Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTY INTEREST

Just how many people have tried these ideas and found them to be less than
fruitful there gregg?

Ron

"Greegor" wrote in message
...
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/

http://www.familydefensecenter.net/d...nd-briefs.html

Opinions and Briefs
Opinions

Opinion # 4 is the main opinion in the appeal, 465 F. 3d 757 (7th Cir.
2006).
Opinion #2 is the detailed trial court opinion setting forth the
facts, 462 F. Supp.2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
Opinion #5, 295 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2007), issued on July 31, 2007, is
the appeal from which the petition to the Supreme Court is proceeding,
but this opinion contains only a very limited discussion of the issues
in the case.

Opinion One (PDF) March 30, 2001
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...uyopinion1.pdf

Opinion Two (PDF) March 9, 2005
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...uyopinion2.pdf

Opinion Three (PDF) February 3, 2005
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i..._opinion_3.pdf

Opinion Four (PDF) Court of Appeals Opinion (PDF) October 3, 2006
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...uyopinion4.pdf

Opinion Five (PDF) Court of Appeals Decision (PDF), Dupuy II, July 31,
2007
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...on_7-31-07.pdf

Petition and Amici Briefs: U.S. Supreme Court
Petition for Supreme Court Review (Certiorari) (PDF) Dupuy II,
February 13, 2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...rtpetition.pdf

Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of Chicago Coalition for the Homeless,
CLAIM, et al., by Baker & McKenzie (PDF) March 2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...bakerbrief.pdf

Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of the American Coalition for Fathers and
Children, et al., by McDermott Will & Emery (PDF) March 2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i.../mcdermott.pdf

Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of the American Psychoanalytic
Association and the Chicago Psychoanalytic Society, by O'Melveny &
Myers (PDF) March 2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...hoanalytic.pdf

Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of the Cato Institute, Institute for
Justice, and the Goldwater Institute, by Sidley Austin (PDF) March
2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ogoldwater.pdf

Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of the Illinois State Bar Association,
by Jenner & Block (PDF) March 2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...s/FDC/isba.pdf


Briefs and Important Pleadings: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants (PDF) Dupuy II, April 11, 2007
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ants_brief.pdf

Petition for Rehearing En Banc (PDF), Dupuy II, September 4, 2007
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ringEnBanc.pdf

Defendant's Reply Opposing Petition (PDF), Dupuy II, September 19,
2007
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...onseEnBanc.pdf

Dupuy Class Information

Dupuy Class Notice (PDF) April 20, 2006
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...e4.20.2006.pdf

Stipulation and Order (PDF) Dupuy I, December 15, 2006
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...tipulation.pdf


Articles and Important Documents

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (PDF) concerning the Petition for
Certiorari, March 21, 2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...lb.3-21-08.pdf

Press Release (PDF) for the Supreme Court Petition, filed February 13,
2008
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...se_2-13-08.pdf

Youth Law News (PDF) by Diane Redleaf, Robert Lehrer, and Christopher
Wilmes, Apri-June 2004
http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ewsarticle.pdf



Case Examples
FAMILIES THREATENED AND SEPARATED UNDER SAFETY PLANS: FIVE CASE
EXAMPLES FROM THE LITIGATION
These are the stories of five Dupuy class members. 1. Bill M., the
vice president of a technology company, and his wife Gail, a stay-at-
home mom, have two daughters. The younger, age two, fell from the
family's back porch while playing. When her pain did not abate, Gail
took her to the emergency room, where doctors found a leg fracture.
After they returned home, Gail received a call from her child's
pediatrician requesting that she take her daughter back to the
hospital. When she arrived, she discovered that the hospital suspected
that her daughter had been abused because a second fracture reportedly
had been seen on x-rays. DCFS promptly demanded that Bill, who was
considered the likely abuser, leave the family home for 24 hours. He
complied. DCFS failed to contact the family again for a week, waiting
until the day before Thanksgiving, when the investigator demanded that
both parents leave their home or have their children taken into foster
care. Bill and Gail left, while grandparents stayed in the home. The
entire extended family's Thanksgiving was ruined. On December 1, the
parents were allowed back into their home, after another doctor read
the x-rays again and discovered that the hospital's claim of a second
fracture was a mistake.

2. E.D., age 16, had babysat two years earlier for a boy who was then
four years old. The boy and his family moved away from E.D.'s
neighborhood. Suddenly, two years after the last time he had seen the
child, E.D. found himself the target of an accusation that he had
sexually molested the boy. A DCFS investigator named Howell showed up
at the D. family's home and demanded that E.D. leave immediately. If
E.D. did not leave, Howell said, he would take E.D.'s younger siblings
into foster care. E.D. complied, and after a month, Howell allowed
E.D. to return home-as long as his mother agreed to "remain awake at
night when the rest of the family is sleeping in order to supervise
E.D. at night." (See 462 F. Supp. 2d at 881). During this period,
Howell also instructed the family that E.D. was to have "no contact"
with younger children. The safety plan in this case lasted 18 months.
Ironically, DCFS lifted the safety plan restrictions when E.D.'s
family agreed not to pursue their appeal of an "indicated" finding
against E.D.

3. James, a science teacher, and Susan Redlin are the parents of a boy
named Joey, age six, who has a mild form of autism. Susan is disabled
and is confined to a wheelchair. James planned to teach Joey to ride
his bike during the summer. One day in June, James and Joey went to
the Field Museum to see dinosaurs. Following medical instructions to
use a lot of physical contact with Joey because of his son's
condition, James actively tickled him during their Metra train ride
into Chicago. A passenger reported to Metra police that the touching
was suspicious. The police called DCFS. The next day, DCFS
Investigator Homa came to the Redlin home and began to demand a safety
plan. James accused him of being rude and he left. Later the same day,
Homa called Susan and demanded a safety plan that required her to
provide 24-hour supervision of all contact between James and their
son. Terribly shaken, Susan agreed. Because Susan could not go to the
park with James and Joey, Joey never learned to ride his bike that
summer. The safety plan lasted three months; it was lifted at the end
of the summer when DCFS determined the allegations of "sexual abuse"
of Joey were "unfounded" (meaning no credible evidence to support the
allegations was uncovered during the investigation). In James's words,
the safety plan made the family feel like "prisoners in their own
home."

4. Patrick and Stacey D. were preschool teachers at the same school.
On New Year's Day, a preschooler named Amelia, a three- or four-year-
old in Patrick's class, woke in the middle of the night and told her
mother that "Patrick plays with my booty at naptime." The next day,
Amelia's mother notified the preschool director of this statement, and
the director in turn called DCFS's Hotline. (Although the director did
not believe Patrick had abused any child, she considered it her duty
as a "mandated child abuse reporter" to make the call.) DCFS
Investigator Jones immediately called the preschool director and
demanded that the director send Patrick home from work. Investigator
Jones next called Patrick's wife, Stacey, and demanded that she tell
Patrick he had to leave their family home. If not, Jones said, their
three children would be taken into foster care. Stacey came home and
gave Patrick this horrible news. Shocked and with nowhere to go,
Patrick left the home with little cash and few belongings. Homeless,
he stayed in a hallway of an apartment building for several days while
he tried to reach his sister. Eventually, Patrick D. was able to stay
at his sister's home, but limited funds for transportation made it
difficult for him to visit his family. In his case, the safety plan
directive lasted 11 months, during which he appealed an "indicated
finding" against him for sexual molestation of Amelia. Patrick won his
appeal, because the investigation never uncovered any corroborating
evidence and was deemed by DCFS's own hearing officer to be "at a
minimum sloppy and at worst the result of a pre-ordained conclusion."
Patrick's co-teacher was never interviewed, no children confirmed
Amelia's account, and Patrick's children said their father never
touched them inappropriately. No criminal charges were ever brought
against Patrick.

5. Christine and Jimmie Parikh were the parents of two grown children,
the parents of a six-year-old, and guardians of a three-year-old, whom
they had rescued from abandonment by his mother. Christine sometimes
worked as a child care provider for children in her home and Jimmie
managed a fast food franchise restaurant. One of the children for whom
Christine provided child care was an emotionally disturbed 11-year-old
girl. On July 12, the DCFS Hotline received a call accusing Jimmie of
having kissed her while she was at the Parikh's home. There was no
evidence of any inappropriate conduct by Jimmie and the girl's own
mother called her daughter a "liar." DCFS Investigator Abernathy came
to the Parikh home and demanded that Jimmie leave. She expressly
stated that if he did not do so immediately, she would take their two
minor children into DCFS custody. 462 F. Supp. 2d at 878. Jimmie
complied. For several weeks, Christine and Jimmie could only see each
other at a restaurant, where they would cry together. After July,
Abernathy allowed Jimmie to return home, but only on the condition
that Christine supervise all of his contact with their children. DCFS
lifted the safety plan on September 26, deeming the allegation of
"sexual molestation" it was investigating to be unfounded. Even after
the safety plan ended, Jimmie was unable to kiss his children without
fear that another allegation might be made against him.

http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...rtpetition.pdf

--------------------------------- ? ---------------------------------
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
--------------------------------- ? ---------------------------------

QUESTION PRESENTED
When the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services ("DCFS") receives allegations made
to the State telephone Hotline of child abuse or
neglect, DCFS investigators implement "safety
plans" at the outset of the ensuring investigations.
The safety plans routinely require parents or
children to leave their family home and/or have no
contact or only restricted contact with each other
from the very beginning of investigations until their
conclusion.
This case is a class action brought by parents
and other family members ("parents") affected by
safety plans. The parents challenge the State's
policies and practices giving rise to such plans.
The question presented is:
When a State has only "mere suspicion" of
child abuse or neglect, does it deprive the parents
and their children of their rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when
it:
(a) secures safety plans either by direction
or by telling parents that if they refuse to agree to a
plan, the State may take custody of the children and
place them in foster care; and
(b) provides no opportunity to contest the
plans?

On Apr 19, 4:29 pm, "Ron" wrote:
Just how many people have tried these ideas and found them to be less than
fruitful there gregg?

greg is a wildman when it comes to using the law to the maximum
extent.

Even if it's not in the proper forum or it keeps children away from
their mother for more than seven years.

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?
Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?
Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

On Apr 20, 10:34 am, Greegor wrote:
RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

That's not an answer to Ron's question.

Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

That's not an answer to Ron's question.

And I do know what it means.

Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

Like so what?

And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...3597e2f0a9de4c

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

DS And I do know what it means.

I see you're anxious to explain it.

G Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

DS Like so what?

DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

It was a non sequitor question.

Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court
with these arguments, what is your point?

That great wrongs DO take place in our system
due to the steam roller effect and momentum?

Or is your argument that since it was done that
way, it must be constitutional?

On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/...

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

DS And I do know what it means.

I see you're anxious to explain it.

You asked if I knew what it meant.

I do.

And I said so.

If you want to post an explanation, go ahead.

G Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

DS Like so what?

DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

It was a non sequitor question.

Oh, really?

In what way?

Or did you mean rhetorical?

Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court
with these arguments, what is your point?

This is YOUR thread, dipstick.

What's YOUR point?

That great wrongs DO take place in our system
due to the steam roller effect and momentum?

Is that your point?

Or is your argument that since it was done that
way, it must be constitutional?

You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did.

Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg?

On Apr 20, 6:09*pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote:





http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/...

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

DS And I do know what it means.

I see you're anxious to explain it.

You asked if I knew what it meant.

I do.

And I said so.

If you want to post an explanation, go ahead.

G Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

DS Like so what?

DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

It was a non sequitor question.

Oh, really?

In what way?

Or did you mean rhetorical?

Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court
with these arguments, what is your point?

This is YOUR thread, dipstick.

What's YOUR point?

That great wrongs DO take place in our system
due to the steam roller effect and momentum?

Is that your point?

Or is your argument that since it was done that
way, it must be constitutional?

You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did.

Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg?

This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING
without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan?

On Apr 21, 2:44 am, Greegor wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:09 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:



On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/...

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

DS And I do know what it means.

I see you're anxious to explain it.

You asked if I knew what it meant.

I do.

And I said so.

If you want to post an explanation, go ahead.

G Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

DS Like so what?

DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

It was a non sequitor question.

Oh, really?

In what way?

Or did you mean rhetorical?

Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court
with these arguments, what is your point?

This is YOUR thread, dipstick.

What's YOUR point?

That great wrongs DO take place in our system
due to the steam roller effect and momentum?

Is that your point?

Or is your argument that since it was done that
way, it must be constitutional?

You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did.

Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg?

This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING
without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan?

You asked me a single question and I answered it in the affirmative,
greg.

You, OTOH, failed to answer Ron's question.

It's YOU who don't want to say anything of substance, dipstick.

On Apr 21, 2:44 am, Greegor wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:09 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:



On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/...

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

DS And I do know what it means.

I see you're anxious to explain it.

You asked if I knew what it meant.

I do.

And I said so.

If you want to post an explanation, go ahead.

G Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

DS Like so what?

DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

It was a non sequitor question.

Oh, really?

In what way?

Or did you mean rhetorical?

Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court
with these arguments, what is your point?

This is YOUR thread, dipstick.

What's YOUR point?

That great wrongs DO take place in our system
due to the steam roller effect and momentum?

Is that your point?

Or is your argument that since it was done that
way, it must be constitutional?

You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did.

Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg?

This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING
without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan?

On Apr 22, 7:31*am, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:44 am, Greegor wrote:



On Apr 20, 6:09 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:

On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/....

RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than
RVD fruitful there gregg?

G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan?

DS That's not an answer to Ron's question.

DS And I do know what it means.

I see you're anxious to explain it.

You asked if I knew what it meant.

I do.

And I said so.

If you want to post an explanation, go ahead.

G Did you miss the list of the parties in support,
G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION?

DS Like so what?

DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either.

It was a non sequitor question.

Oh, really?

In what way?

Or did you mean rhetorical?

Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court
with these arguments, what is your point?

This is YOUR thread, dipstick.

What's YOUR point?

That great wrongs DO take place in our system
due to the steam roller effect and momentum?

Is that your point?

Or is your argument that since it was done that
way, it must be constitutional?

You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did.

Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg?

G This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING
G without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan?

DS subject: piggy said you were trying to catch
me in something, greg. Give up, did you?

What would I catch you at, Dan? g