If you think the court appointed or paid attorney is going to get your child back from CPS YOU ARE WRONG!

They are in business to make money. As long as they can keep your child in the system, they make money.

I am going to teach you a little known secret of how YOU can DEMAND your children back.

You have to talk "lawful" words to them instead of "legal". As long as you talk "legalese", you will not win.

  • I am going to teach you how to walk into Juvenile or Family court and demand your children back.
  • If they do not, you can then sue them in a court of common law where YOU get to be the judge.
  • I will show you a simple way to get out from under their jurisdiction.
  • In this course, I give you all the information you need including templates 
  • I show you how to get the information you need to fill it out.
  • I even show you WHAT to say in court.
  • EVERYTHING is in this course! It can't be any simpler!
  • MONEY BACK GUARANTEED: If you do not get your child back using our methods, I will give you a FULL refund.

 

Seizures (Child Removals)

Police officers or social workers may not “pick up” a child without an investigation or court order, absent an emergency.

Parental consent is required to take children for medical exams, or an overriding order from the court after parents have been heard. Wallis v. Spencer, (9th Cir 1999)

Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on knowingly false information violates Fourth Amendment. Brokaw v. Mercer County, (7th Cir. 2000)

The defendant should have investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. Hurlman v. rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)

Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure in a suspected abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonably 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)

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)

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)

Where the standard for a seizure or search is probable cause, then there must be particularized information with respect to a specific person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided simply by pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to arrest or to search or to seize another person or to search a place where the person may happen to be. Yabarra v. Illinois, 44 U.S. 85 (1979)

An officer who obtains a warrant through material false statements, which result in an unconstitutional seizure, may be held liable personally for his actions under § 1983. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla, 1st Cir. 1998)

This is reprinted with permission. The author is Thomas Dutkiewicz