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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |