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

Legal victories for Parents Rights



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 5th 06, 01:00 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights

Child Removal can be appealed all the way to Supreme Court

restraining orders can be appealed

Anna Nicole case killed off ROOKER

can't remove because kids saw domestic violence

hearsay from caseworkers and cops not admissable


http://www.squidoo.com/abolishcps/

August 5, 2006
BIG WIN FOR PARENTS!!!

Removal of Children by DCF Can Now be Appealed by Parents To The
Supreme Court.

Connecticut DCF Watch Hartford, CT

According to the recent Supreme Court Ruling here in Connecticut in the
Kennedy case, individuals can appeal restraining orders especially
those where DCF workers coerce parents to lie against their spouses
which is suborning perjury and tampering with a witness.

Removing children from their homes by DCF and placing them in foster
care is a "physical restraining order" which entitles parents to
judicial appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court now. This is a very
big WIN for parents who were denied due process under the 14th
Amendment.

Parents will also be able to appeal this to the United States Supreme
Court as a direct result of Marshall v. Marshall (the Anna Nicole
case). Another big win for parents. Marshall v. Marshall did away with
Rooker. DCF workers routinely threaten parents to file unlawful
restraining orders against their spouses with threat of removal of
children because the children were to alleged to witness domestic
violence. In light of the 2nd Circuit ruling, witnessing domestic
violence by a child is not neglect nor child maltreatment and an
unlawful unconstitutional reason to remove any child or the issuance of
a restraining order. DCF is in contempt of the 2nd Circuit's ruling
when they remove a child just because they witness domestic violence.

It is also contemptible action by DCF to threaten a mother to file a
restraining order so the father can not visit his children when in fact
the children were never harmed.

Also in light of Crawford v. Washington, the hearsay statements from
DCF or the police are no longer admissible in any case. If the mother
refuses to testify against her spouse, DCF and the police have no case
and their argument is moot.

  #2  
Old September 5th 06, 01:29 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights


Greegor wrote:
Child Removal can be appealed all the way to Supreme Court

restraining orders can be appealed

Anna Nicole case killed off ROOKER

can't remove because kids saw domestic violence

hearsay from caseworkers and cops not admissable


http://www.squidoo.com/abolishcps/

August 5, 2006
BIG WIN FOR PARENTS!!!

Removal of Children by DCF Can Now be Appealed by Parents To The
Supreme Court.

Connecticut DCF Watch Hartford, CT

According to the recent Supreme Court Ruling here in Connecticut in the
Kennedy case, individuals can appeal restraining orders especially
those where DCF workers coerce parents to lie against their spouses
which is suborning perjury and tampering with a witness.

Removing children from their homes by DCF and placing them in foster
care is a "physical restraining order" which entitles parents to
judicial appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court now. This is a very
big WIN for parents who were denied due process under the 14th
Amendment.

Parents will also be able to appeal this to the United States Supreme
Court as a direct result of Marshall v. Marshall (the Anna Nicole
case). Another big win for parents. Marshall v. Marshall did away with
Rooker. DCF workers routinely threaten parents to file unlawful
restraining orders against their spouses with threat of removal of
children because the children were to alleged to witness domestic
violence. In light of the 2nd Circuit ruling, witnessing domestic
violence by a child is not neglect nor child maltreatment and an
unlawful unconstitutional reason to remove any child or the issuance of
a restraining order. DCF is in contempt of the 2nd Circuit's ruling
when they remove a child just because they witness domestic violence.

It is also contemptible action by DCF to threaten a mother to file a
restraining order so the father can not visit his children when in fact
the children were never harmed.

Also in light of Crawford v. Washington, the hearsay statements from
DCF or the police are no longer admissible in any case. If the mother
refuses to testify against her spouse, DCF and the police have no case
and their argument is moot.


The above is the opinion of the author, not, apparently, a legal expert
or one much skilled in logical thinking.

And I notice no link to the actual court transcript is provided. We
KNOW, as with you, Greg, that is a red flag that the poster has NOT
understood the finding but knows at some level they are full of ****
and don't want the truth to come out.

The website referenced is simply another propaganda effort by the anti
government cabal so busy these days.

Parents should be afforded EVERY legal right they are entitled to. That
they don't USE them is whose fault, Greg?

I suspect the author took a case and rather than note its facts and
truth ran with it to try and make it mean things it does not.

You twits seem to forget that most judicial findings that you quote
refer to specific circumstances and do NOT apply to generalities, as
the poster is claiming.

Did you bother to read the original as linked to, Greg?

It started with the statement, chuckle "According to a Reliable
Source:"

So reliable it couldn't be named? All this opinion is based on
"According to a Reliable Source: ?"

In fact, CT is not known for high quality Supreme Court decisions these
days, Greg.

Here's one that either is a piece of crap, OR it's addressing a failure
of CT law to protect the child and this is the first step to getting a
new law, or existing one's changed.

"Connecticut State Supreme Court Ruling
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled recently that Connecticut child
welfare workers are not required by law to remove children from their
homes, even if there is evidence those children could be harmed.

The high court had been asked by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
to clarify the law in a case involving an autistic and nonverbal child,
whose 8-month-old sister was beaten to death by their stepfather in
January 1997. A lawyer for the child and her brother sued in U.S.
District Court, alleging that state child abuse investigators knew from
previous complaints that the children were being abused, and should
have removed them for their own safety; however, the Department of
Children and Families argued that state law does not require automatic
removal. The state contended that when a child is in imminent danger,
the law permits DCF workers to use their discretion on whether removal
is necessary. A U.S. District Court judge found that the children had
failed to prove that they
were constitutionally entitled to protection from abuse and neglect.
But the appeals court asked for a clarification of the state statute.
The state's Supreme Court ruled that the law "does not require the
commissioner to remove the child upon a finding of probable cause, but
merely authorizes the commissioner to seek removal under such
circumstances." Some national child welfare attorney's are calling
on the General Assembly to make child removal laws more clear. The case
now heads back to federal court. ...

http://www.floridacoalitionforchildr...0protection%22
http://tinyurl.com/rmlxl

The idea that a child has no rights of protection by the state is the
challenge. Would you like the ruling to be that they do not, Greg?

If so explain your reasoning.

Thanks 0:-




0:-

  #3  
Old September 5th 06, 02:20 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights

Kennedy case - recent Supreme Court Ruling in Connecticut

Anna Nicole Marshall case did away with ROOKER

Crawford v. Washington, hearsay from DCF
or the police no longer admissible in any case

Did you look these up?

  #4  
Old September 5th 06, 05:07 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights


Greegor wrote:
Kennedy case - recent Supreme Court Ruling in Connecticut

Anna Nicole Marshall case did away with ROOKER

Crawford v. Washington, hearsay from DCF
or the police no longer admissible in any case

Did you look these up?


Since I didn't make the claim, why would I?

I pointed out the author of the piece did two things that nullifies the
credibility of his claims. One he used an anonymous source, and two, he
failed to cite with link to the cases in question.

Lazy, or dishonest.

In any case, it's HIS responsibility to support his claims, not mine to
refute them.

I'll make my case when he makes his, or you make yours.

And not until.

So far, we have an opinion based on a "reliable" but anonymous,
"source," and an opinion as to what the rulings meant.

I neither deny nor support the opinions of others.

That is until they make their argument based on facts.

What are the facts that support the opinions?

And provide access to them DIRECTLY, not by asking ME if I've looked
them up.

I may have, and I may not have. That is NOT the question.

If YOU agree with the author then YOU can feel free to provide the
supporting facts IF you choose.

Or not.

I say the moon has never been landed on. Until I provide more evidence
than this opinion you can assume I don't have proof or would provide
same. Until I do, you may feel free to call me a fool or a liar and
their's not a thing I can do about it.

Get it, stupid?

0:-

  #5  
Old September 5th 06, 05:05 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights

Thank you Kane! Your complaints bring joy to me.

The information will help citizens fighting CPS agencies.

Kind of like the way caseworkers carry malpractice insurance
but state attorneys try to claim immunity anyway!

If they're IMMUNE, why carry malpractice insurance?

Got any good caselaw or pro forma on how to argue that?

  #6  
Old September 5th 06, 05:25 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights



Greegor wrote:
Kennedy case - recent Supreme Court Ruling in Connecticut

Anna Nicole Marshall case did away with ROOKER

Crawford v. Washington, hearsay from DCF
or the police no longer admissible in any case

Did you look these up?


Since I didn't make the claim, why would I?

I pointed out the author of the piece did two things that nullifies the
credibility of his claims. One he used an anonymous source, and two, he
failed to cite with link to the cases in question.

Lazy, or dishonest.

Hahaha! How about if he claimed his source was the NEJM???

In any case, it's HIS responsibility to support his claims, not mine to
refute them.

Hihihi! What a hypocrit!

Doan


  #7  
Old September 5th 06, 07:25 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights

Greegor wrote:
Thank you Kane! Your complaints bring joy to me.


Me too. 0:-

The information will help citizens fighting CPS agencies.


I believe in citizens being afforded ALL legal rights, Greg.

You and your cronies even like to argue that I, and others that agree
with me, when we want a NEW LAW, that we are trying to break the law.

Weird, eh?

Kind of like the way caseworkers carry malpractice insurance
but state attorneys try to claim immunity anyway!


I love it when you try to use a metaphor, Greg. It's cute.

If they're IMMUNE, why carry malpractice insurance?


Ummm...snortsnickerchuckle maybe for when they actually DO indulge
in "malpractice?"

Look up the word, Greg. Look up the word.

Got any good caselaw or pro forma on how to argue that?


Don't need it. Just argued it quite successfully, thanks.

Facts'll getcha every time, Greg. Every time.

Learn to use them.

You'll find yourself, surprisingly, on my side when you do.

Facts are like that.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
  #8  
Old September 5th 06, 07:40 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights

Doan wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kennedy case - recent Supreme Court Ruling in Connecticut

Anna Nicole Marshall case did away with ROOKER

Crawford v. Washington, hearsay from DCF
or the police no longer admissible in any case

Did you look these up?

Since I didn't make the claim, why would I?

I pointed out the author of the piece did two things that nullifies the
credibility of his claims. One he used an anonymous source, and two, he
failed to cite with link to the cases in question.

Lazy, or dishonest.

Hahaha! How about if he claimed his source was the NEJM???

In any case, it's HIS responsibility to support his claims, not mine to
refute them.

Hihihi! What a hypocrit!


yawn


Doan




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
  #9  
Old September 5th 06, 07:50 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights


On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kennedy case - recent Supreme Court Ruling in Connecticut

Anna Nicole Marshall case did away with ROOKER

Crawford v. Washington, hearsay from DCF
or the police no longer admissible in any case

Did you look these up?
Since I didn't make the claim, why would I?

I pointed out the author of the piece did two things that nullifies the
credibility of his claims. One he used an anonymous source, and two, he
failed to cite with link to the cases in question.

Lazy, or dishonest.

Hahaha! How about if he claimed his source was the NEJM???

In any case, it's HIS responsibility to support his claims, not mine to
refute them.

Hihihi! What a hypocrit!


yawn

The hypocrit has no capability to respond! ;-)

Doan


  #10  
Old September 5th 06, 08:33 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Legal victories for Parents Rights

Greegor wrote:
Kennedy case - recent Supreme Court Ruling in Connecticut

Anna Nicole Marshall case did away with ROOKER

Crawford v. Washington, hearsay from DCF
or the police no longer admissible in any case

Did you look these up?


tap tap tap, tap tap tap.

Am I going to see any links and citations, Greg, or are you going to let
Doan the hysterical monkeyboy try to divert attention from the fact you
didn't produce?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
 




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
Online Legal Docs to sign away parental rights? Jamie General (moderated) 2 May 5th 04 11:57 AM
empathy in parenting M.E. Mitchell General 61 December 29th 03 08:42 PM
empathy in parenting M.E. Mitchell Solutions 55 December 29th 03 08:42 PM
Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home John Stone General 179 November 19th 03 12:08 AM
How much privacy do you give them? Wendy General 103 November 18th 03 01:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 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.