willing relative.

Contents of a Guardianship Order

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

Modification/Revocation of Guardianship

Guardianship or conservatorship of a child under this chapter or chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C shall continue until the court orders otherwise, but not after the child has attained the age of majority. The child or any person interested in the child may from time to time, upon a proper showing, apply to the court for the appointment of a new guardian or conservator, for the restoration of the child to the custody of the child’s parents, if parental rights have not been terminated, or the child’s former guardian or custodian, or for the discharge of the guardian or conservator appointed by the court at the final disposition of the child.

Eligibility for Guardianship Subsidy

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

Links to Agency Policies

Kinship guardianship is not addressed in agency policy.

 

Placement of Children With Relatives

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

Current Through July 2013

Relative Placement for Foster Care and Guardianship

If the child is an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated abused or neglected child, the court may continue the temporary custody of the child after the temporary custody hearing under the terms and conditions for a duration and placement that the court requires, including placement of temporary custody of the child with the Department of Social Services, in foster care, or shelter.

The court and the department shall give placement preference to a relative or custodian who is available and who has been determined by the department to be qualified, provided that placement with the relative or custodian is in the best interests of the child.

As used in this section, the term ‘relative’ means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or marriage, and who is the child’s grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, niece, nephew, great-grandparent, great-uncle, great-aunt, first cousin, second cousin, stepparent, or stepsibling. The term ‘custodian’ means an adult who is the biological parent, adoptive parent, or guardian of the child’s sibling or half-sibling.

Subsequent to a temporary custody hearing, if a placement is made of an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated abused or neglected child, placement preference shall be given to a relative entitled to placement under § 26-7A-19.

Requirements for Placement with Relatives

If a family service specialist employed by the Division of Child Protection Services within the department is contacted by a relative about the relative’s desire to take temporary or permanent placement of an alleged or adjudicated abused or neglected child who has been removed from the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian, the division shall document the contact in the child’s file. The division shall send information to the relative within 5 business days informing the relative of the steps required in order for the relative to be considered for placement. The information shall be sent by first-class mail to the last known address of the relative. Nothing in this section prohibits the division from contacting any other person or agency regarding placement of the child.

Requirements for Placement of Siblings

The family foster parent may provide care for up to six children, including the foster parent’s own children who are under age 18 and residing in the home. There may be no more than two children under age 2, including the foster parent’s own children. Exceptions to this requirement may be made by the department to keep siblings together.

Relatives Who May Adopt

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

Requirements for Adoption by Relatives

This issue is not addressed in the statutes and regulations 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’ means the provision by the Department of Social Services of any services or assistance that:

  • Are appropriate for the child’s parents, including instruction on parenting
  • Are available or could be made available without undue financial burden on the department
  • Would have a significant likelihood of protecting the child from substantial danger to his or her physical health or from severe emotional damage while enabling the child to remain in the home or to be returned to the home
When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

Reasonable efforts must be made:

  • Prior to removal of an alleged or adjudicated abused or neglected child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal from the home
  • To make it possible for the child to return home if he or she has been removed from the home
When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required

Reasonable efforts to reunify are not required when the parent:

  • Has committed murder, manslaughter, rape, incest, sexual exploitation of a minor, or abuse or cruelty to a minor
  • Committed aggravated assault against the child or another child of the parent
  • Has subjected the child or another child to torture or sexual abuse; abandonment for at least 6 months; chronic physical, mental, or emotional injury; or chronic neglect
  • Is incarcerated and unavailable to care for the child during a significant period of the child’s minority
  • Has had parental rights to another child terminated involuntarily
  • Has a documented history of abuse or neglect associated with chronic alcohol or drug abuse
  • Has exposed the child to or demonstrated an inability to protect the child from substantial harm or the risk of substantial harm, and the child or another child has been removed from the parent’s custody because he or she was adjudicated abused and neglected by a court on at least one previous occasion
  • Has exposed the child to or demonstrated an inability to protect the child from substantial harm or the risk of substantial harm, the child has been removed from the parent’s custody on two separate occasions, and the department offered or provided family services on each of the two separate occasions the child was removed
  • Has exposed the child to or demonstrated an inability to protect the child from substantial harm or risk of harm resulting from a crime, act, or omission listed above
  • Is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Chapter 22-24B

 

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

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

How to Establish a Standby Guardian

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

How Standby Authority is Activated

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Involvement of the Noncustodial Parent

Citation:
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Authority Relationship of the Parent and the Standby

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Withdrawing Guardianship

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

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 South Dakota CPS Attorney a FREE Question

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

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.