Audio recording of Missouri 5th Circuit Children’s Division Director Joey Thompson, acknowledging that they do have a copy of a court order contained in there file and her refusal to provided a parent the information contained in the Children’s Division file after a reasonable request was made. This is a direct will full and malicious violation of numerous State Statutes as well Federal Laws and is further Civil Rights Violations perpetrated by the State.
Showing posts with label Missouri Courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri Courts. Show all posts
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Taking Over The Family Business.
In the States files NUMEROUS Social Workers discuss the children being groomed to take over the family “pornography” business as if this was a bad thing and that the “girls” were being pruned for it.
Well first off how is it any concern of the State if we wish to turn our business over to our children when they reach legal age?
This would also be a direct violation of Article I Section II of the Missouri State Constitution by DSS as well Governor Jay Nixon, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder and Attorney General Koster who knowingly and maliciously have allowed this to have gone on after swearing an oath of office to defend said Constitution. This section clearly states:
“…all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry;…” {emphasis added}
Which means the people have the right to enjoy the fruits of there own industry with out harassment by the State or it employees and to pass that industry on to there offspring if they so chose.
With that we want to be VERY clear, we would support our children in anything they chose to do. With one exception and that is to become a back stabbing, child stealing low life Social Service Worker. Hell we see more pedophiles come from the ranks of DSS than out of the adult industry, look at the 5th Circuit alone. And If the State is truly worried about underage children being pruned for anything, then why has Mr. Capps not been examined for taking under age girls to the parks (ALONE) and receiving what we would call love letters. Would seem the only pruning for perverted gains is being done is occurring with in the States ranks.
As stated numerous times be for this was always about lifestyle and profession as well jealous that parties could not perform in such an industry nor make the amounts of money that we did and as such did not approve. It impossible to deny it when you have a dumb ass ignorant backwoods Judge(s) like Randall Jackson an Charles Curless placing it in there singed sealed order. That it was based on “life style”!
Well first off how is it any concern of the State if we wish to turn our business over to our children when they reach legal age?
This would also be a direct violation of Article I Section II of the Missouri State Constitution by DSS as well Governor Jay Nixon, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder and Attorney General Koster who knowingly and maliciously have allowed this to have gone on after swearing an oath of office to defend said Constitution. This section clearly states:
“…all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry;…” {emphasis added}
Which means the people have the right to enjoy the fruits of there own industry with out harassment by the State or it employees and to pass that industry on to there offspring if they so chose.
With that we want to be VERY clear, we would support our children in anything they chose to do. With one exception and that is to become a back stabbing, child stealing low life Social Service Worker. Hell we see more pedophiles come from the ranks of DSS than out of the adult industry, look at the 5th Circuit alone. And If the State is truly worried about underage children being pruned for anything, then why has Mr. Capps not been examined for taking under age girls to the parks (ALONE) and receiving what we would call love letters. Would seem the only pruning for perverted gains is being done is occurring with in the States ranks.
As stated numerous times be for this was always about lifestyle and profession as well jealous that parties could not perform in such an industry nor make the amounts of money that we did and as such did not approve. It impossible to deny it when you have a dumb ass ignorant backwoods Judge(s) like Randall Jackson an Charles Curless placing it in there singed sealed order. That it was based on “life style”!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A VERY Enlightening article wrote by, Barbra Hollingsworth of the Examiner
Is it child protection or legal kidnapping?
"Children being taken from their homes, based on tips from anonymous telephone callers alleging abuse or neglect, has been cast in a harsh spotlight in the Texas polygamy case, and there’s growing evidence that more than a few of the 510,000 children placed in foster care annually don’t belong there.
In February, Georgia state Sen. Nancy Schaefer released a blistering assessment of the bureaucrats entrusted to protect children there: “I believe Child Protective Services (CPS) nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.”
Armed with court orders and protected by confidentiality statutes that function as bureaucratic shield laws, CPS workers need just one anonymous phone call to a hotline to swoop in and remove children, regardless of the facts.
Such calls can be legitimate, coming from a legally mandated reporter such as a doctor or teacher. But it could also be a fabrication from a vindictive ex-spouse, a nosy neighbor, or a disgruntled relative.
Since no laws clearly define child abuse and neglect, parents have been accused of these serious crimes when what they actually did was yell, withhold TV privileges, or “repressing” their children by supervising them too much.
Dr. Steven Krason, professor of political science and legal studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville, is writing a book on CPS wrongdoing based on two decades of research.
Krason says CPS itself now poses “a grave threat” because “it is almost impossible to fully insulate one’s family from...a system that on very little pretense can simply reach into the home and take away one’s offspring.”
He’s convinced the number of real child abuse cases has remained fairly steady over the last three decades; what has been growing is an unprecedented government assault on innocent parents.
And if it doesn’t take much to have your children placed in foster care, getting them back can be another story. An anonymous call about a 10-ounce weight loss by their then 3-week-old daughter triggered a legal avalanche that buried Arlington residents Nancy Hey and Christopher Slitor.
Their parental rights were terminated last year by Arlington Judge James Almand even though Hey and Slitor had been exonerated by of all neglect charges nine months earlier.
In another local case, Georgetown residents Greg and Juliana Caplan had to spend $75,000 on lawyers and wait two weeks before their children were returned, even after five doctors confirmed that an injury sustained by one of their twin daughters was not caused by abuse.
The Caplans are still listed as possible child abusers in D.C., however, because they refused to submit to psychological counseling. Despite the stigma, that might have been a wise decision.
The psychological evaluation trap is one of the least expected obstacles facing parents snared unfairly in the CPS system. Most panicked parents promise to do anything to get their children back, often agreeing to a battery of psychological tests they naively believe will prove their parental competence and end the nightmare. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
Arlington social workers told Hey that she had to undergo psychological testing before she could get her baby back, so the longtime Federal Communications Commission employee readily agreed.
She was diagnosed with two clinical disorders by Dr. Giselle Hass at the Multicultural Clinical Center in Springfield. This psychological evaluation was cited in the court ruling terminating Hey’s parental rights.
But an independent, expert analysis of the report obtained by The Examiner included scathing critique of the methodology used to evaluate Hey, saying it “...reads more like advocacy than a professional psychological assessment... clear and frequent evidence of error... Any graduate student who turned in as poorly scored and interpreted a test as did this evaluator would probably have failed the first semester.”
Besides violations of standard practice and professional rules of ethics, the analysis noted numerous illustrations of bias in the psychological profile and “a consistent failure to include data that would be favorable to Mrs. Hey,”including 17 computer-generated scores on the Parental Stress Index that were all in the normal range.
This was a significant omission, given that Judge Almand cited Hey’s tendency of “freezing...in times of stress” as one of the main reasons she could not be trusted to raise her own child.
Hey – who has never been convicted of either abuse or neglect – has had no contact with three-year-old Sabrina since Judge Almand allowed her to be adopted by the same foster family Arlington CPS workers originally selected to care for her baby.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner’s local opinion editor. "
"Children being taken from their homes, based on tips from anonymous telephone callers alleging abuse or neglect, has been cast in a harsh spotlight in the Texas polygamy case, and there’s growing evidence that more than a few of the 510,000 children placed in foster care annually don’t belong there.
In February, Georgia state Sen. Nancy Schaefer released a blistering assessment of the bureaucrats entrusted to protect children there: “I believe Child Protective Services (CPS) nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.”
Armed with court orders and protected by confidentiality statutes that function as bureaucratic shield laws, CPS workers need just one anonymous phone call to a hotline to swoop in and remove children, regardless of the facts.
Such calls can be legitimate, coming from a legally mandated reporter such as a doctor or teacher. But it could also be a fabrication from a vindictive ex-spouse, a nosy neighbor, or a disgruntled relative.
Since no laws clearly define child abuse and neglect, parents have been accused of these serious crimes when what they actually did was yell, withhold TV privileges, or “repressing” their children by supervising them too much.
Dr. Steven Krason, professor of political science and legal studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville, is writing a book on CPS wrongdoing based on two decades of research.
Krason says CPS itself now poses “a grave threat” because “it is almost impossible to fully insulate one’s family from...a system that on very little pretense can simply reach into the home and take away one’s offspring.”
He’s convinced the number of real child abuse cases has remained fairly steady over the last three decades; what has been growing is an unprecedented government assault on innocent parents.
And if it doesn’t take much to have your children placed in foster care, getting them back can be another story. An anonymous call about a 10-ounce weight loss by their then 3-week-old daughter triggered a legal avalanche that buried Arlington residents Nancy Hey and Christopher Slitor.
Their parental rights were terminated last year by Arlington Judge James Almand even though Hey and Slitor had been exonerated by of all neglect charges nine months earlier.
In another local case, Georgetown residents Greg and Juliana Caplan had to spend $75,000 on lawyers and wait two weeks before their children were returned, even after five doctors confirmed that an injury sustained by one of their twin daughters was not caused by abuse.
The Caplans are still listed as possible child abusers in D.C., however, because they refused to submit to psychological counseling. Despite the stigma, that might have been a wise decision.
The psychological evaluation trap is one of the least expected obstacles facing parents snared unfairly in the CPS system. Most panicked parents promise to do anything to get their children back, often agreeing to a battery of psychological tests they naively believe will prove their parental competence and end the nightmare. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
Arlington social workers told Hey that she had to undergo psychological testing before she could get her baby back, so the longtime Federal Communications Commission employee readily agreed.
She was diagnosed with two clinical disorders by Dr. Giselle Hass at the Multicultural Clinical Center in Springfield. This psychological evaluation was cited in the court ruling terminating Hey’s parental rights.
But an independent, expert analysis of the report obtained by The Examiner included scathing critique of the methodology used to evaluate Hey, saying it “...reads more like advocacy than a professional psychological assessment... clear and frequent evidence of error... Any graduate student who turned in as poorly scored and interpreted a test as did this evaluator would probably have failed the first semester.”
Besides violations of standard practice and professional rules of ethics, the analysis noted numerous illustrations of bias in the psychological profile and “a consistent failure to include data that would be favorable to Mrs. Hey,”including 17 computer-generated scores on the Parental Stress Index that were all in the normal range.
This was a significant omission, given that Judge Almand cited Hey’s tendency of “freezing...in times of stress” as one of the main reasons she could not be trusted to raise her own child.
Hey – who has never been convicted of either abuse or neglect – has had no contact with three-year-old Sabrina since Judge Almand allowed her to be adopted by the same foster family Arlington CPS workers originally selected to care for her baby.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner’s local opinion editor. "
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A Look Inside a Judges Bathroom
We have all heard of Judges doing this but never seen it before, kinda like Bigfoot. You hear about it but no proof. Guess it is true they really do wipe their asses with the Constitution!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
