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
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTY INTEREST
Just how many people have tried these ideas and found them to be less than
fruitful there gregg? Ron "Greegor" wrote in message ... http://www.familydefensecenter.net/ http://www.familydefensecenter.net/d...nd-briefs.html Opinions and Briefs Opinions Opinion # 4 is the main opinion in the appeal, 465 F. 3d 757 (7th Cir. 2006). Opinion #2 is the detailed trial court opinion setting forth the facts, 462 F. Supp.2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Opinion #5, 295 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2007), issued on July 31, 2007, is the appeal from which the petition to the Supreme Court is proceeding, but this opinion contains only a very limited discussion of the issues in the case. Opinion One (PDF) March 30, 2001 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...uyopinion1.pdf Opinion Two (PDF) March 9, 2005 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...uyopinion2.pdf Opinion Three (PDF) February 3, 2005 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i..._opinion_3.pdf Opinion Four (PDF) Court of Appeals Opinion (PDF) October 3, 2006 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...uyopinion4.pdf Opinion Five (PDF) Court of Appeals Decision (PDF), Dupuy II, July 31, 2007 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...on_7-31-07.pdf Petition and Amici Briefs: U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Supreme Court Review (Certiorari) (PDF) Dupuy II, February 13, 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...rtpetition.pdf Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, CLAIM, et al., by Baker & McKenzie (PDF) March 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...bakerbrief.pdf Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, et al., by McDermott Will & Emery (PDF) March 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i.../mcdermott.pdf Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of the American Psychoanalytic Association and the Chicago Psychoanalytic Society, by O'Melveny & Myers (PDF) March 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...hoanalytic.pdf Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, and the Goldwater Institute, by Sidley Austin (PDF) March 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ogoldwater.pdf Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of the Illinois State Bar Association, by Jenner & Block (PDF) March 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...s/FDC/isba.pdf Briefs and Important Pleadings: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants (PDF) Dupuy II, April 11, 2007 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ants_brief.pdf Petition for Rehearing En Banc (PDF), Dupuy II, September 4, 2007 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ringEnBanc.pdf Defendant's Reply Opposing Petition (PDF), Dupuy II, September 19, 2007 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...onseEnBanc.pdf Dupuy Class Information Dupuy Class Notice (PDF) April 20, 2006 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...e4.20.2006.pdf Stipulation and Order (PDF) Dupuy I, December 15, 2006 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...tipulation.pdf Articles and Important Documents Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (PDF) concerning the Petition for Certiorari, March 21, 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...lb.3-21-08.pdf Press Release (PDF) for the Supreme Court Petition, filed February 13, 2008 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...se_2-13-08.pdf Youth Law News (PDF) by Diane Redleaf, Robert Lehrer, and Christopher Wilmes, Apri-June 2004 http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...ewsarticle.pdf Case Examples FAMILIES THREATENED AND SEPARATED UNDER SAFETY PLANS: FIVE CASE EXAMPLES FROM THE LITIGATION These are the stories of five Dupuy class members. 1. Bill M., the vice president of a technology company, and his wife Gail, a stay-at- home mom, have two daughters. The younger, age two, fell from the family's back porch while playing. When her pain did not abate, Gail took her to the emergency room, where doctors found a leg fracture. After they returned home, Gail received a call from her child's pediatrician requesting that she take her daughter back to the hospital. When she arrived, she discovered that the hospital suspected that her daughter had been abused because a second fracture reportedly had been seen on x-rays. DCFS promptly demanded that Bill, who was considered the likely abuser, leave the family home for 24 hours. He complied. DCFS failed to contact the family again for a week, waiting until the day before Thanksgiving, when the investigator demanded that both parents leave their home or have their children taken into foster care. Bill and Gail left, while grandparents stayed in the home. The entire extended family's Thanksgiving was ruined. On December 1, the parents were allowed back into their home, after another doctor read the x-rays again and discovered that the hospital's claim of a second fracture was a mistake. 2. E.D., age 16, had babysat two years earlier for a boy who was then four years old. The boy and his family moved away from E.D.'s neighborhood. Suddenly, two years after the last time he had seen the child, E.D. found himself the target of an accusation that he had sexually molested the boy. A DCFS investigator named Howell showed up at the D. family's home and demanded that E.D. leave immediately. If E.D. did not leave, Howell said, he would take E.D.'s younger siblings into foster care. E.D. complied, and after a month, Howell allowed E.D. to return home-as long as his mother agreed to "remain awake at night when the rest of the family is sleeping in order to supervise E.D. at night." (See 462 F. Supp. 2d at 881). During this period, Howell also instructed the family that E.D. was to have "no contact" with younger children. The safety plan in this case lasted 18 months. Ironically, DCFS lifted the safety plan restrictions when E.D.'s family agreed not to pursue their appeal of an "indicated" finding against E.D. 3. James, a science teacher, and Susan Redlin are the parents of a boy named Joey, age six, who has a mild form of autism. Susan is disabled and is confined to a wheelchair. James planned to teach Joey to ride his bike during the summer. One day in June, James and Joey went to the Field Museum to see dinosaurs. Following medical instructions to use a lot of physical contact with Joey because of his son's condition, James actively tickled him during their Metra train ride into Chicago. A passenger reported to Metra police that the touching was suspicious. The police called DCFS. The next day, DCFS Investigator Homa came to the Redlin home and began to demand a safety plan. James accused him of being rude and he left. Later the same day, Homa called Susan and demanded a safety plan that required her to provide 24-hour supervision of all contact between James and their son. Terribly shaken, Susan agreed. Because Susan could not go to the park with James and Joey, Joey never learned to ride his bike that summer. The safety plan lasted three months; it was lifted at the end of the summer when DCFS determined the allegations of "sexual abuse" of Joey were "unfounded" (meaning no credible evidence to support the allegations was uncovered during the investigation). In James's words, the safety plan made the family feel like "prisoners in their own home." 4. Patrick and Stacey D. were preschool teachers at the same school. On New Year's Day, a preschooler named Amelia, a three- or four-year- old in Patrick's class, woke in the middle of the night and told her mother that "Patrick plays with my booty at naptime." The next day, Amelia's mother notified the preschool director of this statement, and the director in turn called DCFS's Hotline. (Although the director did not believe Patrick had abused any child, she considered it her duty as a "mandated child abuse reporter" to make the call.) DCFS Investigator Jones immediately called the preschool director and demanded that the director send Patrick home from work. Investigator Jones next called Patrick's wife, Stacey, and demanded that she tell Patrick he had to leave their family home. If not, Jones said, their three children would be taken into foster care. Stacey came home and gave Patrick this horrible news. Shocked and with nowhere to go, Patrick left the home with little cash and few belongings. Homeless, he stayed in a hallway of an apartment building for several days while he tried to reach his sister. Eventually, Patrick D. was able to stay at his sister's home, but limited funds for transportation made it difficult for him to visit his family. In his case, the safety plan directive lasted 11 months, during which he appealed an "indicated finding" against him for sexual molestation of Amelia. Patrick won his appeal, because the investigation never uncovered any corroborating evidence and was deemed by DCFS's own hearing officer to be "at a minimum sloppy and at worst the result of a pre-ordained conclusion." Patrick's co-teacher was never interviewed, no children confirmed Amelia's account, and Patrick's children said their father never touched them inappropriately. No criminal charges were ever brought against Patrick. 5. Christine and Jimmie Parikh were the parents of two grown children, the parents of a six-year-old, and guardians of a three-year-old, whom they had rescued from abandonment by his mother. Christine sometimes worked as a child care provider for children in her home and Jimmie managed a fast food franchise restaurant. One of the children for whom Christine provided child care was an emotionally disturbed 11-year-old girl. On July 12, the DCFS Hotline received a call accusing Jimmie of having kissed her while she was at the Parikh's home. There was no evidence of any inappropriate conduct by Jimmie and the girl's own mother called her daughter a "liar." DCFS Investigator Abernathy came to the Parikh home and demanded that Jimmie leave. She expressly stated that if he did not do so immediately, she would take their two minor children into DCFS custody. 462 F. Supp. 2d at 878. Jimmie complied. For several weeks, Christine and Jimmie could only see each other at a restaurant, where they would cry together. After July, Abernathy allowed Jimmie to return home, but only on the condition that Christine supervise all of his contact with their children. DCFS lifted the safety plan on September 26, deeming the allegation of "sexual molestation" it was investigating to be unfounded. Even after the safety plan ended, Jimmie was unable to kiss his children without fear that another allegation might be made against him. http://www.familydefensecenter.net/i...rtpetition.pdf --------------------------------- ? --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- ? --------------------------------- QUESTION PRESENTED When the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") receives allegations made to the State telephone Hotline of child abuse or neglect, DCFS investigators implement "safety plans" at the outset of the ensuring investigations. The safety plans routinely require parents or children to leave their family home and/or have no contact or only restricted contact with each other from the very beginning of investigations until their conclusion. This case is a class action brought by parents and other family members ("parents") affected by safety plans. The parents challenge the State's policies and practices giving rise to such plans. The question presented is: When a State has only "mere suspicion" of child abuse or neglect, does it deprive the parents and their children of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it: (a) secures safety plans either by direction or by telling parents that if they refuse to agree to a plan, the State may take custody of the children and place them in foster care; and (b) provides no opportunity to contest the plans? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
On Apr 19, 4:29 pm, "Ron" wrote:
Just how many people have tried these ideas and found them to be less than fruitful there gregg? greg is a wildman when it comes to using the law to the maximum extent. Even if it's not in the proper forum or it keeps children away from their mother for more than seven years. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
RVD Just how many people have tried these
RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? Did you miss the list of the parties in support, like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
On Apr 20, 10:34 am, Greegor wrote:
RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? That's not an answer to Ron's question. Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? That's not an answer to Ron's question. And I do know what it means. Did you miss the list of the parties in support, like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? Like so what? And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...3597e2f0a9de4c
RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. DS And I do know what it means. I see you're anxious to explain it. G Did you miss the list of the parties in support, G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? DS Like so what? DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. It was a non sequitor question. Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court with these arguments, what is your point? That great wrongs DO take place in our system due to the steam roller effect and momentum? Or is your argument that since it was done that way, it must be constitutional? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/... RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. DS And I do know what it means. I see you're anxious to explain it. You asked if I knew what it meant. I do. And I said so. If you want to post an explanation, go ahead. G Did you miss the list of the parties in support, G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? DS Like so what? DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. It was a non sequitor question. Oh, really? In what way? Or did you mean rhetorical? Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court with these arguments, what is your point? This is YOUR thread, dipstick. What's YOUR point? That great wrongs DO take place in our system due to the steam roller effect and momentum? Is that your point? Or is your argument that since it was done that way, it must be constitutional? You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did. Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
On Apr 20, 6:09*pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/... RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. DS And I do know what it means. I see you're anxious to explain it. You asked if I knew what it meant. I do. And I said so. If you want to post an explanation, go ahead. G Did you miss the list of the parties in support, G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? DS Like so what? DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. It was a non sequitor question. Oh, really? In what way? Or did you mean rhetorical? Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court with these arguments, what is your point? This is YOUR thread, dipstick. What's YOUR point? That great wrongs DO take place in our system due to the steam roller effect and momentum? Is that your point? Or is your argument that since it was done that way, it must be constitutional? You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did. Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg? This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Constitutional question about CPS Service Plans and LIBERTYINTEREST
On Apr 21, 2:44 am, Greegor wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:09 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote: On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/... RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. DS And I do know what it means. I see you're anxious to explain it. You asked if I knew what it meant. I do. And I said so. If you want to post an explanation, go ahead. G Did you miss the list of the parties in support, G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? DS Like so what? DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. It was a non sequitor question. Oh, really? In what way? Or did you mean rhetorical? Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court with these arguments, what is your point? This is YOUR thread, dipstick. What's YOUR point? That great wrongs DO take place in our system due to the steam roller effect and momentum? Is that your point? Or is your argument that since it was done that way, it must be constitutional? You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did. Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg? This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan? You asked me a single question and I answered it in the affirmative, greg. You, OTOH, failed to answer Ron's question. It's YOU who don't want to say anything of substance, dipstick. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
piggy said you were trying to catch me in something, greg. Give up,did you?
On Apr 21, 2:44 am, Greegor wrote:
On Apr 20, 6:09 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote: On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/... RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. DS And I do know what it means. I see you're anxious to explain it. You asked if I knew what it meant. I do. And I said so. If you want to post an explanation, go ahead. G Did you miss the list of the parties in support, G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? DS Like so what? DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. It was a non sequitor question. Oh, really? In what way? Or did you mean rhetorical? Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court with these arguments, what is your point? This is YOUR thread, dipstick. What's YOUR point? That great wrongs DO take place in our system due to the steam roller effect and momentum? Is that your point? Or is your argument that since it was done that way, it must be constitutional? You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did. Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg? This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
piggy said you were trying to catch me in something, greg. Giveup, did you?
On Apr 22, 7:31*am, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:44 am, Greegor wrote: On Apr 20, 6:09 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote: On Apr 20, 4:46 pm, Greegor wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/.... RVD Just how many people have tried these RVD ideas and found them to be less than RVD fruitful there gregg? G Did you miss that this is an Amicus Curiae? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. G Do you know what that means, Ron and Dan? DS That's not an answer to Ron's question. DS And I do know what it means. I see you're anxious to explain it. You asked if I knew what it meant. I do. And I said so. If you want to post an explanation, go ahead. G Did you miss the list of the parties in support, G like the Illinois BAR ASSOCIATION? DS Like so what? DS And that's not an answer to Ron's question, either. It was a non sequitor question. Oh, really? In what way? Or did you mean rhetorical? Even if ten million families were rebuffed in court with these arguments, what is your point? This is YOUR thread, dipstick. What's YOUR point? That great wrongs DO take place in our system due to the steam roller effect and momentum? Is that your point? Or is your argument that since it was done that way, it must be constitutional? You asked me if I knew what amicus curiea was and I said I did. Are you ODing on stupid pills today, greg? G This is your whiney way of COMPLAINING G without actually saying anything of substance, right Dan? DS subject: piggy said you were trying to catch me in something, greg. Give up, did you? What would I catch you at, Dan? g |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Privacy Service Or Pedo Service? | R. Steve Walz | Solutions | 0 | July 19th 07 10:08 AM |
Locate a school, day care service, after-school program, camp, or other service free at childcareboard.org | childcareboard.org | Twins & Triplets | 0 | July 4th 07 05:14 AM |
Locate a school, day care service, after-school program, camp, or other service free at childcareboard.org | childcareboard.org | Spanking | 0 | July 4th 07 05:14 AM |
Philosophy of Liberty | Werebat | Child Support | 0 | October 10th 04 11:30 PM |
Review: Chasing Liberty (**) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | January 10th 04 03:48 AM |