A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Arizona: Here's an interesting statement to the House Committee onways and means...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 27th 07, 04:35 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
fx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,848
Default Arizona: Here's an interesting statement to the House Committee onways and means...


Statement of Roma O. Amor, Tucson, Arizona

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=6197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Roma O. Amor, petitioner appearing as herself

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY (ADES) & ITS DIVISION OF
CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES (DCYF) - CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES (CPS),
Parties in Interest

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND COMPLIANCE

Now comes Roma O. Amor seeking Declaratory Relief for Positive
Enforcement to address the issues of the greater public interest of the
Constitutional, federal statutory, and Federally-Protected Rights of
families and their children who reside in the State of Arizona.
Petitioner seeks relief against unconstitutional policies of ADES and
CPS that violate Federal Child Welfare Funding Law (Federal Contracts).
CPS has adopted an increasingly unbridled pattern of disregard for the
law and its methods of intrusion into the private and family affairs
resulting in unnecessary child fatalities and abuse while in ADES
custody or under investigation by CPS Agents.

1. Jurisdiction is conferred by AZ Rule of Civil Proc. 57, AZ Rule of
the Supreme Court 28(G), Arizona Constitution Article 6 Section 5

2. Venue is found in this court for State of Arizona policies and
actions under color of state law of its CPS agency, its Office of the
Attorney General, and the Juvenile Courts of its subdivisions.

3. Questions Raised:

a) Whether current child welfare laws of The State of Arizona are
unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional under Federal Statutory Child
Welfare Funding Law (Federal Contract Law) and the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.

Arizona child welfare laws violate Federal Contract Law under the United
States Constitution Article I Sec. 8 cl. 1 Spending Clause which gives
the U.S. Congress power to place conditions on federal funding grants.
Spending Clause legislation is a contract; in return for federal funds,
the recipients (State of Arizona) agree to comply with federally imposed
conditions.

See: Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. 526 U. S. 629, 640 (1999),
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981);
see also Davis, supra, at 640; Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School
Dist. 524 U. S. 274, 286 (1998); Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv.
Community of New York City 463 U. S. 582, 599 (1983) (opinion of White,
J.); id., at 632-633 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Lau v. Nichols 414 U.
S. 563, 568-569 (1974).

4. Supporting Statements and Standards of Law Incorporated Herein:

a) ARS 41-1962 “Federal law shall control.”

b) Detention/Removal Hearings, Federal Statutory Law, examples

- CFR Sec 1356.21(d) Documentation of Judicial Determinations (2)
Neither affidavits nor nunc pro tunc orders will be accepted as
verification documentation in support of reasonable efforts and contrary
to the welfare judicial determinations. (3) Court orders that reference
State law to substantiate judicial determinations are NOT acceptable,
even if State law provides that a removal must be based on a judicial
determination that remaining in the home would be contrary to the
child’s welfare or that removal can only be ordered after reasonable
efforts have been made.

If finding is not explicitly documented, Title IV-E funding is severed
under federal law. 45 CFR 1356.21©

- 42 USC 672(a)(1) Court must make the finding that “continuance in the
home of the parent or legal guardian would be contrary to the child’s
welfare.” and “removal from the home was the result of a explicit
judicial determination and that reasonable efforts have been made”.

This finding must be made at the time of the first court ruling
authorizing removal of the child from the home or lose all Title IV-E
federal funding. 45 CFR 1356.21©

- 42 USC 672(a)(2) Court must make finding that “placement and care are
the responsibility of the State agency or any other public agency with
whom the responsible state agency has an agreement.”

No federal funding until findings are made 45 CFR 1356.71(d)(1)(iii)

- 42 USC 671(a)(15), 42 USC 672(a)(1), and 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(1) Court
must make the finding that “reasonable efforts have been made to prevent
or eliminate need for removal.” Mandates Prevention to Prevent Removal

If explicit finding are not documented Title IV-E funding will be
withdrawn. 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(1)(ii)

- PL 96-272 Judicial determinations are required to be explicit and so
stated in the court order. The Senate Report on the bill that became
Public Law 96-272 characterized the required judicial determinations as
“important safeguard(s) against inappropriate agency action and made
clear that such requirements were not to become “a mere pro forma
exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal Funding.” (S. Rept. No.
336, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 16, 1980) “We concluded, based on our
review of States’ documentation of judicial determinations over the past
years that, in many instances, these important safeguards had become
precisely what congress was concerned that they not become.”

c) State statutes and regulations cannot be construed to displace the
protections of the United States Constitution, even when the state acts
to protect the welfare of children. Cf. Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly
533 U.S. 525, 540-41, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414 (2001)

d) “State courts can decide definitively only questions of state law
that are not subject to overriding federal law.” Leiter Minerals Inc. v.
United States 352 US 220 (CERT No 26, 1957)

e) “Public policy is better served by imposing a duty in such
circumstances to help prevent future harm.” Gibson v. Kasey (AZ Supreme
Court, No CV-06-0100-PR, 2006; AZ Ct App Div 1 No 1 CA-CV 05-0119) (En banc)

f) ARS 25-408(H)(I) Judicial acts and the court must adhere to previous
agreed custody agreements

g) ARS 25-403 and 25-403.03 domestic violence and family law

h) Child abuse proceedings involve the government acting in an
adversarial role toward the custodial parent, an entirely different
circumstance and procedure than divorce proceedings where there is no
governmental accusation of fault. “Persons faced with possible forced
dissolution of their custodial rights have a more critical need for
procedural protections than do those in ongoing family affairs.”
Santosky 455 U.S. at 753

In Brittain v. Hansen, the 9th Cir. Court discussed the greater
custodial liberty interest and procedural differences of child abuse and
custody cases, and concluded that “by failing to recognize the lesser
liberty interest in visitation Id. at 992 the court applied the
erroneous legal standard “best interests of the child,” quoting Reno v.
Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303-04 (1993) and held the “best interest of the
child” legal standard applies to custody law not child abuse proceedings”

“Custodial parents have a greater liberty interest than those with
visitation rights.” Brittain v Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991, 992 (9th Cir.
2006), quoting Weller v Dep’t of Social Svcs, 901 f2d 387, 394 (4th Cir.
1990), Zakrzewski v Fox, 87 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 1996), Wise v.
Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir. 1981); “A non-custodial parent
lacks prudential standing to bring Establishment Clause challenge based
on his relationship with his child.” Brittain, quoting Elk Grove Unified
School Dist v. Newdow, 542 US 1, 13-18 (2004); “Liberty interests of
parents with only visitation rights does not give rise to a
constitutional violation” Brittain, (9th Cir.) quoting Wise (10th Cir. 1981)

i) “Substantive Due Process rights are those which involve greater
liberties, as those guaranteed by the First Amendment”. Glucksburg 512
U.S. at 721-22

Anthony v. City of New York 339 F.3d 129, 139 (2nd Cir 2003) “(1)
whether any policy makers of the municipality knew that it’s employees
will confront or encounter a given situation,; (2) that the situation
either presents the employees with a difficult choices of this sort and
that training or supervision will make less difficult or that there is a
history of the employees mishandling the situation; and (3) that the
wrong choice by employees will frequently cause the deprivation of a
Person’s Constitutional rights.” See also: King v Atiyeh, Monell v New
York City Dept of Social Services

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833, 901 (1992),
quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 US _ (1995) "Legislative purpose to
accomplish a constitutionally forbidden result may be found when that
purpose was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's
decision.", Shaw v. Hunt 517 US _ (1996), Joseph P. Mazurek, AG of
Montana v. James H. Armstrong et al (Cert. 9th Cir Ct App, No 96-1104, 1997)

5. ARS 8-821 standard of proof for temporary custody is unconstitutional
under the USSC “Matthews Test” addressed by the AZ Supreme Court in Kent
K. and Sherry K. ARS 8-821 provides for taking into temporary custody
under the “reasonable grounds” standard, similarly vague to suspicion or
probable cause. A parent’s interests at this stage are paramount; the
interest of the government is to reunite the child with the custodial
parent. This error of lowered standard of proof, “reasonable grounds,”
at the early stage of proceedings stacks the deck against custodial
parents’ greater interest in their child and familial association.
Matthews v. Eldridge and Kent K and Sherry K set the minimum standard at
“preponderance of evidence”. The goals at this stage are prevention and
reunification not termination which does not enter the equation until 12
– 18 months later. Until the first 18 months pass, a real reunification
effort with the custodial parent is mandated by federal statutory law
(contract law). By giving the adverse party the greater interest and
lowering the standard of proof thus increasing the risk of error, a
parent’s case will be lost at the first stage of proceedings, a
deprivation of substantive due process to protect the greater interests
of the parent. There must be a concrete offer of due process afforded to
the parent with the greater liberty interest in adversarial proceedings,
not the current level of rubber-stamping and paper-shuffling to meet
federal funding guidelines. These are families. Santosky 455 U.S. at 753
(holding child abuse proceedings involve the government acting in an
adversarial role toward the custodial parent, and such “persons faced
with possible forced dissolution of their custodial rights have a more
critical need for procedural protections.”)

In Re KG, SG, and TG (9th Cir. 2004), reaffirming the decision of the
U.S.S.C., “This court has noted that the permanent termination of
parental rights has been described as the family law equivalent of the
death penalty. Consequently, parents must be afforded every procedural
and substantive protection the law allows.”

6. ARS 8-824(F) is unconstitutional; the Standard of Proof is limited to
“probable cause to believe that continued temporary custody is clearly
necessary.” In applying this standard of proof, the court will make an
erroneous determination of unfitness without offer of proof (common in
juvenile court) and substantive and procedural due process of law which
will lead to loss of the parent’s right to familial association, and in
affect, terminated rights to custody. Kent K and Sherry K, quoting
Santosky (holding erroneous determination of unfitness at this stage
could lead to permanently extinguishing the relationship between a fit
parent and her child).

7. The State of Arizona encouraged and instituted into state law a vague
and easily misconstrued policy of mental illness as reason for removal
of a child as well as for termination of parental rights. ARS
8-533(B)(3) and ARS 8-846(1)(b) “A State shall not be immune under the
Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for
violation of a federally protected right…remedies (both at law and in
equity) are available.” Title 42 Chap. 126 Sec 12202 and Title 42 Chap.
21 Subchapter V 2000d-7, and Title 28 CFR, PART 35 Nondiscrimination on
Basis of Disability, State and Local Government Services

Title II of the ADA, "No qualified individual with a disability shall,
by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be
denied the benefits of the services or programs of a public entity
[reasonable efforts to prevent removal and reunification programs of
CPS], or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 USC
12132 A "public entity" is defined as "(A) any State or local
government; or (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of a State or States or local government." 42 USC
12131

“Where a statute authorizes conduct that is ‘patently violative of
fundamental constitutional principles,’ reliance on the statute does not
immunize the official's conduct”. Grossman 33 F3d at 1209 See also:
Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. Soc Svcs 812 F2d 1154, 1157, 1158
(9th Cir. 1987) and Miller v Gammie (No 01-1549, DC No CV-99-00275-HDM
PHA, 9th CirCtApp. 2003)

8. Another usage of the wrong standard of law that needing addressed, is
the “best interests of the child” standard in adversarial child abuse
cases which invoke greater liberties and constitutional protections for
familial association. “Best interests of the child” standard is
erroneous in child abuse proceedings. Only when proceedings reach the
permanency stage, specifically the disposition stage, does the balance
of interests shift away from the custodial parent. Matthews

9. Much of A.R.S. Title 8 is unconstitutional and in violation of
overriding federal law; for brevity petitioner provided examples. Vague
policies, statutes, laws, or the encouragement thereof that violate
Federal Child Welfare Funding Laws, constitutionally and
federally-protected rights must be examined. Families have the right to
be free from unbridled State intrusion into their private family life
without afforded substantive and procedural due process of law. When a
case of state custody is necessary, children and others in the custody
of the state must be afforded the duty of care owed by the state and its
agencies under the Fourteenth Amendment.

10. Federal laws of foster care and adoption, legislated by Congress
with good intention, are routinely violated by the state. Rather than
adhere to statutory preventative measures to provide assistance to keep
families together, they many times remove children from their parents
when less extreme measures should have been taken violating federal
statutory law and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution. Arizona ADES-DCYF-CPS often places children
with abusive noncustodial parents or in abusive foster/shelter care.
(State Created Danger)

11. State law and policies announced by Governor Napolitano encourage
unlawful practices of use of these federal funds resulting in need for
more monies as the number of children removed from their parents rise.
Funds should be used to provide families assistance with food, shelter,
furnishings, education, location to domestic violence shelters, state
training of its agencies in recognizing common consequences of domestic
violence on victims and their children, and other preventative measures
to stabilize the family and prevent removal.

12. The most critical issue in The State is the additional large
expenditures of monies to hire additional caseworkers, reportedly to
handle the overflow of children, but the reality is that additional
caseworkers coupled with current “take the child and run” policies
encourage improper practices, erroneous and non-explicit findings of
abuse, and has the beginnings of an enterprise whose practice is to
break up the family. Hiring additional caseworkers creates more crisis
and more child fatalities; more children are removed rather than focus
on current cases; the state is not the parent and not able to provide
the proper standard of care as is its duty, nor can it provide
nurturing. If more monies need be spent, it should be appropriated to
training current caseworkers in integrity and ethics characteristic to
the social services Code of Ethics. Higher standards of care and duty to
assist those in need are standards to which social workers should be
held. It is time that the State of Arizona brings those ethics back into
its ADES– DCYF Child Protection Services agency, perhaps with more
experienced workers with families of their own who understand the value
of the family.

13. AZDES CPS removes children on suspicion (substantive due process
violations). Many children are then abused in state custody (six to ten
times higher in state custody per NCCAA). Reasonable efforts must be
made to preserve the First Amendment protection of familial association
in Arizona. It is obvious that this petitioner, the Mays family, the
Hill family, the Payne family and other families undisclosed to the
public, the Governor’s office, the State of Arizona and its CPS agency,
the Pima County Juvenile Court in the State of Arizona, the City of
Tucson Police Department, and The People are aware that there are
serious Constitutional policy/procedural deficiencies regarding the
safety, care, and protection of children and their families in the State
of Arizona under current CPS policies and procedures.

14. The announced policy statement by Governor Napolitano coupled with
the seemingly endless supply of federal monies encourages wrongful state
intrusion into the lives of families in Arizona and violates
constitutional and federally-protected rights and federal law.

15. Pattern and Practice of State Created Danger

* Payne children, deceased 2007 (CPS - Domestic Violence)

* Emily Mays, deceased August 2005, (CPS)

* Dwight Hill, deceased November 2005, (CPS)

* D.R.A., Abused, October – November 2005 (CPS)

* Others unnamed to protect the families.

The State-Created Danger Doctrine See Penilla v. City of Huntington
Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997) “If affirmative conduct on the
part of a state actor places a plaintiff in danger, and the officer acts
in deliberate indifference to that plaintiff’s safety, a claim arises
under §1983.”. Second, the official’s act did more than simply expose
the plaintiff to a danger that already existed. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 974
F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Dwares v. City of New York, 985
F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 1993); Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d 52, 55 (8th
Cir. 1990). Finally, the official acted with deliberate indifference to
known or obvious dangers. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir.
1996) “The plaintiff must show that the state official participated in
creating a dangerous condition, and acted with deliberate indifference
to the known or obvious danger in subjecting the plaintiff to it.”

18 U.S.C 4 Misprision of Felony – parents report abuse of their innocent
children in CPS custody and judicial, state, county, and other actors,
with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of families
and their children to a duty of care in state proceedings and custody
(Fourteenth Amendment), do not act to interfere or stop the abuse, and
even retaliate on the reporting parent by termination of rights,
terminating visitation, or relinquishing custody of the child to prevent
further reports of abuse at the hands of state agency policies and
procedures upon these children. This is appalling and an outrage.

16. Petitioner’s case parallels the Mays and Hill cases in the period of
time of injuries, the nature of the injuries, and deliberate
indifference of the court, CPS, state-appointed attorneys, GALs, and
assistant attorney generals acting as counsel for ADES to step up to the
plate to provide the owed duty of care to protect children in state
custody from further harm (death in the Mays, Payne, and Hill, other
cases). The Payne case, this petitioners, and others demonstrate the
deliberate indifference of CPS and juvenile courts toward domestic
violence victims and their children and the need for change of the
improper standard of “best interests of the child” in child abuse cases
to protect the greater liberty interests of the custodial parent. It
also demonstrates the complete unlawful disregard for “previous custody
agreements”. ARS 25-408(H)(I)

17. This petitioner and other parents have contacted (2003-2007) Arizona
Office of The Governor, Arizona House and Senate Members, and other
public officials (State, City, AZBAR, AZ and Pima County Courts, and the
like) who have the ability to make changes to inadequate or dangerous
policy both before and after herein stated violations. They are all
aware there is a problem with their own policies regarding the
constitutional right of familial association and the Doctrine of State
Created Danger and the duty of care afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment
involving child protection and related policies.

Instead of positive changes to policies or even investigation into
violations, policies were changed to further deny the Constitutional
Right to due process and to strengthen policies that violate
Constitutional rights in adversarial CPS cases.

18. Bill SB1430, initiated by Senator Johnson would have strengthened
due process protections for First Amendment rights for CPS TPR cases,
Arizona State Senate Committee on Family Services Minutes, dated
February 13, 2006. Petitioner spoke at this Senate committee hearing. In
June 2006 it was voted down due to Napolitano’s threat of veto.
Napolitano has at the same time publicly stated that caseworkers are to
“err on the side of the child”, affecting increased removals and TPR and
creating policy at CPS that violates due process to families under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. "It seems like a lot of trouble for
something that's going to get vetoed." Rep. Pete Hershberger, R-Tucson,
said before the bill died on the House floor.

Napolitano’s threatened veto and changes to policy removed jury trials
for CPS TPR cases is in violation of the 1st, 6th, 7th, and 14th
Amendments guaranteeing the right to trial by jury and the right of
confrontation in any criminal or government adversarial trial where the
value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars (a child’s life and the right of
familial association is invaluable).

The excuse was that “most jury trials resulted in TPR anyway”. This
statement illustrates by admission the lack of procedural and
substantive due process in Arizona juvenile courts, demonstrating the
need for reform policies that implement the Constitutional Due Process
of Law protections of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, Arizona Constitution,
Federal and Statutory law. See: Cf. Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly 533
U.S. 525, 540-41, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414 (2001)

AZ State Representative Laura Knaperek, as well as child advocacy expert
Richard Wexler, spoke out strongly condemning Governor Napolitano’s
policy saying it will deeply hurt Arizona’s families, and it has.

19. The Governor’s policy implementation (threat of veto, lowered
standards of proof, and removal of jury trials) is a deliberate and
knowing error as ruled by the Arizona Supreme Court decision in Kent K.
and Sherry K. v. Bobby M. and Leeh M. where the Court, applying Matthews
and Santosky, held that, "The private interest affected is commanding;
the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is substantial;
and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that standard is
comparatively slight. Because the preponderance of the evidence standard
essentially allocates the risk of error equally between the parents and
the state, due process requires a higher standard of proof than
“preponderance of the evidence”.

20. This petitioner spoke at Governor Napolitano’s CPS Reform conference
in 2003 on domestic violence and the need for CPS to protect Mothers and
their children. The recent horrific cases of Tyler and Ariana Payne and
another unnamed father who dated a CPS supervisor parallels this case
and the problem of Domestic Violence and CPS policies of separating
Mother her child in favor of the noncustodial batterer, thus inflicting
the sins of the batterer on the children, as addressed in an injunction
against NY Child Protection in Nicholson et al v Scoppetta et al and
Williams et al where the Court concluded:

“The City may not penalize a mother by separating her from her children;
nor may children be separated from the mother, in effect visiting upon
them the sins of their mother’s batterer” (In re Nicholson, 181 F supp
2d 182, 188 [ED NY Jan. 20, 2002], Nicholson v Williams, 203 F Supp 2d
153 [ED NY Mar 18, 2002] [108-pg elaboration grounds injunction]). The
Court found that ACS unnecessarily, routinely charged mothers with
neglect and removed their children where the mothers were the victims of
domestic violence; that ACS did so without ensuring that the mother had
access to the services she needed, without a court order, and without
returning these children promptly; that ACS caseworkers and managers
lacked adequate training about domestic violence, and their practice was
to separate mother and child when less extreme measures should have been
taken. The District court cited the testimony of a manager that it was
common practice in domestic violence cases for ACS to wait a few days
before going to court after removing the child because “after a few days
of the children being in foster care, the mother will agree to ACS’s
conditions without the matter even going to court” 203 F Supp 2d at 170.

See also: Pathologizing the Victim, a common tactic used in family court
to applaud the actions of the abuser while labeling the victim unstable.

21. Common sense and civil law state that when government or agency
policies are in violation of Constitutional Rights or of Federal Law or
Federally protected rights, state and local governments and their
agencies that institute or encourage policies are directly liable for
wrongs and injuries that result. Governor Napolitano and the State of
Arizona’s policies and deliberate indifference has assumed
responsibility for injuries instilled upon families such as those of my
child and of Emily Mays and Dwight Hill (infants) and further cases such
as the Payne case (involving prior domestic violence and CPS change of
custody) which show the sufferings and irreparable injury of parents and
their children as a result. Children are no safer in state custody than
with parents, nor are they any safer with CPS involvement. Child abuse
is an issue for the police, not a social agency.

22. The federal law on child abuse and neglect is found primarily in
Title IV-B&E of the Social Security Act transfers monies from the Social
Security Fund to The State. Approximately seventy-five percent of the
funds in Arizona is federal money which is available only if the state
meets eligibility requirements; these funds can be withdrawn if
requirements are not met.

The history and sources of the Child Welfare funding are primarily found
in: Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 42 USC
670-679b; the 1974 Walter Mondale Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act, PL 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 USC 5101-5107; and the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act, PL 96-272, 94 Stat. 500, 42 USC
670-676 (and amending 620-628); 42 USC 107(b), 5106a(b)(1) Grants to
States for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs, as
well as other sources such as the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children (ICPC), a contract which provides financial incentives for
interstate placement of foster children, reportedly to find permanence.

23. The State of Arizona is the governing body of AZDES-DCYF-CPS. The
State collects Federal Funding, (42 USC 670-679b) (17 Trillion in 2004,
U.S. total) from the United States Government in the form of Title IV
(Parts B & E) funding, mandated to be used primarily for prevention and
reunification purposes (42 USC 671). Title 42 Chapter 67: Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform also offers federal funding
grants to CPS agencies through various eligibility programs such as
fostering, adoptions, interstate placements, etc., as do other
additional grants/receipts.

24. ADES receives federal funding through the state which then provides
funding to domestic violence shelters and programs through its Community
Services Administration (CSA) and collects information such as Name,
Address, Age, Phone Number, Children’s Names and Ages, Income,
Disability Status, and other personal information. ADES maintains its
own private database on Mothers and children who receive domestic
violence services. Recent events in the Payne case as well as this
petitioner and others show a pattern of disregard for Mothers and their
children who are victims of domestic violence.

25. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona has power to issue
declaratory relief in the form of Arizona State Congressional
investigation into state records of specific practices of this agency
such as the use of federal funding to meet federal eligibility
requirements regarding prevention, inconsistencies in individual case
documentation, nonexplicit rubber-stamped judicial findings,
paper-shuffling to meet federal statutory law, foster provider
licensing, state-contractor conflict-of-interests (fishing expeditions
to build a case through forced services to justify unlawful removals
post facto), and for examination or positive enforcement of federal law
that overrides state law matter of child welfare.

26. This petitioner prays this AZ Supreme Court will honor Declaratory
Positive Relief to address the problems in the Child “Protection”
Services of the State of Arizona, such as amending state statutes and
state policy to properly comply with overriding federal funding contract
law.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2007

Signed in ink for the court

Roma O. Amor, Appearing as herself

SUBMISSION OF TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD

ABOLISH CPS. Let police handle it!

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT

CHILD WELFARE HEARING 5-15-07

Submitted for:

Roma O. Amor and Dante R. Amor (Rafe)

All Arizona families and for those children that suffer.
  #2  
Old July 27th 07, 04:41 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking
0:-]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Arizona: Here's an interesting statement to the House Committee on ways and means...

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:35:00 -0700, fx wrote:


Statement of Roma O. Amor, Tucson, Arizona


Steele had a useful response to these self appointed Constitutional
Experts.





http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearin...e=view&id=6197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Roma O. Amor, petitioner appearing as herself

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY (ADES) & ITS DIVISION OF
CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES (DCYF) - CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES (CPS),
Parties in Interest

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND COMPLIANCE

Now comes Roma O. Amor seeking Declaratory Relief for Positive
Enforcement to address the issues of the greater public interest of the
Constitutional, federal statutory, and Federally-Protected Rights of
families and their children who reside in the State of Arizona.
Petitioner seeks relief against unconstitutional policies of ADES and
CPS that violate Federal Child Welfare Funding Law (Federal Contracts).
CPS has adopted an increasingly unbridled pattern of disregard for the
law and its methods of intrusion into the private and family affairs
resulting in unnecessary child fatalities and abuse while in ADES
custody or under investigation by CPS Agents.

1. Jurisdiction is conferred by AZ Rule of Civil Proc. 57, AZ Rule of
the Supreme Court 28(G), Arizona Constitution Article 6 Section 5

2. Venue is found in this court for State of Arizona policies and
actions under color of state law of its CPS agency, its Office of the
Attorney General, and the Juvenile Courts of its subdivisions.

3. Questions Raised:

a) Whether current child welfare laws of The State of Arizona are
unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional under Federal Statutory Child
Welfare Funding Law (Federal Contract Law) and the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.

Arizona child welfare laws violate Federal Contract Law under the United
States Constitution Article I Sec. 8 cl. 1 Spending Clause which gives
the U.S. Congress power to place conditions on federal funding grants.
Spending Clause legislation is a contract; in return for federal funds,
the recipients (State of Arizona) agree to comply with federally imposed
conditions.

See: Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. 526 U. S. 629, 640 (1999),
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981);
see also Davis, supra, at 640; Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School
Dist. 524 U. S. 274, 286 (1998); Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv.
Community of New York City 463 U. S. 582, 599 (1983) (opinion of White,
J.); id., at 632-633 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Lau v. Nichols 414 U.
S. 563, 568-569 (1974).

4. Supporting Statements and Standards of Law Incorporated Herein:

a) ARS 41-1962 “Federal law shall control.”

b) Detention/Removal Hearings, Federal Statutory Law, examples

- CFR Sec 1356.21(d) Documentation of Judicial Determinations (2)
Neither affidavits nor nunc pro tunc orders will be accepted as
verification documentation in support of reasonable efforts and contrary
to the welfare judicial determinations. (3) Court orders that reference
State law to substantiate judicial determinations are NOT acceptable,
even if State law provides that a removal must be based on a judicial
determination that remaining in the home would be contrary to the
child’s welfare or that removal can only be ordered after reasonable
efforts have been made.

If finding is not explicitly documented, Title IV-E funding is severed
under federal law. 45 CFR 1356.21©

- 42 USC 672(a)(1) Court must make the finding that “continuance in the
home of the parent or legal guardian would be contrary to the child’s
welfare.” and “removal from the home was the result of a explicit
judicial determination and that reasonable efforts have been made”.

This finding must be made at the time of the first court ruling
authorizing removal of the child from the home or lose all Title IV-E
federal funding. 45 CFR 1356.21©

- 42 USC 672(a)(2) Court must make finding that “placement and care are
the responsibility of the State agency or any other public agency with
whom the responsible state agency has an agreement.”

No federal funding until findings are made 45 CFR 1356.71(d)(1)(iii)

- 42 USC 671(a)(15), 42 USC 672(a)(1), and 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(1) Court
must make the finding that “reasonable efforts have been made to prevent
or eliminate need for removal.” Mandates Prevention to Prevent Removal

If explicit finding are not documented Title IV-E funding will be
withdrawn. 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(1)(ii)

- PL 96-272 Judicial determinations are required to be explicit and so
stated in the court order. The Senate Report on the bill that became
Public Law 96-272 characterized the required judicial determinations as
“important safeguard(s) against inappropriate agency action and made
clear that such requirements were not to become “a mere pro forma
exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal Funding.” (S. Rept. No.
336, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 16, 1980) “We concluded, based on our
review of States’ documentation of judicial determinations over the past
years that, in many instances, these important safeguards had become
precisely what congress was concerned that they not become.”

c) State statutes and regulations cannot be construed to displace the
protections of the United States Constitution, even when the state acts
to protect the welfare of children. Cf. Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly
533 U.S. 525, 540-41, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414 (2001)

d) “State courts can decide definitively only questions of state law
that are not subject to overriding federal law.” Leiter Minerals Inc. v.
United States 352 US 220 (CERT No 26, 1957)

e) “Public policy is better served by imposing a duty in such
circumstances to help prevent future harm.” Gibson v. Kasey (AZ Supreme
Court, No CV-06-0100-PR, 2006; AZ Ct App Div 1 No 1 CA-CV 05-0119) (En banc)

f) ARS 25-408(H)(I) Judicial acts and the court must adhere to previous
agreed custody agreements

g) ARS 25-403 and 25-403.03 domestic violence and family law

h) Child abuse proceedings involve the government acting in an
adversarial role toward the custodial parent, an entirely different
circumstance and procedure than divorce proceedings where there is no
governmental accusation of fault. “Persons faced with possible forced
dissolution of their custodial rights have a more critical need for
procedural protections than do those in ongoing family affairs.”
Santosky 455 U.S. at 753

In Brittain v. Hansen, the 9th Cir. Court discussed the greater
custodial liberty interest and procedural differences of child abuse and
custody cases, and concluded that “by failing to recognize the lesser
liberty interest in visitation Id. at 992 the court applied the
erroneous legal standard “best interests of the child,” quoting Reno v.
Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303-04 (1993) and held the “best interest of the
child” legal standard applies to custody law not child abuse proceedings”

“Custodial parents have a greater liberty interest than those with
visitation rights.” Brittain v Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991, 992 (9th Cir.
2006), quoting Weller v Dep’t of Social Svcs, 901 f2d 387, 394 (4th Cir.
1990), Zakrzewski v Fox, 87 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 1996), Wise v.
Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir. 1981); “A non-custodial parent
lacks prudential standing to bring Establishment Clause challenge based
on his relationship with his child.” Brittain, quoting Elk Grove Unified
School Dist v. Newdow, 542 US 1, 13-18 (2004); “Liberty interests of
parents with only visitation rights does not give rise to a
constitutional violation” Brittain, (9th Cir.) quoting Wise (10th Cir. 1981)

i) “Substantive Due Process rights are those which involve greater
liberties, as those guaranteed by the First Amendment”. Glucksburg 512
U.S. at 721-22

Anthony v. City of New York 339 F.3d 129, 139 (2nd Cir 2003) “(1)
whether any policy makers of the municipality knew that it’s employees
will confront or encounter a given situation,; (2) that the situation
either presents the employees with a difficult choices of this sort and
that training or supervision will make less difficult or that there is a
history of the employees mishandling the situation; and (3) that the
wrong choice by employees will frequently cause the deprivation of a
Person’s Constitutional rights.” See also: King v Atiyeh, Monell v New
York City Dept of Social Services

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833, 901 (1992),
quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 US _ (1995) "Legislative purpose to
accomplish a constitutionally forbidden result may be found when that
purpose was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's
decision.", Shaw v. Hunt 517 US _ (1996), Joseph P. Mazurek, AG of
Montana v. James H. Armstrong et al (Cert. 9th Cir Ct App, No 96-1104, 1997)

5. ARS 8-821 standard of proof for temporary custody is unconstitutional
under the USSC “Matthews Test” addressed by the AZ Supreme Court in Kent
K. and Sherry K. ARS 8-821 provides for taking into temporary custody
under the “reasonable grounds” standard, similarly vague to suspicion or
probable cause. A parent’s interests at this stage are paramount; the
interest of the government is to reunite the child with the custodial
parent. This error of lowered standard of proof, “reasonable grounds,”
at the early stage of proceedings stacks the deck against custodial
parents’ greater interest in their child and familial association.
Matthews v. Eldridge and Kent K and Sherry K set the minimum standard at
“preponderance of evidence”. The goals at this stage are prevention and
reunification not termination which does not enter the equation until 12
– 18 months later. Until the first 18 months pass, a real reunification
effort with the custodial parent is mandated by federal statutory law
(contract law). By giving the adverse party the greater interest and
lowering the standard of proof thus increasing the risk of error, a
parent’s case will be lost at the first stage of proceedings, a
deprivation of substantive due process to protect the greater interests
of the parent. There must be a concrete offer of due process afforded to
the parent with the greater liberty interest in adversarial proceedings,
not the current level of rubber-stamping and paper-shuffling to meet
federal funding guidelines. These are families. Santosky 455 U.S. at 753
(holding child abuse proceedings involve the government acting in an
adversarial role toward the custodial parent, and such “persons faced
with possible forced dissolution of their custodial rights have a more
critical need for procedural protections.”)

In Re KG, SG, and TG (9th Cir. 2004), reaffirming the decision of the
U.S.S.C., “This court has noted that the permanent termination of
parental rights has been described as the family law equivalent of the
death penalty. Consequently, parents must be afforded every procedural
and substantive protection the law allows.”

6. ARS 8-824(F) is unconstitutional; the Standard of Proof is limited to
“probable cause to believe that continued temporary custody is clearly
necessary.” In applying this standard of proof, the court will make an
erroneous determination of unfitness without offer of proof (common in
juvenile court) and substantive and procedural due process of law which
will lead to loss of the parent’s right to familial association, and in
affect, terminated rights to custody. Kent K and Sherry K, quoting
Santosky (holding erroneous determination of unfitness at this stage
could lead to permanently extinguishing the relationship between a fit
parent and her child).

7. The State of Arizona encouraged and instituted into state law a vague
and easily misconstrued policy of mental illness as reason for removal
of a child as well as for termination of parental rights. ARS
8-533(B)(3) and ARS 8-846(1)(b) “A State shall not be immune under the
Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for
violation of a federally protected right…remedies (both at law and in
equity) are available.” Title 42 Chap. 126 Sec 12202 and Title 42 Chap.
21 Subchapter V 2000d-7, and Title 28 CFR, PART 35 Nondiscrimination on
Basis of Disability, State and Local Government Services

Title II of the ADA, "No qualified individual with a disability shall,
by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be
denied the benefits of the services or programs of a public entity
[reasonable efforts to prevent removal and reunification programs of
CPS], or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 USC
12132 A "public entity" is defined as "(A) any State or local
government; or (B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of a State or States or local government." 42 USC
12131

“Where a statute authorizes conduct that is ‘patently violative of
fundamental constitutional principles,’ reliance on the statute does not
immunize the official's conduct”. Grossman 33 F3d at 1209 See also:
Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. Soc Svcs 812 F2d 1154, 1157, 1158
(9th Cir. 1987) and Miller v Gammie (No 01-1549, DC No CV-99-00275-HDM
PHA, 9th CirCtApp. 2003)

8. Another usage of the wrong standard of law that needing addressed, is
the “best interests of the child” standard in adversarial child abuse
cases which invoke greater liberties and constitutional protections for
familial association. “Best interests of the child” standard is
erroneous in child abuse proceedings. Only when proceedings reach the
permanency stage, specifically the disposition stage, does the balance
of interests shift away from the custodial parent. Matthews

9. Much of A.R.S. Title 8 is unconstitutional and in violation of
overriding federal law; for brevity petitioner provided examples. Vague
policies, statutes, laws, or the encouragement thereof that violate
Federal Child Welfare Funding Laws, constitutionally and
federally-protected rights must be examined. Families have the right to
be free from unbridled State intrusion into their private family life
without afforded substantive and procedural due process of law. When a
case of state custody is necessary, children and others in the custody
of the state must be afforded the duty of care owed by the state and its
agencies under the Fourteenth Amendment.

10. Federal laws of foster care and adoption, legislated by Congress
with good intention, are routinely violated by the state. Rather than
adhere to statutory preventative measures to provide assistance to keep
families together, they many times remove children from their parents
when less extreme measures should have been taken violating federal
statutory law and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution. Arizona ADES-DCYF-CPS often places children
with abusive noncustodial parents or in abusive foster/shelter care.
(State Created Danger)

11. State law and policies announced by Governor Napolitano encourage
unlawful practices of use of these federal funds resulting in need for
more monies as the number of children removed from their parents rise.
Funds should be used to provide families assistance with food, shelter,
furnishings, education, location to domestic violence shelters, state
training of its agencies in recognizing common consequences of domestic
violence on victims and their children, and other preventative measures
to stabilize the family and prevent removal.

12. The most critical issue in The State is the additional large
expenditures of monies to hire additional caseworkers, reportedly to
handle the overflow of children, but the reality is that additional
caseworkers coupled with current “take the child and run” policies
encourage improper practices, erroneous and non-explicit findings of
abuse, and has the beginnings of an enterprise whose practice is to
break up the family. Hiring additional caseworkers creates more crisis
and more child fatalities; more children are removed rather than focus
on current cases; the state is not the parent and not able to provide
the proper standard of care as is its duty, nor can it provide
nurturing. If more monies need be spent, it should be appropriated to
training current caseworkers in integrity and ethics characteristic to
the social services Code of Ethics. Higher standards of care and duty to
assist those in need are standards to which social workers should be
held. It is time that the State of Arizona brings those ethics back into
its ADES– DCYF Child Protection Services agency, perhaps with more
experienced workers with families of their own who understand the value
of the family.

13. AZDES CPS removes children on suspicion (substantive due process
violations). Many children are then abused in state custody (six to ten
times higher in state custody per NCCAA). Reasonable efforts must be
made to preserve the First Amendment protection of familial association
in Arizona. It is obvious that this petitioner, the Mays family, the
Hill family, the Payne family and other families undisclosed to the
public, the Governor’s office, the State of Arizona and its CPS agency,
the Pima County Juvenile Court in the State of Arizona, the City of
Tucson Police Department, and The People are aware that there are
serious Constitutional policy/procedural deficiencies regarding the
safety, care, and protection of children and their families in the State
of Arizona under current CPS policies and procedures.

14. The announced policy statement by Governor Napolitano coupled with
the seemingly endless supply of federal monies encourages wrongful state
intrusion into the lives of families in Arizona and violates
constitutional and federally-protected rights and federal law.

15. Pattern and Practice of State Created Danger

* Payne children, deceased 2007 (CPS - Domestic Violence)

* Emily Mays, deceased August 2005, (CPS)

* Dwight Hill, deceased November 2005, (CPS)

* D.R.A., Abused, October – November 2005 (CPS)

* Others unnamed to protect the families.

The State-Created Danger Doctrine See Penilla v. City of Huntington
Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997) “If affirmative conduct on the
part of a state actor places a plaintiff in danger, and the officer acts
in deliberate indifference to that plaintiff’s safety, a claim arises
under §1983.”. Second, the official’s act did more than simply expose
the plaintiff to a danger that already existed. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 974
F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Dwares v. City of New York, 985
F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 1993); Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d 52, 55 (8th
Cir. 1990). Finally, the official acted with deliberate indifference to
known or obvious dangers. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir.
1996) “The plaintiff must show that the state official participated in
creating a dangerous condition, and acted with deliberate indifference
to the known or obvious danger in subjecting the plaintiff to it.”

18 U.S.C 4 Misprision of Felony – parents report abuse of their innocent
children in CPS custody and judicial, state, county, and other actors,
with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of families
and their children to a duty of care in state proceedings and custody
(Fourteenth Amendment), do not act to interfere or stop the abuse, and
even retaliate on the reporting parent by termination of rights,
terminating visitation, or relinquishing custody of the child to prevent
further reports of abuse at the hands of state agency policies and
procedures upon these children. This is appalling and an outrage.

16. Petitioner’s case parallels the Mays and Hill cases in the period of
time of injuries, the nature of the injuries, and deliberate
indifference of the court, CPS, state-appointed attorneys, GALs, and
assistant attorney generals acting as counsel for ADES to step up to the
plate to provide the owed duty of care to protect children in state
custody from further harm (death in the Mays, Payne, and Hill, other
cases). The Payne case, this petitioners, and others demonstrate the
deliberate indifference of CPS and juvenile courts toward domestic
violence victims and their children and the need for change of the
improper standard of “best interests of the child” in child abuse cases
to protect the greater liberty interests of the custodial parent. It
also demonstrates the complete unlawful disregard for “previous custody
agreements”. ARS 25-408(H)(I)

17. This petitioner and other parents have contacted (2003-2007) Arizona
Office of The Governor, Arizona House and Senate Members, and other
public officials (State, City, AZBAR, AZ and Pima County Courts, and the
like) who have the ability to make changes to inadequate or dangerous
policy both before and after herein stated violations. They are all
aware there is a problem with their own policies regarding the
constitutional right of familial association and the Doctrine of State
Created Danger and the duty of care afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment
involving child protection and related policies.

Instead of positive changes to policies or even investigation into
violations, policies were changed to further deny the Constitutional
Right to due process and to strengthen policies that violate
Constitutional rights in adversarial CPS cases.

18. Bill SB1430, initiated by Senator Johnson would have strengthened
due process protections for First Amendment rights for CPS TPR cases,
Arizona State Senate Committee on Family Services Minutes, dated
February 13, 2006. Petitioner spoke at this Senate committee hearing. In
June 2006 it was voted down due to Napolitano’s threat of veto.
Napolitano has at the same time publicly stated that caseworkers are to
“err on the side of the child”, affecting increased removals and TPR and
creating policy at CPS that violates due process to families under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. "It seems like a lot of trouble for
something that's going to get vetoed." Rep. Pete Hershberger, R-Tucson,
said before the bill died on the House floor.

Napolitano’s threatened veto and changes to policy removed jury trials
for CPS TPR cases is in violation of the 1st, 6th, 7th, and 14th
Amendments guaranteeing the right to trial by jury and the right of
confrontation in any criminal or government adversarial trial where the
value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars (a child’s life and the right of
familial association is invaluable).

The excuse was that “most jury trials resulted in TPR anyway”. This
statement illustrates by admission the lack of procedural and
substantive due process in Arizona juvenile courts, demonstrating the
need for reform policies that implement the Constitutional Due Process
of Law protections of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, Arizona Constitution,
Federal and Statutory law. See: Cf. Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly 533
U.S. 525, 540-41, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414 (2001)

AZ State Representative Laura Knaperek, as well as child advocacy expert
Richard Wexler, spoke out strongly condemning Governor Napolitano’s
policy saying it will deeply hurt Arizona’s families, and it has.

19. The Governor’s policy implementation (threat of veto, lowered
standards of proof, and removal of jury trials) is a deliberate and
knowing error as ruled by the Arizona Supreme Court decision in Kent K.
and Sherry K. v. Bobby M. and Leeh M. where the Court, applying Matthews
and Santosky, held that, "The private interest affected is commanding;
the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is substantial;
and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that standard is
comparatively slight. Because the preponderance of the evidence standard
essentially allocates the risk of error equally between the parents and
the state, due process requires a higher standard of proof than
“preponderance of the evidence”.

20. This petitioner spoke at Governor Napolitano’s CPS Reform conference
in 2003 on domestic violence and the need for CPS to protect Mothers and
their children. The recent horrific cases of Tyler and Ariana Payne and
another unnamed father who dated a CPS supervisor parallels this case
and the problem of Domestic Violence and CPS policies of separating
Mother her child in favor of the noncustodial batterer, thus inflicting
the sins of the batterer on the children, as addressed in an injunction
against NY Child Protection in Nicholson et al v Scoppetta et al and
Williams et al where the Court concluded:

“The City may not penalize a mother by separating her from her children;
nor may children be separated from the mother, in effect visiting upon
them the sins of their mother’s batterer” (In re Nicholson, 181 F supp
2d 182, 188 [ED NY Jan. 20, 2002], Nicholson v Williams, 203 F Supp 2d
153 [ED NY Mar 18, 2002] [108-pg elaboration grounds injunction]). The
Court found that ACS unnecessarily, routinely charged mothers with
neglect and removed their children where the mothers were the victims of
domestic violence; that ACS did so without ensuring that the mother had
access to the services she needed, without a court order, and without
returning these children promptly; that ACS caseworkers and managers
lacked adequate training about domestic violence, and their practice was
to separate mother and child when less extreme measures should have been
taken. The District court cited the testimony of a manager that it was
common practice in domestic violence cases for ACS to wait a few days
before going to court after removing the child because “after a few days
of the children being in foster care, the mother will agree to ACS’s
conditions without the matter even going to court” 203 F Supp 2d at 170.

See also: Pathologizing the Victim, a common tactic used in family court
to applaud the actions of the abuser while labeling the victim unstable.

21. Common sense and civil law state that when government or agency
policies are in violation of Constitutional Rights or of Federal Law or
Federally protected rights, state and local governments and their
agencies that institute or encourage policies are directly liable for
wrongs and injuries that result. Governor Napolitano and the State of
Arizona’s policies and deliberate indifference has assumed
responsibility for injuries instilled upon families such as those of my
child and of Emily Mays and Dwight Hill (infants) and further cases such
as the Payne case (involving prior domestic violence and CPS change of
custody) which show the sufferings and irreparable injury of parents and
their children as a result. Children are no safer in state custody than
with parents, nor are they any safer with CPS involvement. Child abuse
is an issue for the police, not a social agency.

22. The federal law on child abuse and neglect is found primarily in
Title IV-B&E of the Social Security Act transfers monies from the Social
Security Fund to The State. Approximately seventy-five percent of the
funds in Arizona is federal money which is available only if the state
meets eligibility requirements; these funds can be withdrawn if
requirements are not met.

The history and sources of the Child Welfare funding are primarily found
in: Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 42 USC
670-679b; the 1974 Walter Mondale Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act, PL 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 USC 5101-5107; and the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act, PL 96-272, 94 Stat. 500, 42 USC
670-676 (and amending 620-628); 42 USC 107(b), 5106a(b)(1) Grants to
States for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs, as
well as other sources such as the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children (ICPC), a contract which provides financial incentives for
interstate placement of foster children, reportedly to find permanence.

23. The State of Arizona is the governing body of AZDES-DCYF-CPS. The
State collects Federal Funding, (42 USC 670-679b) (17 Trillion in 2004,
U.S. total) from the United States Government in the form of Title IV
(Parts B & E) funding, mandated to be used primarily for prevention and
reunification purposes (42 USC 671). Title 42 Chapter 67: Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform also offers federal funding
grants to CPS agencies through various eligibility programs such as
fostering, adoptions, interstate placements, etc., as do other
additional grants/receipts.

24. ADES receives federal funding through the state which then provides
funding to domestic violence shelters and programs through its Community
Services Administration (CSA) and collects information such as Name,
Address, Age, Phone Number, Children’s Names and Ages, Income,
Disability Status, and other personal information. ADES maintains its
own private database on Mothers and children who receive domestic
violence services. Recent events in the Payne case as well as this
petitioner and others show a pattern of disregard for Mothers and their
children who are victims of domestic violence.

25. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona has power to issue
declaratory relief in the form of Arizona State Congressional
investigation into state records of specific practices of this agency
such as the use of federal funding to meet federal eligibility
requirements regarding prevention, inconsistencies in individual case
documentation, nonexplicit rubber-stamped judicial findings,
paper-shuffling to meet federal statutory law, foster provider
licensing, state-contractor conflict-of-interests (fishing expeditions
to build a case through forced services to justify unlawful removals
post facto), and for examination or positive enforcement of federal law
that overrides state law matter of child welfare.

26. This petitioner prays this AZ Supreme Court will honor Declaratory
Positive Relief to address the problems in the Child “Protection”
Services of the State of Arizona, such as amending state statutes and
state policy to properly comply with overriding federal funding contract
law.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2007

Signed in ink for the court

Roma O. Amor, Appearing as herself

SUBMISSION OF TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD

ABOLISH CPS. Let police handle it!

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT

CHILD WELFARE HEARING 5-15-07

Submitted for:

Roma O. Amor and Dante R. Amor (Rafe)

All Arizona families and for those children that suffer.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BOSTON -- House committee to file child abuse legislation.. fx Spanking 0 July 26th 07 06:49 AM
BOSTON -- House committee to file child abuse legislation.. fx Foster Parents 0 July 26th 07 06:49 AM
Foster care is no place for many Arizona kids: Arizona is removingat least a third more children than it should, to all our detriments. fx Spanking 0 July 7th 07 12:52 PM
Foster care is no place for many Arizona kids: Arizona is removingat least a third more children than it should, to all our detriments. fx Foster Parents 0 July 7th 07 12:52 PM
House Ways Committee convened hearings CPS failure to protect Fern5827 Spanking 0 November 8th 03 10:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.