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

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

Wyoming

 

Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence

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

Current Through April 2016

Circumstances That Constitute Witnessing

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Consequences

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

 

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

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

Current Through February 2016

Physical Abuse

‘Abuse’ means inflicting or causing physical injury, harm, or imminent danger to the physical health or welfare of a child other than by accidental means, including excessive or unreasonable corporal punishment.

‘Physical injury’ means any harm to a child, including but not limited to disfigurement, impairment of any bodily organ, skin bruising if greater in magnitude than minor bruising associated with reasonable corporal punishment, bleeding, burns, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, or substantial malnutrition.

Neglect

The term ‘abuse’ includes malnutrition or substantial risk of harm by reason of intentional or unintentional neglect.

‘Neglect’ means a failure or refusal by those responsible for the child’s welfare to provide adequate care; maintenance; supervision; education; or medical, surgical, or any other care necessary for the child’s well-being.

Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

The term ‘abuse’ includes the commission or allowing the commission of a sexual offense against a child, as defined by law.

Emotional Abuse

The term ‘abuse’ includes inflicting or causing mental injury or harm to the mental health or welfare of the child.

‘Mental injury’ means an injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of a child as evidenced by an observable or substantial impairment in his or her ability to function within a normal range of performance and behavior, with due regard to his or her culture.

Abandonment

Citation: Ann. Stat. § 14-3-202
The term ‘abuse’ includes abandonment, unless the abandonment is a relinquishment substantially in accordance with §§ 14-11-101 through 14-11-109.

Standards for Reporting

Citation: Ann. Stat. § 14-3-205
A report is required when any person knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that a child has been abused or neglected or observes any child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.

Persons Responsible for the Child

‘A person responsible for a child’s welfare’ includes:

  • The child’s parent, noncustodial parent, guardian, custodian, stepparent, or foster parent
  • Any other person, institution, or agency having the physical custody or control of the child
Exceptions

Treatment given in good faith by spiritual means alone through prayer by a duly accredited practitioner, in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination, is not child neglect for that reason alone.

 

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 the occurrence of one or more of the following acts by a household member, but does not include acts of self-defense:

  • Physically abusing, threatening to physically abuse, attempting to cause or causing physical harm, or acts that unreasonably restrain the personal liberty of any household member
  • Placing a household member in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm
  • Causing a household member to engage involuntarily in sexual activity by force, threat of force, or duress
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

‘Household member’ includes:

  • Persons married to each other
  • Persons living with each other as if married
  • Persons formerly married to each other
  • Persons formerly living with each other as if married
  • Parents and their adult children
  • Other adults sharing common living quarters
  • Persons who are the parents of a child but who are not living with each other
  • Persons who are or have been in a dating relationship

 

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 records concerning reports and investigations of child abuse or neglect are confidential.

Persons or Entities Allowed Access to Records

Applications for access to records concerning child abuse or neglect held by the State agency or local child protective agency shall be made in the manner and form prescribed by the State agency. Upon appropriate application, the State agency shall give access to any of the following persons or agencies:

  • A local child protective agency
  • A law enforcement agency, guardian ad litem, child protection team, or the attorney representing the subject of the report
  • A physician or surgeon who reasonably suspects that a child may have been abused or neglected
  • A person legally authorized to place a child in protective temporary custody when needed to determine whether to place the child in temporary protective custody
  • A person responsible for the welfare of the child
  • A court or grand jury when it is necessary for the determination of an issue
  • Court personnel who are investigating reported incidents of child abuse or neglect
  • An education or mental health professional serving the child when it is necessary to provide appropriate educational or therapeutic interventions

A physician or person in charge of an institution, school, facility, or agency making the report shall receive, upon written application to the State agency, a summary of the records concerning the subject of the report.

When Public Disclosure of Records is Allowed

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Use of Records for Employment Screening

Upon appropriate application, the State agency shall provide to any chapter of a nationally recognized youth organization, child-caring facility, public or private school, or State institution a summary of central registry records maintained under State agency rules since December 31, 1986, for purposes of screening employees or volunteers.

The written results shall confirm that there is a report ‘under investigation,’ a ‘substantiated’ finding of abuse or neglect on the central registry naming the individual, or confirm that no record exists. When the individual is identified on the registry as a ‘substantiated’ perpetrator of abuse or neglect, the report to the applicant shall contain information about the date of the finding, specific type of abuse or neglect, a copy of the perpetrator’s voluntary statement, and whether an appeal is pending.

The applicant shall use the information received only for purposes of screening prospective employees and volunteers who may, through their employment or volunteer services, have unsupervised access to minors.

 

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, official, institution, or agency participating in good faith in any act required or permitted by the reporting laws is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise result by reason of the action.

For the purpose of any civil or criminal proceeding, the good faith of any person, official, or institution participating in any act permitted or required by the reporting laws shall be presumed.

 

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

Any person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused or neglected shall immediately report it to the child protective agency or local law enforcement agency.

Content of Reports

The report shall provide to law enforcement or the local child protective agency the following, to the extent available:

  • The name, age, and address of the child
  • The name and address of any person responsible for the child’s care
  • The nature and extent of the child’s condition
  • The basis of the reporter’s knowledge
  • The names and conditions of any other children relevant to the report
  • Any evidence of previous injuries to the child
  • Photographs, videos, and x-rays with the identification of the person who created the evidence and the date the evidence was created
  • Any other relevant information
Reporting Suspicious Deaths

Any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has died as a result of abuse or neglect shall report to the appropriate coroner. The coroner shall investigate the report and submit his or her findings in writing to the law enforcement agency, the appropriate district attorney, and the local child protective agency.

Reporting Substance-Exposed Infants

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Agency Receiving the Reports

The State agency may establish and maintain a statewide reporting center to receive reports of child abuse or neglect on 24-hour, 7-day-a-week, toll free telephone number. Upon establishment of the service, all reports of child abuse or neglect may be made to the center, which shall transfer the reports to the appropriate local child protective agency.

Initial Screening Decisions

The child protective agency shall assign a report:

  • For investigation when allegations contained in the report indicate that:
    • Criminal charges could be filed, the child appears to be in imminent danger, and it is likely the child will need to be removed from the home.
    • A child fatality, major injury, or sexual abuse has occurred.
  • For assessment when the report does not meet the criteria above

In regulation: Reports of suspected child abuse or neglect shall be made to any field office of the Department of Family Services or to any law enforcement center at any time. All reports are screened to determine whether the allegations meet the statutory definitions of child abuse/neglect and are within the scope of Child Protective Services. The verification process will begin within 24 hours. The department shall check records, including the central registry, to obtain pertinent information, including past department involvement.

A safety assessment will be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 7 calendar days for all accepted reports to determine if the case is appropriate for investigation or assessment. Accepted reports where criminal charges appear unlikely, children do not appear to be in imminent danger, or removal from the home appears unlikely may be assigned for assessment. The case will be referred for investigation if the safety assessment indicates a child is in imminent danger.

Agency Conducting the Assessment/Investigation

The local child protective agency shall receive, assess, investigate or arrange for investigation, and coordinate investigation or assessment of all reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect.

In regulation: It is recommended that all investigations be teamed with law enforcement. In addition, the department will immediately contact the appropriate law enforcement agency for assistance and consideration of criminal investigation or other action in cases that include, but are not limited to, the following types:

  • Reports regarding a child who may have died as a result of abuse or neglect
  • Reports in which imminent danger, sexual abuse, or major injury to the child is suspected
  • Situations necessitating the removal of the child from the home
Assessment/Investigation Procedures

The representative of the child protective agency shall, at the initial time of contact with the individual subject to a child abuse and neglect investigation or assessment, advise the individual of the specific complaints or allegations made against the individual. A thorough investigation or assessment and report of child abuse or neglect shall be made in the manner and time prescribed by the State agency pursuant to rules and regulations adopted in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.

In regulation: The assessment process begins when the report of abuse or neglect is accepted. A safety assessment shall be completed for each child and a safety plan initiated when appropriate. The department will complete a family assessment and case plan when services are accepted.

The investigative process begins when the report is accepted. The department and/or law enforcement shall make in-person contact with the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, and the child’s caregivers. The alleged perpetrator shall not be present during the initial interview of the alleged victim. During the initial interview of the alleged perpetrator, the department shall inform the alleged perpetrator, in writing, that:

  • A complaint has been received against him or her and the department has the duty to investigate.
  • The investigation may involve law enforcement or the court, if needed, to protect the child from any further abuse or neglect.

A safety assessment shall be completed for each child and a safety plan initiated, when appropriate. A risk assessment also shall be completed for each child.

Timeframes for Completing Investigations

Within 24 hours after notification of a suspected case of child abuse or neglect, the local child protective agency shall initiate an investigation or assessment and verification of every report.

In regulation: For an assessment, the department shall make in-person contact with the child and family within 7 calendar days. In-person contact may be extended if the caseworker is unable to make contact following good faith efforts.

For an investigation, in-person contact shall be immediately attempted with the alleged victim and/or family when the report alleges any of the following:

  • All complaints involving major injury
  • Complaints involving a child under age 6
  • Complaints involving children who are suffering from acute, untreated medical conditions
  • Complaints alleging children are in immediate need of food
  • Complaints alleging that the parent or caregiver is psychotic, behaving in a bizarre manner, or acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol
  • Complaints alleging bizarre punishment or torture
  • Complaints alleging that in addition to abuse/neglect, the child is suicidal
  • Complaints involving abandonment
  • Complaints from doctors and hospital emergency rooms concerning children under their care
  • Self-reports from parents who state they are unable to cope and feel they will hurt or kill their children
  • When it is likely the family may flee the area
  • Cases in which the need for protective custody is indicated
Classification of Reports

Upon completion of an investigation of abuse or neglect, the department shall make a final determination in a written report as to whether a child was abused or neglected. This determination shall be based upon whether the information and evidence gathered during the investigation constitutes credible evidence of child abuse or neglect.

Allegations must be determined to be substantiated or unsubstantiated:

  • When credible evidence of abuse or neglect has been determined, the allegation is substantiated.
  • In the absence of credible evidence, the allegations and the investigation shall be unsubstantiated and the investigation closed. Services may be offered.

The department shall substantiate all reports in which a court has accepted a criminal plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a civil, juvenile, or criminal court has made a finding that the alleged perpetrator committed certain acts that constitute abuse or neglect under these rules.

 

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

Not addressed in statutes reviewed.

Reporting by Other Persons

All persons must report.

Institutional Responsibility to Report

If a person reporting child abuse or neglect is a member of the staff of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility, or agency, he or she shall notify the person in charge or his or her designated agent as soon as possible, who is thereupon also responsible to make the report or cause the report to be made. Nothing in this subsection is intended to relieve individuals of their obligation to report on their own behalf, unless a report has already been made or will be made.

Standards for Making a Report

A report is required when:

  • A person knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that a child has been abused or neglected.
  • A person observes any child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.
Privileged Communications

Evidence regarding a child in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to the reporting laws shall not be excluded on the ground it constitutes a privileged communication:

  • Between husband and wife
  • Claimed under any provision of law other than § 1-12-101(a)(i) [regarding attorney-client or physician-patient privilege] and § 1-12-101(a)(ii) [regarding privilege of a clergy member or priest as it relates to a confession made to him or her in his or her professional character if enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs
  • Claimed pursuant to § 1-12-116 [regarding the confidential communication between a family violence and sexual assault advocate and victim]
Inclusion of Reporter’s Name in Report

The report must include any available photographs, videos, and x-rays with the identification of the person who created the evidence and the date the evidence was created.

Disclosure of Reporter Identity

Not addressed in statutes reviewed.

 

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

Notwithstanding § 6-4-403(b)(iv), no person shall knowingly and willfully cause or permit any child to:

  • Absorb, inhale, or otherwise ingest any amount of methamphetamine
  • Remain in a room, dwelling, or vehicle where the person knows methamphetamine is being manufactured or sold
  • Enter and remain in a room, dwelling, or vehicle that the person knows is being used to manufacture or store methamphetamine, or the hazardous waste created by the manufacture of methamphetamine

No person having the care or custody of a child shall knowingly and willfully permit the child to remain in a room, dwelling, or vehicle where that person knows that methamphetamine is possessed, stored, or ingested.

Any person who violates any of the provisions of the subsections above is guilty of endangering a child punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

No person shall knowingly sell, give, or otherwise furnish a child any drug prohibited by law without a physician’s prescription.

A person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. A person convicted of a second violation of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

 

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

An attorney shall be appointed to represent the child. The attorney also shall serve at the child’s guardian ad litem(GAL).

Counsel shall be appointed to represent any child in a court proceeding in which the child is alleged to be abused or neglected. Any attorney representing a child under this section shall also serve as the child’s GAL unless a GAL has been appointed by the court.

The court shall appoint a GAL for a child who is a party to proceedings under this act if the child has no parent, guardian, or custodian appearing in his or her behalf or if the interests of the parents, guardian, or custodian are adverse to the best interests of the child. A party to the proceeding or employee or representative thereof shall not be appointed GAL for the child.

The Use of Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Qualifications/Training

To be eligible for appointment as a GAL, an attorney must have completed, within the 2 years prior to applying for certification, initial training consisting of 10 or more hours of child-related training accredited by the Wyoming State Bar, or the attorney otherwise provides acceptable evidence that he or she has recent training, experience, or both, that is reasonably equivalent.

In order to remain eligible for appointments, the attorney GAL shall obtain 5 hours of continuing legal education per legal education reporting year. These 5 live hours shall be child-related training and relevant to an appointment in juvenile court proceedings. The director has the additional authority and discretion to require all GALs to obtain training in addition to the minimum 5 hours of continuing legal education when necessary. This paragraph does not apply to the law students supervised and practicing under faculty attorney supervisors at the University of Wyoming College of Law Clinics. It does apply to the faculty attorney supervisors.

All GALs, before assignment to any case, shall have training on their role as a GAL and specific training on child and adolescent development. The GAL must have sufficient knowledge in a wide range of subject areas, including, but not limited to:

  • All relevant Federal and State laws, regulations, and policies
  • Infant, young child, and adolescent development needs and abilities, including the impact of trauma, mental health disorders, and disability
  • Developmentally appropriate interviewing and counseling skills
  • The role of the GAL and his or her ethical responsibilities to the client
  • Racial disproportionality within the child welfare system
  • Other biases that operate within the child welfare system that could interfere with the ability of the GAL to successfully advocate for the child’s preferences and best interests
  • Cultural competency
  • The types of experts who can consult with attorneys on various case issues
  • Family dynamics and dysfunction such as domestic violence and substance abuse
  • The use of relative and kinship care
  • Child welfare services available in the community
  • The role and authority of the Department of Family Services and both public and private organizations within the child welfare system

Any attorney who has, while in law school, successfully completed the Children and the Law course at the University of Wyoming College of Law, or an equivalent course there or at another ABA accredited law school, will be deemed to have fulfilled the 10-hour initial training requirement.

Before an applicant is approved as a certified GAL, the applicant shall:

  • Be an attorney in good standing with the Wyoming State Bar
  • Have continuing legal education credits verified by the administrator and the Wyoming State Bar
Specific Duties

The attorney or GAL shall be charged with representation of the child’s best interests.

In regulation: Rather than taking direction from the client, the GAL is charged with forming the client’s position by using his/her own judgment as to the child’s best interests. The GAL is required to consider the child’s wishes and preferences, but he or she is not bound by them. If the GAL determines that the child’s expressed preference is not in the best interests of the child, both the child’s wishes and the basis of the GAL’s disagreement must be presented to the court. The GAL should elicit the child’s preferences in a developmentally appropriate manner, advise the child, and provide guidance, including explaining to the child what recommendations the GAL is going to make and why he or she is making them.

The GAL shall specifically:

  • Establish and maintain competence in the applicable legal and ethical standards, including relevant court rules, Federal and State law, case law, agency rules and regulations, and local practice
  • Be familiar with recognized standards and best practice procedures in child welfare and protection
  • Be familiar with the dynamics of domestic violence, the rate of co-occurrence between child abuse and domestic violence, the barriers to leaving a violent relationship, and how domestic violence may affect children and their parents or caregivers
  • Conduct a full and independent case investigation in a timely manner that shall include at a minimum:
    • Obtaining information about the child and the child’s circumstances
    • Obtaining copies of all pleadings and relevant notices
    • Meeting with and observing the child’s interaction with caregivers
  • Insofar as is practical, counsel the child about the nature of the litigation, the attorney’s role, the child’s rights, the possible outcomes of each proceeding, and the consequences of the child’s participation or lack of participation
  • Prior to making a recommendation for out-of-home placement, research and consider alternative community programs, treatments, and family preservation services available to the family
  • Independently identify and advocate for appropriate family and professional resources for the child
  • Participate in all proceedings, including any hearings
  • Independently verify and advocate for timely and permanent resolution of the case
  • Make independent recommendations, taking into consideration cost impacts and savings of potential service options, with an emphasis on community services most likely to preserve families and avoid out-of-home placement, when appropriate
  • Monitor and advocate for timely implementation of the case and/or permanency plan, the court’s orders, and communicate with the responsible agencies

A GAL shall attend, in person, all pertinent multidisciplinary team meetings/hearings in the child’s best interests.

How the Representative Is Compensated

The following costs and expenses, when approved and certified by the court to the county treasurer, shall be a charge upon the funds of the county where the proceedings are held and shall be paid by the Board of County Commissioners of that county:

  • Reasonable compensation for services and costs of counsel appointed by the court
  • Reasonable compensation for services and costs of a GAL appointed by the court, unless the county participates in the GAL program pursuant to §§ 14-12-101 through 14-12-104 and the program was appointed to provide the GAL

In every case in which a GAL has been appointed to represent the child, or in which counsel has been appointed under this act to represent the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian, the court shall determine whether the child’s parents, guardian, custodian, or other person responsible for the child’s support is able to pay part or all of the costs of representation and shall enter specific findings on the record. If the court determines that any of the parties is able to pay any amount as reimbursement for costs of representation, the court shall order reimbursement or shall state on the record the reasons why reimbursement was not ordered. The court may also in any case order that all or any part of the costs and expenses be reimbursed to the county by the child’s parents or any person legally obligated for his or her support, or any of them jointly and severally, upon terms the court may direct.

 

Case Planning for Families Involved With Child Welfare Agencies

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

Current Through April 2014

When Case Plans Are Required

The Department of Family Services shall develop a case plan for a child when there is a recommendation to place the child outside of the home.

No later than 5 business days prior to the dispositional hearing, the multidisciplinary team shall file with the court the multidisciplinary team report that shall include the team’s recommendations and the department case plan.

In regulation: A written case plan shall be completed within 60 days of out-of-home placement or 30 days of the conclusion of the investigation or assessment, whichever occurs first, on all cases that remain open for services. A concurrent plan also may be developed.

Who May Participate in the Case Planning Process

After a petition is filed alleging a child is neglected, the court shall order the department to make a predisposition study and report. While preparing the study, the department shall consult with the child’s school and school district to determine the child’s educational needs.

Within 10 days after a petition is filed alleging a child is neglected, the court shall appoint a multidisciplinary team. The multidisciplinary team shall include the following:

  • A representative of the school district who has direct knowledge of the child and, if the child receives special education, is a member of the child’s individualized education plan team
  • The child’s psychiatrist, psychologist, or mental health professional
  • The district attorney or his or her designee
  • The child’s attorney or guardian ad litem, if one is appointed by the court
  • The volunteer lay advocate, if one is appointed by the court
  • The foster parent

In addition to the persons above, the court may appoint one or more of the following persons to the multidisciplinary team:

  • The child
  • A relative
  • If the predispositional study indicates a parent or child has special needs, an appropriate representative of the Department of Health’s Substance Abuse, Mental Health, or Developmental Disabilities Division who has knowledge of the services available in the State’s system of care that are pertinent to those identified needs
  • Other professionals or persons who have particular knowledge relating to the child or his or her family, or expertise in children’s services and the child or parent’s specific disability or special needs, including linguistic and cultural needs
Contents of a Case Plan

The study and report of the Department of Family Services shall cover:

  • The performance of the child in school, including whether the child received special education service and how his or her goals and objectives might be affected by the court’s disposition
  • The presence of child abuse and neglect or domestic violence histories, past acts of violence, learning disabilities, cognitive disabilities, or physical impairments, and the necessary services to accommodate the disabilities and impairments
  • The presence of any mental health or substance abuse risk factors, including current participation in counseling, therapy, or treatment
  • Other matters relevant to treatment of the child, including any pertinent family information, or proper disposition of the case, including any information required by § 21-13-315(d)

The multidisciplinary team shall review the child’s personal and family history, school records, mental health records, the records maintained by the department, and any other pertinent information, for the purpose of making case planning recommendations. To the extent appropriate, the team shall involve the child in the development of the recommendations.

In regulation: The case plan shall be based on:

  • The safety assessment and plan
  • Risk assessment
  • The service needs of the child and family

The department shall provide services consistent with the case plan.

 

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

Reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian may be made concurrently with the reasonable efforts to reunify the family.

 

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

The court shall conduct a review hearing 6 months from the date of the child’s removal from the home and every 6 months thereafter.

A permanency hearing shall be held:

  • No later than 12 months after the child’s removal from home, and every 12 months thereafter
  • Within 30 days after a finding that reasonable efforts are not required
Persons Entitled to Attend Hearings

Notice of a hearing shall be provided to:

  • All parties to the proceeding, including:
    • The child
    • The child’s parents
    • The child’s guardian or custodian
    • The State of Wyoming
    • Any other person made a party by the juvenile court
  • Counsel for the parties
Determinations Made at Hearings

At the 6-month review hearing the court shall review the case plan to determine:

  • The health and safety of the child
  • The continuing necessity for the placement
  • The appropriateness of the current placement
  • The reasonableness of efforts made to reunify the family and the consistency of those efforts with the case plan
  • The appropriateness of the case plan and the extent of compliance with the case plan
  • Whether progress has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement outside the home and the extent of that progress
  • The date the child is expected to be returned to the home or placed for adoption or legal guardianship

At the permanency hearing, the court shall review:

  • Efforts made by the department to effect the permanency plan for the child
  • The options for the child’s permanent placement
  • The reasons for excluding other permanency options
  • Whether the permanency plan is in the best interests of the child
  • Whether the department has made reasonable efforts to finalize the plan
Permanency Options

Permanency options include:

  • Reunification with the parent
  • Adoption
  • Legal guardianship

The Department of Family Services shall provide the court with a compelling reason for establishing a permanency plan other than reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship.

 

Determining the Best Interests of the Child

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

Current Through March 2016

The purpose of §§ 14-3-201 through 14-3-216 is to delineate the responsibilities of the State agency, other governmental agencies or officials, professionals, and citizens to intervene on behalf of a child suspected of being abused or neglected, to protect the best interests of the child, to further offer protective services when necessary in order to prevent any harm to the child or any other children living in the home, to protect children from abuse or neglect that jeopardize their health or welfare, to stabilize the home environment, to preserve family life whenever possible, and to provide permanency for the child in appropriate circumstances. The child’s health, safety, and welfare shall be of paramount concern in implementing and enforcing this article.

 

Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights

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

Current Through January 2013

Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

The parent-child legal relationship may be terminated if any one or more of the following facts is established by clear and convincing evidence:

  • The child has been left in the care of another person without provision for the child’s support and without communication from the absent parent for a period of at least 1 year.
  • The child has been abandoned with no means of identification for at least 3 months, and efforts to locate the parent have been unsuccessful.
  • The child has been abused or neglected by the parent, and reasonable efforts have been unsuccessful in rehabilitating the family or the family has refused rehabilitative treatment, and the child’s health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by remaining with or returning to the parent.
  • The parent is incarcerated due to the conviction of a felony, and the parent is found unfit to have the custody and control of the child.
  • The child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, and the parent is unfit to have custody and control of the child.
  • The child was abandoned at less than age 1 and has been abandoned for at least 6 months.
  • The child was relinquished to a safe haven provider, and neither parent has affirmatively sought the return of the child within 3 months from the date of relinquishment.
  • The parent was convicted of murder or homicide of the other parent of the child.
  • The parent has been convicted of any of the following crimes:
    • Murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent or aiding and abetting, attempting, conspiring to commit, or soliciting such a crime
    • A felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to a child of the parent
  • The parental rights of the parent to any other child have been terminated involuntarily.
  • The parent abandoned, chronically abused, tortured, or sexually abused the child.
  • Other aggravating circumstances exist indicating that there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in successful reunification.
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights

When a child has been placed in foster care under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the most recent 22 months, the State shall file a petition to terminate parental rights unless:

  • The child is in the care of a relative.
  • The State agency has documented in the case plan a compelling reason for determining that filing the petition is not in the best interests of the child.
  • The State agency has not provided services to the child’s family deemed necessary for the safe return of the child to the home, if reasonable efforts are required to be made.
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

‘Legal custody’ means a legal status created by court order that vests in a custodian the right to have physical custody of a minor; the right and duty to protect, train, and discipline a minor; the duty to provide the minor with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, ordinary medical care, and education; and in an emergency, the right and duty to authorize surgery or other extraordinary medical care. The rights and duties of legal custody are subject to the rights and duties of the guardian of the person of the minor and to residual parental rights and duties.

The term ‘residual parental rights and duties’ means those rights and duties remaining with the parents after legal custody, guardianship of the person, or both, have been vested in another person, agency, or institution. Residual parental rights and duties include, but are not limited to:

  • The duty to support and provide necessities of life
  • The right to consent to adoption
  • The right to reasonable visitation unless restricted or prohibited by court order
  • The right to determine the minor’s religious affiliation
  • The right to petition on behalf of the minor
Purpose of Guardianship

The issue of permanent legal guardianship as a permanency option 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

A ‘child custody proceeding’ means a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue, including a proceeding for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, or protection from domestic violence in which the issue may appear.

Contents of a Guardianship Order

A ‘child custody determination’ is a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child, including a permanent, temporary, initial, or modification order.

Modification/Revocation of Guardianship

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

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

Youth who need placement shall:

  • Be placed in the least restrictive setting that most clearly approximates a family environment and in which the youth’s needs will be met
  • Be placed within reasonable proximity to their home, taking into account any special needs of the youth and family and availability of the service resources needed for the youth and family
  • Be placed in the home of a relative when the youth can benefit from the relationship among the parents, the relative, and the youth
Requirements for Placement with Relatives

Relative home care shall be explored for all youth for whom the Department of Family Services is legally responsible who need a family-structured living arrangement. Placement shall be made only with relative caregivers approved by the department.

Requirements for Placement of Siblings

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

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

Reasonable efforts require services to the family that are accessible, available, and appropriate.

When Reasonable Efforts Are Required

Reasonable efforts must be made:

  • Prior to placement of the child outside the home to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child’s home
  • To make it possible for the child to return home safely
  • If continuation of reasonable efforts is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, to complete the steps necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child
When Reasonable Efforts Are NOT Required

Reasonable efforts to reunify the family are not required when the parent has been convicted of any of the following crimes:

  • Murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent or aiding and abetting, attempting, conspiring to commit, or soliciting such a crime
  • Commission of a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to a child of the parent

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, evidence that reasonable efforts have been made to preserve and reunify the family is not required in any case in which the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, any one or more of the following:

  • The parental rights of the parent to any other child have been terminated involuntarily.
  • The parent abandoned, chronically abused, tortured, or sexually abused the child.
  • The parent has been convicted of committing one or more of the following crimes against the child or another child of that parent:
    • Sexual assault under §§ 6-2-302 through 6-2-304
    • Sexual battery under § 6-2-313
    • Sexual abuse of a minor under §§ 6-2-314 through 6-2-317
  • The parent is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to § 7-19-302, if the offense involved the child or another child of that parent. This shall not apply if the parent is only required to register for conviction under § 6-2-201.
  • Other aggravating circumstances exist indicating that there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in successful reunification.

 

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 Wyoming CPS Attorney a FREE Question

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

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.