Court says county overstepped: San Joaquin County violated the Constitutional rights of Thomas and Nicole Rogers of Lodi when a social worker and police removed the Thomas’ two children from their home..

• Court says county overstepped

• Balancing community concerns with parental rights

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstime...s/001/?ID=5261

San Joaquin County violated the Constitutional rights of Thomas and
Nicole Rogers of Lodi when a social worker and police removed the
Thomas’ two children from their home, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals says.

In a ruling issued Tuesday, the court says the conditions in the Rogers’
home and of their two children “did not present an imminent risk of
serious bodily harm” when the children were taken into protective custody.

The court says the case presented a conflict between potential child
abuse and rights under the U.S. Constitution.

“Child abuse and neglect are very serious problems. We applaud the
efforts of social workers to address these matters and to protect the
vulnerable victims of these crimes,” the ruling says. “However, the
rights of families to be free from governmental interference and
arbitrary state action are also important.”

The ruling says the actions by Charlotta Royal, a social worker for the
San Joaquin County Human Services Agency, assisted by Lodi police, may
have violated the parents’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

“In removing the Rogers children from their home without obtaining
judicial authorization, Royal violated the Rogerses’ clearly established
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” the court says.

The case was ordered returned to the district court level for further
action.

Drilldown

Download the court decision here (0516071.pdf, 74 KB)









CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...

Article stated
The case was ordered returned to the district court level for further
action.

Kane wrote
In other words, it's an unresolved case. Nice going, brilliant one.

High courts almost always do that after deciding on a point.
Have you EVER heard of a high state court ordering a case
to be closed or the child to be immediately sent home?

Even if they find the agency acted ILLEGALLY as
in this case, they don't directly resolve the case at the top.
They basically DIRECT the lower court to take
corrective action in the individual case.

This establishes controlling case law.

What's stupid is that this ruling by a state's high court
makes a point that should not have to be made
in 2007 anywhere in the USA.

Why aren't state high courts really RAISING HELL
with lower courts when they have to rule on
something like this the lower court blatantly
should have KNOWN and acted on itself?

That this had to be decided on at all by
a state high court reveals how dismally UNQUALIFIED
the lower courts really are.

The lower court Judge from this case should
get much more than a scathing ruling from the
state high court. The high court should initiate
disbarment proceedings against the Judge and
yank them off the bench.

The legal point here was one that should
never have had to go to the high court.

This is why I have said that our rights
are a bit like a "shell game" where somebody
hides a pea under one walnut shell.

If you don't KNOW that the state law and
state dependancy courts FAIL to live up to
the burden of proof and rules of evidence
appropriate for a LIBERTY INTEREST case,
and if even your ATTORNEY doesn't know
about this huge discrepancy, it's like
looking for fairness or your rights under the
wrong walnut shell.

That the dependancy courts CONTINUE to
operate with a LOW burden of proof and low
standard for rules of evidence is a giant SCAM.

To say that the existing dependancy courts
are part of an ongoing conspiracy to violate
Civil Rights is putting it mildly!

Is the entire Bar Association ignorant of this
big decrepancy?

On May 30, 3:19 pm, "0:-]" wrote:
On 29 May 2007 22:45:32 -0700, Greegor wrote:

Article stated
The case was ordered returned to the district court level for further
action.

Kane wrote
In other words, it's an unresolved case. Nice going, brilliant one.

High courts almost always do that after deciding on a point.
Have you EVER heard of a high state court ordering a case
to be closed or the child to be immediately sent home?

Where's the action order? What are they supposed to be doing at the
lower court level?

Even if they find the agency acted ILLEGALLY as
in this case, they don't directly resolve the case at the top.

Mmmm...this isn't rocket science. We know that the higher courts
usually to not order actions directly to enforcement agents...such as
the police, though it can happen I suppose.

They basically DIRECT the lower court to take
corrective action in the individual case.

Yep. Was that the case here, and what actions were they ordering?

On the face of it, one could reasonably assume that
the message is for the agency to stop violating the
Constitution the way they did in this case.

This establishes controlling case law.

Or sometimes not. Sometimes it results
in a further appeal to a yet higher court.

Only if the state high court had decided the agency
had not violated the US Constitution.
Such a decision would end up being really embarassing
for the state high court though wouldn't it?
The US Supreme court might wonder who
is getting paid off to take such a stupid legal position.

What's stupid is that this ruling by a state's high court
makes a point that should not have to be made
in 2007 anywhere in the USA.

Then you don't come down on the side of the weight of case law?

There already IS controlling case law on this!
AND there shouldn't have to be for something that
any idiot can see blatantly violates the US Constitution.

Having to waste time to ""decide"" what is already decided
is another abuse.

Why aren't state high courts really RAISING HELL
with lower courts

Cause they aren't Greg Hansen? They have protocols, and manners?

Protocols and manners are more important than their
basic functions of protecting Citizens from government
as described in the Bill Of Rights??

when they have to rule on
something like this the lower court blatantly
should have KNOWN and acted on itself?

There that is again. Please explain how one can "blatantly should
have," anything.

When a court takes an oath to uphold the Constitution
and it is very well known that every court has a paramount
responsibility to protect Citizens Constitutional Rights.

Learn the english language. When you screw up like that you break the
flow of understanding of what you are trying to communicate.

There is such a thing as a "blatant" lie, but there is no, "blatant"
should have known.

Blatantly should have known.
As in "known or should have known" better.

Try a thesaurus. They are on line these days.

You admitted you have ADHD.
What meds do you take for that?

That this had to be decided on at all by
a state high court reveals how dismally UNQUALIFIED
the lower courts really are.

Oh that should make your argument just loved by the lower courts.

Are the courts supposed to decide based on logic or butt kissing?

The lower court Judge from this case should
get much more than a scathing ruling from the
state high court.

The hardware store was short on hemp...sorry.
Are you suggesting rope?
I usually don't but the Constitution does
allow for death as a possible punishment
for a Conspiracy to violate a citizens Civil Rights.

The high court should initiate
disbarment proceedings against the Judge and
yank them off the bench.

Really?

You are suggesting a course of action that would result in judges so
constrained in their decisions that all judicial proceedings would
stop.

Are you saying that a Judge should be able to claim ignorance
of the US Constitution as a defense?

If they have NO power then they are useless, Greg. But that seems to
be what you wish for pretty much any and all authority.

The Bill Of Rights part of the US Constitution spells out the
rigorous burden that has to be met to deprive a person of
their LIBERTY INTEREST rights throughout the USA.

The legal point here was one that should
never have had to go to the high court.

Ridiculous. NO legal point should EVER be immune from appeal.
There's always just enough difference from case to case that the
appeals process is the only way to sort it out.

If a Judge decides that water isn't wet and that has to go to
a higher court for a ""decision"" then the first Judge
should be out of a job and disbarred.

Higher courts should not be tied up making
decisions about whether or not water is wet.

This is why I have said that our rights
are a bit like a "shell game" where somebody
hides a pea under one walnut shell.

Explain your analogy, if you don't mind.

Since statute is written, and open for all to read, from the
Constitution down, it's very hard to use a shell game method to hide
your rights from you.

If you don't KNOW that the state law and
state dependancy courts FAIL to live up to
the burden of proof and rules of evidence
appropriate for a LIBERTY INTEREST case,
and if even your ATTORNEY doesn't know
about this huge discrepancy, it's like
looking for fairness or your rights under the
wrong walnut shell.

The key is in the work 'know.' It's not the state's responsibility to
run you down and make sure you have read or listened and understand.
It's YOURS. They have standards methods of dissemination. If YOU don't
use them, then tough ****, bunky.

How is it that what you just asked doesn't describe
a state operated court that is basically a CON?

The state would of course have an obligation
not to run a court system that violates the US Constitution.

Do you hope to defend the state's operation of
courts that do not conform to the minimum standards
required by the Bill Of Rights for LIBERTY INTEREST cases?

Attorneys hired as expert advisors SHOULD reasonably
be expected to know of such an important systemic breakdown
and how to defend their client against a court that
is almost entirely Unconstitutional.

Every citizen, even with a Public Defender is entitled
to a VIGOROUS DEFENSE in court. The first and most
obvious argument any good attorney should make is
that the state dependancy court is NOT up to the
standards the US Constitution guarantees where
any LIBERTY INTEREST is at stake.

That the dependancy courts CONTINUE to
operate with a LOW burden of proof and low
standard for rules of evidence is a giant SCAM.

Well, there's low, and there is low.

Please explain your particular "low" for us.

Or keep it concealed if you chose, so one cannot debate the issue with
you.

The preponderance standard and a lower standard of evidence
do not conform to Bill Of Rights requirements for a court
involving LIBERTY INTERESTS.

To say that the existing dependancy courts
are part of an ongoing conspiracy to violate
Civil Rights is putting it mildly!

Or lyingly.

LIBERTY INTERESTS at stake in court demand
high standards for burden of proof and standards
for evidence. Dependancy court is of course
a LIBERTY INTEREST case, so lesser standards
fail to meet Constitutional requirements.

Who exactly, is conspiring, and why, Greg? What's the payoff?

Is the entire Bar Association ignorant of this
big decrepancy?

Yep....possibly because you've blown up to a size that they come to be
unable to determine what the **** you are babbling about.

If you stopped for a moment, and remembered what I've told you and
others here before that make similar stupid arguments about rules of
evidence, you might remember that where a capital crime is concerned
the standards are HIGHER.

That does NOT equate with the lower standards being INADEQUATE TO THE
TASK OR THE PRESERVATION OF PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS.

Capital punishment?
BIG LIBERTY INTEREST standard = beyond a SHADOW of doubt.

Thief facing even one day in jail is a LIBERTY INTEREST case.
Beyond a REASONABLE doubt is the standard.
Rules of evidence are well defined.

Civil (money) courts are not about LIBERTY INTERESTS.

Dependancy Court is deciding on LIBERTY INTERESTS
so the BOR calls for AT LEAST Beyond a REASONABLE doubt
as the burden of proof.

If you consider the seriousness of the LIBERTY INTERESTS
involved one could easily argue that Dependancy Courts
should use standards almost as high as capital punishment cases.

Removing Children is easily a more daunting LIBERTY
INTEREST issue than a mere prison sentence.

Certainly removing children should not be under
civil or money courts even though these cases do involve
a lot of MONEY for the agencies and their Dependancy courts.

You just make that up to try to make an argument that you cannot fly.

And people that have abused their children to severe injury or death
go to criminal court, bright boy.

What percentage of child removals are they?
The other 98% of removal cases are entitled to BOR protections also!
Removal of kids is a LIBERTY INTEREST.

No one in family court, risks, at that level, a life sentence or the
death penalty.

Child Removal is a LIBERTY INTEREST.
That's the deciding factor.
Some citizens have even plead guilty to crimes they did not commit
with the proimise that the children would not be removed.
Most people reasonably consider child removal
to be worse than doing prison time.

So NO, you do NOT get to insist on the same rules of evidence for your
case as a criminal court uses.

LIBERTY INTEREST demands it according to the Bill Of Rights.

The ones used are adequate to the task.

Civil (money) courts you mean?
Do the courts serve the agency FUNDING needs
or provide BOR safeguards for citizens?

Keeping you from giving little girls shower inspections.

You use Kangaroo Court to feed kids to the Foster System.