“As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” Pope John

2010-11-29T14:47:00.000-08:00

Please forgive the below if it is a repeat of anything but these are the typical questions I ask everyone. Some people just aren't aware of what they can do to help themselves yet. You would think we could TRUST CPS and our court system....

1. Where does the child's attorney stand on this? Do they even KNOW you exist? Our nephew's attorney did NOT know I had been involved until I hired an attorney myself;(
2. Have you EVER had custody or has the child EVER lived in your home with you? Can you file for de facto status with the court?
3. Does the child have a CASA worker? Another set of eyes could help you.
4. Have you filed a State Grievance with CPS? People RARELY win but trust me they get reprimanded behind the scenes.
5. Ask for a complete file FOIA from everywhere you can, CPS, State Adoptions, etc. there are forms to fill and send via certified mail. (This puts them on alert as well so be careful.)Be informed about what they have.
6. Get your government involved.......start at the bottom and go ALL the way up to Obama and Mrs. Obama. (Hillary Clinton was KEY in helping return the Brazilian boy back to his father just recently.)
7. Write the media.......remove juvenile names and replace with initials. I am talking the GREATS Oprah, Dr. Phil, America's Most Wanted, 20/20.......to your local media. Glenn Slacks is another good one.
8. Start a petition get friends, family members, neighbors, and pass it around........summarize your story to a page and get some signatures. (this also gets the word out, not everyone knows this happens)
9. Watch foster family blogs and discussion boards. Seriously foster parents can be great, but some are devious and JUST want a child and they tell EACH OTHER how to KEEP kids from their family. Babycenter has one and I know there are tons more out there. Join and ask questions too, CAREFULLY as many are watching. I have a blog and the link is below. I have been asked in court about it.......trust me they watch it;) Writing a book too.......
10. Fightcps.com has much information along with links to other sites. Join the discussion board and ask questions. READ and research there IS someone out there that has been through this.
11. Legal help, ask for it from adoption attorneys. I hate to say it but adoption is where the final cut is made. IF you can bypass those pitfalls then do it! 8700(f) a designated relinquishment from the birthparents may seem radical now but trust me if it gets that far.....you will need it to fight. Our appeal was won in CA a link is below. READ the appeals that may help you at www.findlaw.com .........more reading but do it! You need the case law behind you.
12. Document everything, phone calls, visits, letters, everything! Keep a case log going!
13. Network with others in this situation, FB, Myspace, Twitter........information is out there; go get it!
14. Ask for visits, phone visits, send packages, letters, cards to the child on a regular schedule.
15. Get foster parent AND adoptive parent certification. Take the classes required by your county and state. Have the home study and get approved. Do it on your own if you have to. State Adoptions is where we do that here in CA. Be ready to bring that child home. Get CPR certified. Line up child care if you will need it, child proof your home, get fire extinguishers, have an escape plan for a fire, lock up your medications........follow all licensing rules.
16. Pam Roach has a blog read what is going on there and contact her. http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/
17. Find and learn the family laws for your state along with Welfare Codes. If you ask for them CPS has to give you a book but it takes a LONG time so I have heard. I found mine online. ;)

All of the above is just a start. If you are doing all of it then KEEP it up;)
Please contact me with any questions. I am a busy mother to 5 children, married, and a human being. THAT said, I understand what it feels like to do everything right and still have my nephew in an adoptive home. It hurts. I will do what I can to help or at least try.

In re R.S. (2009) , Cal.App.4th

2010-11-29T13:29:00.000-08:00

Below is another repost of the appeal won in our favor. It is sometimes easier for me to repost on my blog (and refer to it here) than to put in each email;) Forgive the repeats everyone else. THANKS!

In re R.S. (2009) , Cal.App.4th
[No. A124021. First Dist., Div. One. Nov. 30, 2009.]
In re R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. M.T. et al., Objectors and Appellants.

(Superior Court of Del Norte County, No. JVSQ-07-6254, Robert W. Weir, Judge.)

(Opinion by Marchiano, P.J., with Margulies, J., and Banke, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Donna L. Hall and Valerie E. Sopher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Objectors and Appellants.

Janet G. Sherwood, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for the minor.

Dohn R. Henion, County Counsel and Ian W. Trueblood, Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent.

OPINION

MARCHIANO, P.J.-

The parents of the minor R.S. executed a relinquishment of parental rights with the state's Department of Social Services (State Adoptions) in conformance with Family Code section 8700. Subsequently, the Juvenile Court of Del Norte County terminated their parental rights. M.T. (Mother) and R.S. (Father) appeal from that order, made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. fn. 1 We consider first Father's contention--in which counsel for the minor has joined--that the juvenile court erred in holding the section 366.26 hearing and in issuing orders that terminated parental rights and granted a request by the minor's foster parents (Foster Parents) to be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Father argues that in doing so the court impermissibly interfered with a final, voluntary relinquishment the parents had made to State Adoptions. This relinquishment included a designation of persons other than the Foster Parents as the intended adoptive placement, namely, Mother's sister K.F. (Aunt) and Aunt's husband P.F. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) {Slip Opn. Page 2}

As discussed below, we agree with this contention and reverse the orders of the juvenile court. Secondly, we conclude that it is unnecessary to address Mother's contention, that the court violated notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because any defect in the notice provided to Indian tribes, concerning the minor's dependency proceeding, was rendered moot by the parents' voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions.

BACKGROUND
In November 2007, the county's Department of Health and Human Services (Department) initiated these proceedings as to the minor (born June 2006). On January 9, 2008, the juvenile court established dependency jurisdiction over the minor after sustaining allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j). After a dispositional hearing on January 25, 2008, the court directed the minor's removal for out-of-home placement and ordered the Department to provide reunification services to the parents. On this date, the minor was placed with Foster Parents, D.D. and K.D.

At the conclusion of the six-month status review hearing (six-month hearing) on August 5, 2008, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a hearing under section 366.26. Mother sought review of this order by petition for extraordinary writ. The underlying facts and procedural background up to this point are summarized in this court's decision denying Mother's petition. (M.T. v. Superior Court (Nov. 14, 2008, A122647) [nonpub. opn.].)

The juvenile court held a hearing on September 12, 2008, to review visitation between the parents and the minor pending the section 366.26 hearing. At this hearing, Mother's counsel indicated that her preference, since the termination of reunification efforts, was to have the minor adopted by Aunt, who resided in Clovis, Fresno County. On the other hand, Foster Parents had retained counsel and were "jumping through all the hoops in as vigorous a way as they can" in seeking to adopt the minor. For this reason, Mother's counsel moved for a hearing on her request to have the minor placed with Aunt {Slip Opn. Page 3} pursuant to the relative placement provisions of section 361.3. fn. 2 Counsel representing Aunt, who was present at the hearing, mentioned to the court that both Mother and Father were in the process of preparing a "designated relinquish[ment]" with State Adoptions--that is, a voluntary relinquishment of their parental rights that would include their designation of a person with whom they intended the minor to be placed for adoption. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) Minor's trial counsel supported Mother's request for a relative placement hearing, noting that Aunt had made "a very strong showing," and that "it's better normally . . . to leave the child with family rather than with foster parents." Counsel for the Department stated that State Adoptions should be involved in the hearing.

At the outset of the relative placement hearing under section 361.3, Aunt's counsel again noted that both parents were "prepared to sign" a relinquishment of their rights with State Adoptions, designating Aunt as the person they intended the minor to be placed for adoption. S.A. (Grandmother), the mother of both Aunt and Mother, appeared at the hearing and informed the court that the minor's placement with Aunt in Clovis would interfere with her relationship with the minor, as well as the minor's relationship with a seven-year-old half sibling, F., who lived with Grandmother. Grandmother further stated she herself was "being considered for adoptive placement" and, as she had previously adopted F., queried why she should not be able to adopt the minor as well. Mother testified to her desire that the minor be placed with Aunt, stating she and minor had lived with Aunt from before his birth until he was almost one year of age. Mother explained neither she nor Aunt had been able to maintain a relationship with F.--her biological daughter and the minor's half sibling--because Grandmother would not allow it. She indicated, however, that Aunt would ensure the minor had contact with the minor's two other half siblings, J. and C., who had been adopted by their paternal grandmother. The State Adoptions specialist for Del Norte County testified that she had only recently {Slip Opn. Page 4} received an approved home study of Aunt from the Fresno branch of State Adoptions. She stated that several families, including Foster Parents and Grandmother, were also interested in adopting the minor, and she had not yet completed her adoption assessment for the section 366.26 hearing. She recommended that the minor not be moved from his current placement with Foster Parents before she completed her assessment. At the conclusion of the hearing, on October 16, the court denied Mother's request for immediate placement of the minor with Aunt.

Meanwhile, both Foster Parents and Aunt and P.F. filed requests for de facto parent status. The juvenile court granted these requests on November 7 and November 13, 2008, respectively. On November 17, Foster Parents additionally filed a request to be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n).

The Department's report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing, completed and filed December 3, 2008, recommended that the juvenile court terminate the parents' parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan. The Department further recommended that the court designate Foster Parents as the prospective adoptive parents and that the minor remain placed with them for adoption.

The assessment by State Adoptions, completed on December 2, 2008, by the Arcata district manager, was submitted as an attachment to the Department's report. This assessment noted that in late November, Mother and Father had "completed designated relinquishments identifying [Aunt and P.F. as] the prospective adoptive parents." State Adoption's central office had "received and acknowledged" the completed relinquishment. State Adoptions thus regarded Aunt and P.F. as the minor's prospective adoptive parents, deeming them "suitable and committed to the adoption." It recommended that the juvenile court "take into consideration the birth parents' wishes, as reflected in their designated relinquishment." State Adoptions noted that "[g]iven the {Slip Opn. Page 5} aforementioned designated relinquishments, in which the birth parents voluntarily terminated their parental rights, it is not necessary for the court to also move to terminate the parental rights of [Mother and Father]." Declarations attached to the assessment averred that State Adoptions headquarters had issued an acknowledgment of the relinquishment on December 1. fn. 3

At the outset of the section 366.26 hearing, on December 5, 2008, the juvenile court noted that it had before it the Department's "report and its attachment." Counsel for the minor pointed out, "as a procedural matter" that both parents had "officially relinquished their claims," and thus there was no "necessity for the classical reason of a [section 366.26] hearing." Counsel for Foster Parents agreed, stating in effect there was no issue requiring a contested section 366.26 hearing, as the parents could not contest the termination of parental rights they had already relinquished. The court continued the hearing without making any determination on this point.

At the continued hearing, on December 19, 2008, the juvenile court admitted the Department's report and the State Adoptions assessment into evidence. Counsel for Aunt and P.F. expressed his view that "the only issue to be resolved" was whether State Adoptions determined there would be "serious detriment" to the minor if he were removed from his current placement with Foster Parents. Counsel for Foster Parents stated there was the additional issue of Foster Parents' pending request for designation as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Father's {Slip Opn. Page 6} counsel made an objection to the court's termination of parental rights based on the designated relinquishment of those rights. Counsel for Mother essentially expressed willingness to submit on the Department's report and the State Adoptions assessment. The court, meanwhile, twice posed the question whether "there [was] any reason not to complete our objectives under [section] 366.26," that is, to "terminate parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan." Asking for any disagreement, and "[h]earing none," the court proceeded to terminate both parents' parental rights, made a finding that the minor was adoptable, and ordered a permanent plan of adoption.

Counsel for Foster Parents then renewed his request that they be designated as prospective adoptive parents pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (n). Counsel for Aunt and P.F. objected on the ground that State Adoptions had already determined that placement with Aunt was appropriate pursuant to the parents' designated relinquishments. The juvenile court did not find this objection persuasive, deeming the provisions of section 366.26, subdivision (n), to be a procedure "removing" State Adoptions' placement discretion "in a limited way." The court concluded that Foster Parents, Aunt and P.F., and Grandmother were all to be designated as prospective adoptive parents, and continued the matter for an evidentiary hearing relating to the minor's ultimate adoptive placement.

The parents' appeal followed. (§ 395.)

DISCUSSION
I. The Juvenile Court's Orders Impermissibly Impaired the Voluntary Relinquishment

A. Father's Contention

Father argues that the juvenile court erred in holding the hearing under section 366.26 after the voluntary relinquishment he and Mother made to State Adoptions. He points out that the juvenile court had no right to limit their ability to make a voluntary relinquishment to a public adoptions agency that was willing to accept it. (§ 361, subd. (b).) Father also points out that, once their designated relinquishment became final--before the date set for the section 366.26 hearing--State Adoptions was vested with exclusive custody and control of the minor until an order of adoption is granted. (Fam. {Slip Opn. Page 7} Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) In Father's view, the court's decision to hold the section 366.26 hearing, and to make orders that included one that terminated his and Mother's parental rights and one that granted Foster Parents' request for designation as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n), was error that impermissibly and prejudicially interfered with their voluntary relinquishment to State Adoptions, with its designation of Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive parents. Appellate counsel for the minor has filed a responding brief that joins in this argument.

B. The Statutory Scheme

Father's contention calls for a detailed examination of the Family Code provisions governing voluntary relinquishment and the applicable provisions of the dependency law. Once a child is adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court, that court is authorized to issue orders that limit the control a parent may exercise over that child, to the extent necessary to protect the child. (§ 361, subd. (a).) The juvenile court may not, however, "limit the ability of a parent to voluntarily relinquish his or her child to [State Adoptions] or to a licensed county adoption agency at any time while the child is a dependent child of the juvenile court, if [State Adoptions or the county adoption agency] is willing to accept the relinquishment." (§ 361, subd. (b).)

A birth parent may relinquish a child to State Adoptions or a licensed adoption agency fn. 4 by a written statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged before an authorized official of State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (a).) To be effective, a certified copy of the relinquishment must be sent to and filed with State Adoptions. (Fam. Code, § 8700, {Slip Opn. Page 8} subd. (e)(1).) As noted above, a relinquishment generally becomes final when State Adoptions sends a written acknowledgment of receipt of the relinquishment, or in any event after the lapse of 10 business days after State Adoptions receives the relinquishment for filing. (See fn. 3, ante.)

After a relinquishment becomes final, it may be rescinded only by mutual consent of the relinquishing parent and State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(2).) There is, however, one exception. As was done by Father and Mother in this case, a birth parent may name in his or her voluntary relinquishment the person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the child for adoption be made by State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency may not accept a relinquishment under Family Code section 8700--including one that designates the intended adoptive parent--unless the agency determines it is able to place the child for adoption. fn. 5 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 35135, subd. (a)(2).) Nevertheless, the provisions for voluntary relinquishment recognize that State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency, even after accepting a designated relinquishment, might ultimately decide either not to place the child with the designated persons or to remove the child from placement with the designated persons prior to granting of adoption. In such an event, State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency must provide notice of its decision to the relinquishing birth parent. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (g).) The relinquishing birth parent then has 30 days from the mailing of the notice in which to rescind his or her relinquishment, or to rescind that relinquishment and make a new one that designates a different person or persons for adoptive placement. fn. 6 (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (h).) {Slip Opn. Page 9} With the exception of this right to rescind a designated relinquishment when the designated placement is terminated before an adoption order is granted, the filing of a voluntary relinquishment with State Adoptions operates to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the child. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (j).)

When a birth parent has voluntarily relinquished a child for adoption under Family Code section 8700, and that child is a dependant of the juvenile court, the adoption agency accepting the relinquishment must, within five court days, provide written notice of the relinquishment to the juvenile court having jurisdiction, counsel for the minor, if any, and counsel for the relinquishing parent, if any. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (i).)

When a child is freed for adoption--whether by voluntary relinquishment under Family Code section 8700 or by termination of parental rights--the agency to whom the child has been freed becomes responsible for the care of the child, and is entitled to exclusive custody and control of the child until an order of adoption is granted. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) The agency to whom the child has been freed for adoption may, in its discretion, terminate a temporary care placement or an adoptive placement at any time before an adoption order is granted. (Fam. Code § 8704, subd. (a).) The juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a dependent child freed for adoption, until the order of adoption is granted. (See §§ 366.29, subd. (c), 366.3, subd. (a).) Its oversight of placement decisions by the agency having exclusive custody and control however, is limited. Once a petition for adoption has been filed by the prospective adoptive parents, the agency having exclusive custody and control may not remove the child from an adoptive placement with these parents without approval of the court--that is, the juvenile court or family law court in which the adoption petition has been filed. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (b); see § 366.26, subd. (e).) But before the prospective adoptive parents file an adoption petition, the juvenile court may interfere with or disapprove a placement decision made by the agency having exclusive custody and control only if the agency's decision is " 'patently absurd or unquestionably not in the minor's best interests.' " (In re Harry N. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1397, quoting Department of Social Services v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 721, 725 (Theodore D.).) {Slip Opn. Page 10}

This limitation on the juvenile court's oversight of the adoption agency's placement decisions was modified by 2005 legislation. "If the court, by order or judgment, declares the child free from custody and control of both parents, or one parent if the other does not have custody and control . . . [State Adoptions or the] licensed adoption agency . . . shall be entitled to the exclusive care and control of the child at all times until a petition for adoption is granted, except as specified in subdivision (n). . . ." (§ 366.26, subd. (j), italics added.) Subdivision (n), in turn, authorizes the juvenile court "at a [section 366.26] hearing or any time thereafter, [to] designate a current caretaker fn. 7 as a prospective adoptive parent" if the caretaker has taken care of the child for at least six months, has expressed a commitment to adoption, and has taken at least one step to facilitate the adoption process. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(1), italics added.) The designation gives the caretaker limited standing in the dependency proceeding, essentially requiring the agency to give the caretaker notice of any proposed decision it has made to remove the child from placement with the caretaker, permitting the caretaker to file a petition with the juvenile court objecting to the proposed removal, and permitting removal of the child only if the court determines removal is in the child's best interest. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(3); see Wayne F. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1334, 1342.)

Finally, we note that section 366.26 generally outlines the procedures by which the juvenile court selects a permanent plan for a dependent child "in order to provide [a] stable, permanent home[]" for that child, choosing, in order of preference, a plan of either adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) The court may select a plan of adoption only after ordering the termination of parental rights, and, if the petition for adoption is filed with the juvenile court, may proceed with the adoption only after the appellate rights of the natural parents have been exhausted. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1); see also § 366.26, subds. (c)(1) & (e).) {Slip Opn. Page 11}

But section 366.26 is not the exclusive procedure to terminate parental rights in a dependency proceeding. With regard to a dependent child, the "exclusive procedures for permanently terminating parental rights" are those specified in section 366.26, and also those specified in several Family Code sections including section 8700. (§ 366.26, subd. (a).)

C. The Interplay of Voluntary Relinquishment and Dependency Law

The foregoing provisions, read together, clearly evidence a legislative intent to preserve without limitation the right of a birth parent of a dependent child to relinquish voluntarily his or her parental rights and free the child for adoption through a public adoption agency. (§§ 361, subd. (b), 366.26, subd. (a); Fam. Code, §§ 8700, 8704.) This right includes the ability to participate in the adoption process to the extent of designating a relative or other person with whom the birth parent intends the public adoption agency to place the child for adoption. It also includes the right--notwithstanding the voluntary relinquishment of all other parental rights--to rescind the relinquishment within the specified 30-day period, in the event that the public adoption agency terminates the designated placement before adoption is final. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subds. (f), (g) & (h).) These rights necessarily continue throughout the dependency proceeding, at least until the juvenile court has ordered the involuntary termination of parental rights, an order that obviously leaves the birth parent with no further rights to relinquish.

Here the juvenile court, at its hearing on December 5, 2008, had before it the State Adoptions assessment and attached declarations. The assessment and declarations indicated that the parents had completed a voluntary, designated relinquishment that had been accepted by State Adoptions, a public adoption agency, and that duly became final on December 1, when State Adoptions headquarters gave written acknowledgment of the relinquishment. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(1)(A).) The court was on notice, as the minor's trial counsel pointed out, that there was no "necessity" for a section 366.26 hearing, at least in its "classical" sense, because the parents had exercised their right under section 361, subdivision (b), to relinquish their parental rights and free the minor for adoption through a public adoption agency. {Slip Opn. Page 12}

Neither the dependency law nor the applicable rules of court specify what the juvenile court must do in such circumstances--that is, when the parents make a voluntary designated relinquishment that becomes final after the court has set a section 366.26 hearing, but before the date set for the section 366.26 hearing. The scheme outlined above, however, makes it clear what a juvenile court may not do. The court is barred by section 361, subdivision (b), from making any order that interferes with a birth parent's final, voluntary designated relinquishment.

The orders made by the juvenile court in this case impermissibly interfered with the parents' relinquishment in several respects. First and foremost, the court was no longer authorized to order the involuntary termination of parental rights. The parents had effectively terminated their parental rights through the alternative procedure of voluntary relinquishment, an alternative expressly authorized by section 366.26, subdivision (a). Moreover, an order of involuntary termination, once it becomes final, is conclusive and binding in nature, both on the parents and the minor, and the juvenile court cannot set it aside. fn. 8 (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(1).) As such, it would necessarily interfere with and effectively cut off the parents' one remaining right to rescind their relinquishment in the event the designated placement was terminated before adoption became final. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subds. (g) & (h).)

Because the court could not properly make an order that involuntarily terminated Father's and Mother's parental rights, it was also precluded from making an order under section 366.26 placing the minor for adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) The minor had already been placed for adoption through the final designated relinquishment, at which point State Adoptions was entitled to exclusive custody and control of the minor until the granting of an order of adoption. (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a).) The most that the juvenile could properly do, under theses circumstances, was to hold a hearing for the purpose of vacating the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, and state on the record its reasons for doing so. That is, the selection of a permanent plan under section 366.26 had {Slip Opn. Page 13} become unnecessary because the parents and State Adoptions, through a final, voluntary designated relinquishment, had freed the minor for adoption through State Adoptions, a public adoption agency.

Finally, it was error for the juvenile court in this instance to issue an order granting the request of the minor's current caregivers, Foster Parents, for designation as prospective adoptive parents. Such an order may only be made at a section 366.26 hearing or thereafter. (§ 366.26, subd. (n)(1).) But the court in this instance could not accomplish the purposes of a section 366.26 hearing. It was precluded by the final voluntary designated relinquishment from ordering the involuntary termination of parental rights, and thus from ordering the minor placed for adoption. Nor was the court authorized to select any other permanent plan, as the relinquishment had effectively accomplished such a selection by freeing the minor for adoption through State Adoptions. As we have noted, the only proper course open to the court was to vacate the section 366.26 hearing, and thus it was premature for the court to consider properly any request for designation as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n). More importantly, the order designating Foster Parents as prospective adoptive parents was in critical conflict with the Father's and Mother's final designation of Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive placement, in violation of section 361, subdivision (b) and Family Code section 8700, subdivision (f).

The Department argues that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with the section 366.26 hearing in order to address the protections offered to current caregivers under subdivision (n) of section 366.26, because those provisions are applicable "[n]otwithstanding section 8704 of the Family Code." (See § 366.26, subd. (n)(1).) The simple answer to this is that "exclusive custody and control" provisions of Family Code section 8704 apply when a child has been freed for adoption by "either relinquishment or termination of parental rights." (Fam. Code, § 8704, subd. (a), italics added.) When this language is read together with section 366.26, subdivision (n)(1), it is clear that the procedures of section 366.26, subdivision (n), are intended to limit the "exclusive custody and control" provisions of Family Code section 8704 only when the child has been freed {Slip Opn. Page 14} for adoption through a juvenile court order terminating parental rights involuntarily in a section 366.26 hearing. The protections for current caregivers under section 366.26, subdivision (n), do not come into play when a child has been freed for adoption through the voluntary relinquishment procedures of Family Code section 8700. Any such interpretation would allow the error that occurred in this case--a designation of current caregivers as prospective adoptive parents that actively conflicts with a voluntary designated relinquishment in violation of the protections afforded to birth parents under section 361, subdivision (b).

The Department protests that such an interpretation would allow "different standards" to be applied to a child depending on whether his or her birth parents relinquished their rights or had them terminated involuntarily by the juvenile court. However, the scheme outlined above is designed to balance the best interests of a dependent child with the rights of birth parents. On the one hand, a birth parent is entitled to contest a proposed involuntary termination of his or her parental rights, and when there is an involuntary termination of parental rights, the juvenile court may not proceed with nor finalize any adoption until the parents' appellate rights have been exhausted. (§ 366.26, subds. (e) & (j).) On the other hand, when birth parents relinquish their parental rights voluntarily, they are not only able to participate in the adoption process, but their relinquishment also obviates the need for a contested hearing to terminate their rights involuntarily. The child relinquished voluntarily, may, in turn, achieve the stability of a final adoption without the delay attendant upon the exhaustion of the parents' appeal from an involuntary termination of parental rights. fn. 9 {Slip Opn. Page 15}

The Department's other arguments are similarly unpersuasive. It suggests, for example, that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with a section 366.26 hearing in order to implement the protections of section 366.26, subdivision (k). That subdivision sets out a "preference" for the application for adoptive placement made by a current caretaker when the agency making the placement determines that the child "has substantial emotional ties to the . . . caretaker . . . and removal . . . would be seriously detrimental to the child's emotional well-being." (§ 366.26, subd. (k).) That subdivision, however, had little or no relevance by the time of the date set for the section 366.26 hearing. The "preference" refers only to the processing of the application for adoptive placement and the completion of the family study. (§ 366.26, subd. (k).) The Department's report completed immediately prior to the scheduled section 366.26 hearing indicates that the applications for adoptive placement and home studies had already been completed for Foster Parents, as well as for Aunt and P.F.

The Department suggests finally that the juvenile court was entitled to proceed with the section 366.26 hearing because none of the parties clearly disputed the need for the court to select a permanent plan. We disagree. As noted above, the court was on notice that a final, voluntary designated relinquishment had been accomplished prior to scheduled commencement of the section 366.26 hearing, and the minor's trial counsel pointed out there was no longer any need to accomplish the "classical" purposes of a section 366.26 hearing.

D. Conclusion

We conclude, in summary, that when, as here, the birth parents make a voluntary designated relinquishment to a public adoption agency under Family Code section 8700, and the relinquishment becomes final after the section 366.26 hearing has been set, but {Slip Opn. Page 16} before it is scheduled to commence, the relinquishment effectively precludes the need for a hearing to select a permanent plan under section 366.26. The juvenile court is precluded from making any order that interferes with the parents' unlimited right to make such a voluntary relinquishment to a public adoption agency. In this case, the court made such orders, both when it terminated parental rights involuntarily, and when it designated Foster Parents as prospective adoptive parents under section 366.26, subdivision (n). These orders not only violated the parents' statutory rights under section 361, subdivision (b), but were clearly prejudicial to the designation they made under Family Code section 8700, naming Aunt and P.F. as the intended adoptive placement. We accordingly reverse the order of December 19, 2008.

II. ICWA Notice Violations

At the outset of the proceeding, Mother stated she had a grandmother who was a member of a Cherokee or Choctaw tribe, while Father stated he thought he might have Blackfeet "ancestry." The Department sent notice to these tribes, including such information about their grandparents and great-grandparents as Mother and Father had provided. Based on the tribes' responses, the Department determined, by the time of the six-month hearing, that ICWA did not apply. At the six-month hearing itself, counsel for Mother stated that Aunt, who was not present, had provided counsel with documents indicating that Aunt was applying for a "certificate of degree of Indian blood" from the Chickasaw tribe--a tribe not previously identified in the proceeding. Grandmother, who was present at the hearing, informed the court that neither her own mother nor her grandmother had an "affiliation with any tribe." The court stated that, since the documents did not establish any specific information indicating Chickasaw ancestry, and since Grandmother denied such ancestry, there was "no credible basis" for the claim, and ruled that the minor was not an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA.

Mother argues, essentially, that the Department failed to investigate adequately the parents' initial claims of Indian ancestry, to provide the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Blackfeet tribes with more detailed information than what she and Father had provided. She also claims the juvenile court violated its ongoing duty to provide notice when it {Slip Opn. Page 17} declined to provide notice to the Chickasaw tribe after being informed at the six-month hearing of Aunt's application to that tribe.

The duty of the Department and juvenile court under ICWA, to inquire regarding Indian affiliation, and to provide notice and an opportunity to intervene to appropriate Indian tribes, is one that applies in dependency proceedings that involve a child the court knows or has reason to know is an Indian child, and that may result in an involuntary foster care placement, guardianship, or involuntary termination of parental rights and adoptive placement. (25 U.S.C. § 1912; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.480; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481.) After the parents' voluntary relinquishment freed the minor for adoption through State Adoptions, the minor was effectively freed from the dependency proceedings to the extent they might result in involuntary foster care placement, guardianship, or adoptive placement following an involuntary termination of parental rights. At that point, State Adoptions, as the adoption agency accepting relinquishment, became subject to separate provisions of ICWA relating to voluntary relinquishments by the parents of an Indian child. (See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1915; Fam. Code, § 8606.5.) The inquiry and notice provisions no longer applied pending the outcome of the voluntary adoption proceeding. Accordingly, we deem events subsequent to the court's ICWA status ruling, made at the six-month hearing, rendered Mother's objections moot, and deem it unnecessary to consider the merits of those objections.

DISPOSITION
The order of December 19, 2008, is reversed. fn. 10

Margulies, J., and Banke, J., concurred.

FN 1. Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

FN 2. Prior to the dispositional hearing, Aunt herself had made a request to the Department for relative placement. It appears this earlier request was not granted largely because a relative placement in Fresno County, at that point, would have interfered with the parents' reunification efforts in Del Norte County.

FN 3. When a voluntary relinquishment such as that made by Father and Mother is made to State Adoptions or some other licensed adoption agency, the agency accepting the relinquishment must send a copy to State Adoptions for filing. The relinquishment becomes final 10 business days after receipt of the filing by State Adoptions or when State Adoptions sends written acknowledgment of receipt, whichever is earlier (unless a longer period for finality is necessary due to causes beyond the control of State Adoptions). (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(1).) With one exception discussed below, a voluntary relinquishment, once final, may be rescinded only by mutual consent of the relinquishing parents and the agency that accepted the relinquishment. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (e)(2).) The filing of the relinquishment with State Adoptions operates to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities, again with one exception discussed below in the opinion. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (j).)

FN 4. A "licensed adoption agency" is one licensed by State Adoptions to provide adoption services, including both county adoption agencies and private adoption agencies. (Fam. Code, § 8530.) While section 361, subdivision (b), prohibits a juvenile court from limiting the ability of a birth parent to make a voluntary relinquishment of a dependent child either to State Adoptions or a county adoption agency, the court may, nevertheless, limit the ability of a birth parent to make a voluntary relinquishment of a dependent child to a licensed private adoption agency, pursuant to its authority to limit parental control under section 361, subdivision (a). (Teresa J. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 366, 375-376.)

FN 5. Thus, for example, the adoptions specialist in this case testified at the relative placement hearing that State Adoptions would not "randomly" accept a designated relinquishment, but would first need to complete an approved home study of the designated placement and determine additionally that the designated placement was in the child's best interest.

FN 6. Of course, to be effective the new designation must be accepted by State Adoptions or the licensed adoption agency and filed with State Adoptions. (See Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (h)(3).)

FN 7. Given the limitation to designate only "current caretakers," the juvenile court in this instance had no authority to designate Grandmother or Aunt and P.F.-in addition to Foster Parents-as prospective adoptive parents.

FN 8. There is a limited exception applicable when the plan for adoption has been unsuccessful after at least three years. (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(2).)

FN 9. Such delay is illustrated by the period that has elapsed since the order of December 19, 2008, the subject of this appeal. We note also that the provisions of subdivision (n) of section 366.26 originated with Statutes 2005, chapter 626, section 1 (Sen. Bill No. 218). To determine legislative intent it is appropriate to consider the floor analysis of this bill. (See People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1075.) The Senate Floor Analysis for Senate Bill No. 218 of 2005 indicates that the procedures to protect current caregivers, now set out in section 366.26, subdivision (n), were designed to address concerns arising during the more delayed "period between termination of parental rights and the granting of a petition for adoption," as distinguished from the more expedited period between voluntary relinquishment and the granting of a petition for adoption. (See Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Bill No. 218 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) Sept. 6, 2005, par. 3.) [as of Nov. 30, 2009].)

FN 10. The motion of minor's counsel to strike references to Dr. Blake Carmichael's report from respondent's brief is denied as moot in light of the controlling issues on appeal.

This is a repost of a letter;)

2010-11-29T13:19:00.000-08:00

Lately my brain has been busy fighting itself. It seems that being kind isn't working much to my advantage. As I pray on the right thing to do I am reminded that I am not the only one suffering right now. Letters and emails from family members have picked up again. As I struggle to answer each one with the attention it deserves I feel the pain even more deeply. ;(

Love is never a bad thing so I am letting that feeling wash over me today.

My timeline is up to date. My book is moving along. Things are good in many ways and I have much to be grateful for;)
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!
To all of the scheming people involved in corruption everywhere.......well I had better not say it. ;) All in good time.

SAVING BABY R.

To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. -Confucius

My purpose for writing this is not to paint foster parents as villains. In most cases they are the opposite. Foster parents our very important and should be looked at with high regards and respect by society.
They are there to provide temporary love, support and a family like atmosphere when children are taking away from their biological parents. And at times, the best place for the child to remain permanetly if reunification does not take place with their biological parents should be with the foster parents through legal adoption.
But foster parents should not fight the child’s family when the family has jumped through every hoop required by the State for proper placement especially when the State Adoptions itself recommend the placement with family.
If I may address the “foster parents” of my nephew:
First I would say thank you, thank you for having a heart for children. Being a “foster parent” is a difficult job to say the least. But my thank you ceases there. I find it terribly difficult to praise “foster parents” who would fight a very loving, very qualified and very dedicated family for the return of our beloved family member. Our nephew is very much missed by eight aunts and uncles, ten cousins, two siblings and numerous extended family members. All who did nothing to deserve for him to be taken from us.

We have been there for him since before birth. We anxiously awaited his arrival and were ecstatic to see him take his first breath of this earth. When CPS took him from his biological parents we ALL stepped up and made it very clear we are his family and we want him to be returned to us. You were aware that we have always been here, you met us, we sent pictures of him and his cousins. We provided clothes, toys, valuable family medical information, prayers, support, love and never ending desire to have him remain in the family God blessed him with.

And yet, for your own selfish reasons you did not do what “foster parents” are inteneded to do. You did not promote reunification; you did not care more for this child and his immeasurable love from his family. You cared only for yourselves. You were given proof the State Cleared and even recommends permanent placement to be given to his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought. You attended court date after court dates where you first handed saw his family love and dedication to him and still you fought. You were aware of his biological parents’ wishes and signed designated relinquishment for him to be placed with his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought.

This fight by you cannot be seen as heroic or you are doing this for the best interest for the child. It could only be seen as organized kidnapping. You should be seen for the villains you are, not heroic “foster parents” it’s quit unreasonable for the foster parents to fight this child you claim to love family and create this acrimonious atmosphere between yourselves and this child’s biological family. This is not a child who has no suitable family to provide permanency for him.

If that were the case then you should be commended to want to provide a loving home and family for a child where there isn’t one. But this has never been the case. You should be ashamed for doing everything in your power to attempt to take a very much loved and wanted member from a family.

All I am left to say is if you are successful, if the Judge determines our nephew is to remain with you, this will come back to bite you, regardless of the outcome. This child will be an adult longer than he is a child, he will learn the truth, and he will be shown the sacrifices happily made by his biological family to keep him with us. And he will see how you kidnapped him. His family will not be erased, his DNA will not be changed and his forever bond with our family will not be stolen forever.

Our family’s hearts are right, we love Baby R. and we want him to remain where God intended for him to be, with our family, with HIS family.
You do not have to be a parent to shudder at the word kidnapping nor do you have to be a parent to feel the pain of the loss of a child. All you need is to have a relationship with a child to know the forever ache of the mere thought of them to be taken from you. I am a parent, a proud mother of two.
I am currently experiencing and grieving a kidnapping in my family today but not of my own biological children a kidnapping of my blood related nephew. This kidnapping did not initiate the Amber Alert, the police are not searching for a criminal, and there will be no court date to see the person responsible for taking my nephew be found guilty. This story may sound like a bad Lifetime movie plot but this unfortunately is my reality, but the kidnappers in my Lifetime story are hidden and protected under the guise of “foster parent.”
My nephew was taking from his biological parents and placed into foster care in November 2007. Since that date, my sister and I have made it very clear that we love our nephew and both sought to have him placed with us. Child Protective Services (CPS) prolonged the case and placed our nephew with a foster family that have already adopted a number of foster children.
My sister was cleared by California State Adoptions for permanent placement of our two year old nephew; she and her husband were also named as defacto parent. The foster parents knew our families request and intent to have our nephew remain in our family and they not only fought us but hired their own attorney. The foster parents frustrated visitation with our family, and they unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order on our nephew’s biological mother. Moreover, they have done everything in there power to keep the extended biological family out of his life.
My sister and I have entered into an unbridled war with the foster parents for our nephew to remain with his biological family. His biological parents signed a legal designated relinquishment to severe there rights of their son to be specifically placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. The foster parents still would not cease in there efforts to thwart his reunification with his biological family.
Today, the only thing standing in his way of being returned to his biological loving and highly committed family is the foster parents desire to adopt him. California State Adoptions has done a complete investigation of the maternal aunt and uncle and highly recommends permanent placement and adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle. These are not foster parents who desire to help a child who does not have love or family ties; these are foster parents who out of there own selfish wishes are fighting to keep him.
This situation is not one where family did not make there presence and wishes for the child known to the child’s foster parents until the eleventh hour. The foster parents knew our families intent the entire time, and they still selfishly sought the child. These specific foster parents should be ashamed of their lack of compassion and there intent to keep this child from his natural biological family. This act by the foster parents is not praiseworthy and should not be commended; it is without a doubt malicious. They are attempting to take this child from his family who has done nothing but show love, support and the desire to have him remain in their family. The foster parents are trying to adopt a child that should not be adopted as he has a very supportive and State Approved natural family that wants him.
In the next few weeks the fate of my nephew will be decided by a Crescent City Judge. Our two year old nephew will either be permitted to be adopted as requested by his biological parents and as recommended by California State Adoptions by his maternal aunt and uncle. Or he will be left with his foster parents to be adopted. Unfortunately if the latter is to happen this case will not end there, there will be an appeal filed by our family immediately.
Baby R.’s proud Maternal Aunt Lisa
lisakturner1977@yahoo.com

Cup of Joe for a Joe

2010-07-12T07:56:00.000-07:00

This is BY FAR one of the best things that I have EVER done, the best $20 I have spent!

www.greenbeanscoffee.com

I was able to send 10 cups of joe to our troops. In return I was given 7 thank you notes, to date. What a wonderful way to thank our service members!! It was easy and only took a few minutes to let them know that we remember and pray for them. Please check it out.

Nancy Schaefer, former Senator on CPS...................................

2010-01-15T22:19:00.000-08:00

http://www.eagleforumofga.org/articles_and_alerts.php?filter=6

Just copy and paste the link to read what a former Senator said.........wow! It makes my blood BOIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone needs to STOP them now..........that someone is me, you, and every other American who loves a child.
This is REAL folks! I wish that it hadn't taken my nephew being detained from his parents and denied his family for me to see it. BUT I see it now.

Martin Luther King Jr. Quotes........................

2010-01-15T21:58:00.000-08:00

•"A right delayed is a right denied."
•"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them."
•"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."
•"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
•"I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land."
•"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
•"I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law."
•"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
•"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
•"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
•"If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream."

~~~~~Wow is all I can say.~~~~~~~

State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics | KOMO News - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Seattle, Washington | News

2010-01-11T22:25:00.000-08:00

State lawmakers fired up over startling CPS statistics | KOMO News - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Seattle, Washington | News

American Family Rights Association :: The Voice of America's Families©

2010-01-08T20:55:00.000-08:00

American Family Rights Association :: The Voice of America's Families©

Parental Rights

2010-01-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

ParentalRights.org
P.O. Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20134-1090
Phone: 540-751-1200
Email: info@parentalrights.org

Check out their site and read the proposed Parental Right Amendment!!! Boy do we NEED it!!! Thank goodness people are becoming more aware.
Let your voice be heard.

Parentalrights.org - Protecting Children by Empowering Parents -- TROUBLE IN PARADISE

2010-01-08T09:46:00.000-08:00

Parentalrights.org - Protecting Children by Empowering Parents -- TROUBLE IN PARADISE

Avatar awakens strong feelings.

2010-01-06T20:42:00.000-08:00

WOW the new movie AVATAR is wonderful!!! ;) What an amazing film to watch. The special effects are awesome to watch and the storlyline is well written. I easily fell in love with the believable characters and definitely rooted for the GOOD GUYS!

AND just WHO are the good guys? Is it the ALIEN humans trying to STEAL and take over the planet's resources OR is it the native people on the planet who try to defend themselves? Are the humans who turn on their OWN doing the right thing?

So many questions..........I know my answers.

I was vividly reminded of the Indians and their struggle for their land and lives when the white man (ANY men) came to claim their land! It was very sad and heart wrenching to watch and imagine the individual stories. People died and all they wanted to do was to KEEP their way of life and protect their people...children! hmmmm?

Many things remind me of these tragic times in our history. Funny how Avatar brought it to life tonight for me. I am SO sad for the people who have been wronged in this way.

I HOPE if I were there during ANY of those times, I PRAY that I would be one who would STAND up and fight for the good guys! AS I STAND now and fight for relative's rights to KEEP their family members / children!

The Indians, Slaves, Segregated, Jews..........the list is not a short one. The suffering is unimaginable! The pain is endless and no words can describe the feeling of loss.

Stolen children, land, lives.........when will it stop? When?

NEVER ever forget that just because someone says it is LEGAL or the NORM, does not make it OK to take what does NOT belong to you!
Stealing is not OK. Blood ties cannot be broken. A piece of paper does not make or break you. Children are not a commodity and cannot be sold to the highest bidder; no matter their color, race, or background.

Stealing a child does not make you a parent. Rehoming a child does not make you a doer of good deeds!! Remaining quiet and NOT helping these children return home does not make you neutral.........it makes you an accomplice!

Things WILL change............

Article: Applying The Goldman Standard To Foster Care

2010-01-01T22:14:00.000-08:00

http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/12/applying-goldman-standard-to-foster.html

The above link is to an article that I found SO very interesting!

I am quite happy that this man has his son back. I am saddened that it took so VERY long and SAD that this is NOT what happens every day in America when relatives FIGHT CPS or State Adoptions for THEIR nephews (relatives)!

Even if the child lives with you for the first 10 months of his life (along with his mother),
then they move out of town,
he is detained at 17 months of age,
within hours YOU contact CPS and request both temporary & permanent placement,
YOU follow up with WRITTEN request,
YOU send history & medical information for his welfare to agency,
YOU keep calling & sending letters, gifts, photos, etc.,
YOU request an application,
THEY take 7 months to approve you for relative placement,
THEY never notify you of rights & court dates,
YOU ask for visits,
YOU drive multiple times (12 hrs. one way) for visits & court,
YOU retain an attorney,
YOU ask what ELSE you can do to receive placement,
THEY place child in fost/adopt home,
THEY don't tell court OR minor's counsel about YOU at ALL,
YOUR attorney notifies court & minor's counsel you EXIST,
NEPHEW'S PARENTS ask to sign over rights to YOU to adopt,
THEY deny, stall, lie............FOR MONTHS (5 months denying FAMILY CODE 8700(f)),
YOU ask for an application for an adoptive home study,
THEY DENY you one,
YOU track down nearest State Adoptions and ask for application,
THEY (Fresno;) allow you to apply!!! ;) ,
THEY (Fresno;) approve your adoptive home study,
THEY frustrate visitation and PERJURE themselves in court,
THEY finally allow PARENTS to sign their designated relinqishments 8700(f),
YOU complain to their superiors & ombudsman,
THEY mostly ignore you,
THEY name you PAP's (Prospective Adoptive Parents),
YOU watch in court as they SAY they signed assessment but don't AGREE with it,
THEY keep child with foster parents,
APPEALs are filed,
APPEAL is won in our FAVOR & published,
THEY STILL keep nephew and frustrate visits...........

...........to be continued!!!!!!

State Ombudsman Grievances

2010-01-01T21:32:00.001-08:00

California State Ombudsman for Foster Care
Karen Grace-Kaho
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M.S. 9-025
Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 651-6560
(916) 651-6568 FAX
Toll Free 1-877-846-1602 E-Mail: fosteryouthhelp@dss.ca.gov
Website: www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov

Child Welfare Services Program

2010-01-01T21:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/ord/entres/getinfo/pdf/cws1.PDF

The above link is the the Child Welfare Services Program.

If you are dealing with an agency, you should know their rules and regulations!

Don't let them use your ignorance against you to keep your relatives. If you don't hold them accountable then no one will.

Family Code Section 8700

2010-01-01T21:10:00.001-08:00

FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 8700

8700. (a) Either birth parent may relinquish a child to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for adoption by a written
statement signed before two subscribing witnesses and acknowledged
before an authorized official of the department or agency. The
relinquishment, when reciting that the person making it is entitled
to the sole custody of the child and acknowledged before the officer,
is prima facie evidence of the right of the person making it to the
sole custody of the child and the person's sole right to relinquish.
(b) A relinquishing parent who is a minor has the right to
relinquish his or her child for adoption to the department or a
licensed adoption agency, and the relinquishment is not subject to
revocation by reason of the minority.
(c) If a relinquishing parent resides outside this state and the
child is being cared for and is or will be placed for adoption by the
department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing parent
may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a written
statement signed by the relinquishing parent before a notary on a
form prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an
authorized official of the department or agency, that signifies the
willingness of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(d) If a relinquishing parent and child reside outside this state
and the child will be cared for and will be placed for adoption by
the department or a licensed adoption agency, the relinquishing
parent may relinquish the child to the department or agency by a
written statement signed by the relinquishing parent, after that
parent has satisfied the following requirements:
(1) Prior to signing the relinquishment, the relinquishing parent
shall have received, from a representative of an agency licensed or
otherwise approved to provide adoption services under the laws of the
relinquishing parent's state of residence, the same counseling and
advisement services as if the relinquishing parent resided in this
state.
(2) The relinquishment shall be signed before a representative of
an agency licensed or otherwise approved to provide adoption services
under the laws of the relinquishing parent's state of residence
whenever possible or before a licensed social worker on a form
prescribed by the department, and previously signed by an authorized
official of the department or agency, that signifies the willingness
of the department or agency to accept the relinquishment.
(e) (1) The relinquishment authorized by this section has no
effect until a certified copy is sent to, and filed with, the
department. The licensed adoption agency shall send that copy by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier or
messenger, with proof of delivery, to the department no earlier than
the end of the business day following the signing thereof. The agency
shall inform the birth parent that during this time period he or she
may request that the relinquishment be withdrawn and that, if he or
she makes the request, the relinquishment shall be withdrawn. The
relinquishment shall be final 10 business days after receipt of the
filing by the department, unless any of the following apply:
(A) The department sends written acknowledgment of receipt of the
relinquishment prior to the expiration of that 10-day period, at
which time the relinquishment shall be final.
(B) A longer period of time is necessary due to a pending court
action or some other cause beyond control of the department.
(2) After the relinquishment is final, it may be rescinded only by
the mutual consent of the department or licensed adoption agency to
which the child was relinquished and the birth parent or parents
relinquishing the child.
(f) The relinquishing parent may name in the relinquishment the
person or persons with whom he or she intends that placement of the
child for adoption be made by the department or licensed adoption
agency.
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), if the relinquishment names
the person or persons with whom placement by the department or
licensed adoption agency is intended and the child is not placed in
the home of the named person or persons or the child is removed from
the home prior to the granting of the adoption, the department or
agency shall mail a notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the birth parent signing the relinquishment within 72
hours of the decision not to place the child for adoption or the
decision to remove the child from the home.
(h) The relinquishing parent has 30 days from the date on which
the notice described in subdivision (g) was mailed to rescind the
relinquishment.
(1) If the relinquishing parent requests rescission during the
30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
rescind the relinquishment.
(2) If the relinquishing parent does not request rescission during
the 30-day period, the department or licensed adoption agency shall
select adoptive parents for the child.
(3) If the relinquishing parent and the department or licensed
adoption agency wish to identify a different person or persons during
the 30-day period with whom the child is intended to be placed, the
initial relinquishment shall be rescinded and a new relinquishment
identifying the person or persons completed.
(i) If the parent has relinquished a child, who has been found to
come within Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or is
the subject of a petition for jurisdiction of the juvenile court
under Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to the
department or a licensed adoption agency for the purpose of adoption,
the department or agency accepting the relinquishment shall provide
written notice of the relinquishment within five court days to all of
the following:
(1) The juvenile court having jurisdiction of the child.
(2) The child's attorney, if any.
(3) The relinquishing parent's attorney, if any.
(j) The filing of the relinquishment with the department
terminates all parental rights and responsibilities with regard to
the child, except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h).
(k) The department shall adopt regulations to administer the
provisions of this section.

8701. At or before the time a relinquishment is signed, the
department or licensed adoption agency shall advise the birth parent
signing the relinquishment, verbally and in writing, that the birth
parent may, at any time in the future, request from the department or
agency all known information about the status of the child's
adoption, except for personal, identifying information about the
adoptive family. The birth parent shall be advised that this
information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) Whether the child has been placed for adoption.
(b) The approximate date that an adoption was completed.
(c) If the adoption was not completed or was vacated, for any
reason, whether adoptive placement of the child is again being
considered.

Article from Salem-News.com by Neal Feldman (Interesting view)

2010-01-01T20:34:00.001-08:00

Nov-17-2007 14:11
Oregon Human Services: Today's Gestapo?
Commentary by Neal Feldman Salem-News.com
Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent?

Image of Gabriel Allred
constitutionallyright.com

(SALEM, Ore.) - No wonder Gestapo CPS continues to get away with the attacks on families that it constantly perpetrates. There is clearly a very vocal contingent in this country to whom the concept of family and blood relations are meaningless.

This is the "Best Interests of the Child" crowd ... but of course what is REALLY in a given child's best interests are entirely up for debate.

Is it in a child's best interests to always be placed in a family that is more affluent? If so then all children of families on welfare or in the lower income brackets are up for grabs to any parents who want to adopt them if these adoptive parents are more affluent than the family the child is currently with. That would be an extremely perilous road to start down.

The current case celeb in the news is that of 2-year old Gabriel Allred, born in Oregon to a drug addict mother and sexual predator father. DHS in this case rightly terminated the parental rights in one of the rare cases that the parents were actually abusive and harmful to the child. And again in one of the rare instances DHS is uniting the child with its blood family, in this case a grandmother in Mexico.

But the foster parents, Steve and Angela Brandt of Toledo, Oregon, southwest of Salem near the coastal town of Newport, who have admitted they became foster parents for Gabriel in the hopes of adopting him, are fighting this every step of the way, and they have no small number of supporters.

To put no dull point on it these are kidnappers. They are holding this child hostage to their needs and wants. They could not care less what is 'in the best interests of the child'.

Far too many people become foster parents not to provide safe temporary homes for the kids placed in their charge but in a deranged form of meat market as they seek kids to steal for themselves.

Such fosters routinely undermine reunification and drag separation out as long as they can so that they can claim to have 'bonded' with the kids and to put forth this claim as justification to terminate the rights of the real parents so that the fosters can then adopt.

Story continues below

This is why I favor a law barring any foster parent from ever adopting a child that was placed in their care. It would eliminate the meat market aspect entirely.

If a kid's parents lose custody and the kid goes up for adoption so be it... to anyone but those they were in foster care with. It is far too great a temptation for fosters who wish to adopt their charges to undermine reunification to their own benefit. And this happens with far more regularity than most would comfortably like to believe.

They argue that they are the only family he knows. In the case of little Gabriel, it is quite true since he is only 2-years old and they have gone to great lengths to make sure this was the case. But just because some kidnapper snatches an infant and holds them for a couple years we do not let them keep the kid 'because they have bonded'. Gabriel is 2-years old. He will bond to the grandmother too.

Supporters of the Brandts have accused the grandmother of only wanting the $375 per month taxpayer provided stipend, but it is interesting to note that the grandmother was entirely unaware of this stipend when she sought custody of the boy the moment she learned of his situation. And yes he was several months old when she finally learned of it because she is not a mindreader and to my knowledge has never claimed to be. And why are the Brandts not accused of 'just being in it for the check'? It seems quite the one sided argument.

But as the saying goes... those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

We seem to have learned nothing from the media circus that was Elian Gonzalez.

He, too, had blood relatives, in this case his Cuban father wanted his son back. and after years of orchestrated BS on the part of the would be kidnappers of Elian he was, eventually, at gunpoint, returned to his father.

Will we need to send in SWAT teams to get Gabriel too?

And we have Senator Gordon Smith and Governor Ted Kulongoski, proving that neither political party respects the concept of family rights, trying to force DHS to do that which its own rules preclude it doing - placing the child in a family other than blood relations if an acceptable blood relation is willing to take in the child.

Government officials doing their able best to interfere in private family matters and in the process trampling their entire concept of family rights.

Does the name Terri Schiavo not still ring in peoples' ears? Another case where government officials, and others, sought to step into personal private family matters where they had no legitimate business doing so. That case was in Florida. This case is in Oregon.

Different stage, different players, same old anti-family song and dance.

Gabriel is a US citizen by birth, with dual citizenship (he is also a Mexican citizen) If placed with the grandmother when he is an adult he will have every right, if he so chooses to exercise it, to re-enter the US.

But as a 2-year old child he belongs with his family. And in this case his family is his grandmother in Mexico. It most certainly is not the babysnatching Toledo couple Steve and Angela Brandt.

In one of the rare instances Gestapo CPS actually has it right and should be allowed to do what its own rules state it must do without politically postured interference from outsiders who seek only to turn this case into another media circus.

If Steve and Angela Brandt want a kid why don't they have one the old fashioned way instead of trying to steal a child from another family?

Much is made of the mother and father of Gabriel supporting the Brandts. Hmmmm... a crack whore and a predatory sexual deviant deemed unfit to be parents and stripped of all rights regarding Gabriel. Why should anyone care a whit what they think? If they had even half a clue the entire situation would not exist.

Send Gabriel to the grandmother. If she has any sense she will get a restraining order against the Brandts keeping them from having any contact with Gabriel ever again. In 2 years Gabriel will have entirely forgotten them as he bonds with his real family.

As it should be.

Remember the 14th Amendment? I was recently reminded............;)

2009-12-30T11:51:00.000-08:00

The US Constitution: 14th Amendment

US Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
AMENDMENT XIV of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

History and Ratification
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on June 13, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866).

Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867).

What will you do?

2009-12-26T23:26:00.000-08:00

I follow quite a few blog sites; many of which are cancer related. I watched, cried, and PRAYED while a 6 year old triplet fought hard against cancer. The day he was healed in Heaven was very difficult for even me and there is NO WAY that I can say that I comprehend the magnitude of pain that they endured.

BUT..........as I check back in with some of these families I have noticed something.
The way we speak of our "lost" loved ones is quite similar. Even though (THANKFULLY) my nephew is alive, he has still been TAKEN from his biological family.
I have endured a "battle" of my own in court (not the hospital) with an uncertainty and a fear of "loss".
Our family as a whole has had to mourn and HOPE at the same time for victory.
And now that the agencies involved have tried to position things in their favor (again), they have ignored any and all visitation requests. So he is physically absent from our lives too.
We speak of my nephew often, we purchase things he would enjoy, the kids draw him pictures and write him letters. He is deeply embedded into our family life.

Again, I don't mean to offend a survivor's family in any way. I am simply noticing a very parallel way of thinking about our "lost" nephew.
I am forever grateful for the fact that he is still alive. He sure is a miracle boy. But the fact is that he should have been here with his biological family since November 23, 2007 and NOWHERE near a foster home or a fost/adopt home. Simple as that. Both agencies involved are completely biased against family and have used their positions to keep my nephew there.

If I had not witnessed for myself their complete lack of ANY integrity, I would not have believed it. Seriously...........I would have chalked it up to an unfit family member who exaggerated and had some dark past of her own. Little did I know that our lovely State of California is NOT what I believed it to be. I was naive and ignorant of the horrific things done by CPS Workers and State Adoptions. Wow...........I was indeed wearing rose colored glasses, I thought we were better than that. That our government was better than that. AND when I alerted the upper management, I actually expected (eyes rolling here)them to STOP the offending workers and repair the damages. My belief was that once they were caught, their employers would take it seriously.

I sure was that little girl who believed in unicorns, wasn't I? We are no better than anyone else as far as corruption goes and boy do we ATTEMPT to cover everyone's bum instead of rectifying the wrongs. That saddens me beyond words. Is there anyone who has a moral bone in their body, who takes their job seriously enough to do the RIGHT thing?

I am a simple girl who believes in doing the right thing even when it isn't easy. My kids have been taught that. Why hasn't someone taught that to our County and State Agencies? Why doesn't someone hold them accountable? What about the courts?

Someone told me once not to take it "personally". I can't help it. That is MY blood nephew that they are messing with. Personally is the only way I can take it and shouldn't we ALL take it personally when agencies perjure themselves in court and more?

If we aren't part of the solution then we are part of the problem. I am unwilling to be part of the problem......so I chose to stand. What will you do?

Article on Relative Placements

2009-12-22T21:28:00.003-08:00

Vulnerable Children Fare Well With Relatives, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (2009-01-21) -- Placing vulnerable children with relatives is a viable option, a new study by Cochrane Researchers suggests. In view of several recent high profile child abuse cases, the study may have important policy implications. ... > read full article

A blog that is inspiring to say the least for CHANGE!

2009-12-19T21:55:00.000-08:00

OK once when I was in court, County Counsel asked "Have you ever seen anything like this before?", after pointing out that I had a blog about my nephew. I still don't know if she had the correct blog information but that isn't the point.

I HAVE seen something like my blog out there..........a whole LOT of somethings!!! There ARE courageous people out there exposing the corruption of CPS and State Adoptions.

I follow a blog that inspires me when I feel hopeless. She is AMAZING and SHE is a Senator too. IF only she were here in CA, but she is an asset for the country wherever she is.

http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/

Take a look and see the wonderful things she is doing. I am in awe. We are NOT the only family (sad to say) fighting for our relatives. This is a widespread disease. One that WILL stop one day.

On 11-30-09 Appeal was won........decisions reversed from 12-19-08!!!!!!!!

2009-12-19T21:42:00.000-08:00

The Court of Appeal Of The State Of California, First Appellate District, Division One, In re R.S. thankfully decided to REVERSE decisions made by the Superior Court of Del Norte county dated 12-19-08.

Parents do have the right to sign designated relinquishments as per 8700(f) and once acknowledged by State Adoptions, the child should have been placed with US!

What does this mean? Well it means that in the future things are SPELLED out VERY clearly for other parents wishing to do the same thing. It will be easier for other families now. Also a few codes were spelled out that were quite muddled in court.

Now a new hearing was set and we shall see what happens. I am quite concerned with the lack of integrity on behalf of the agencies involved. Well concerned doesn't cut it, but shall suffice for the purpose of this blog. After ALL of the stunts pulled by State Adoptions, Arcata Branch's two workers...remain (or rejoin in T.B.'s case) on my nephew's case!?

The complaints alone are enough to send chills down your spine, retalliation WOULD be a possiblity here. IF it were not their original intent anyhow to keep my nephew from his family. The evidence speaks for itself and there is plenty of it too. The longer that this goes on the higher up I realize things are VERY, VERY wrong.

Thankfully I see them for what they are.
I have not disappeared but let my blog rest while I worked on softening my heart. I rid myself of any and all vengeful feelings and let my LOVE for my nephew flood through me. I acted out of integrity and put HIM first and checked myself......this is NOT about winning, it never has been.
IF only others would or could do the same. My mantra has been, "I love him enough". Enough to fight for him and enough to swallow ANY pride that tried to swell up and fight to stay in his life as a positive influence and not an angry loser who would walk away before trying to compromise.

This I did with the right heart and it was NOT easy. This I shall continue to do because he deserves that. I won't give up. And I won't walk away.
I don't really believe in karma but "what goes around comes around" and I wouldn't want to be ANY of them. Their lies and deception will catch up with them, one day. I sure pray it isn't too late for justice for my nephew then.
I have kept careful notes and will catch up the blog soon.

Prevention of Infective (Bacterial) Endocarditis Wallet Card

2009-04-19T14:46:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to the American Heart Association.
Just cut and paste to visit, if the link does not work for you.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3003000

Anyone affected by a heart valve problem or murmur should look into carrying a card in their wallet warning medical professionals for you during emergency care.
Just think about it. Maybe you or someone you love is affected? In my case, quite a few of us have MVP (Mitral Valve Prolapse). So this is a great idea for me to carry.

Endocarditis is preventable but can be fatal if left untreated. And of course, there are all of the in-between scenarios.

I just printed my wallet card out and emailed both of my sisters the link to do the same;)

Happy Birthday Dad!

2009-04-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAD!!!!!

It is our father's birthday today! He died March 22, 1994, that was 15 years ago. I miss him daily, I grieve for the things we lost, I grieve for the only parent that loved us 4 children unconditionally.

Sometimes life isn't fair;( It is a sad day but also a great day to remind the kids of their Grandpa Jerry. We call it Grandpa Jerry Day and because of that they all know much about a man that they have never met;) We eat his favorite foods on this day and talk about the things that were important to him.

For example we would eat: fried bologna sandwiches, BBQ chips, Pepsi, Twinkies, deviled egg sandwiches, and orange hostess cupcakes! (not all at once!)

We talk about: how much he LOVED horses, cowboy ways, country music, working on cars, his devotion to his mother (my Grandma Agnes), his desire to be a Veterinarian, stories about guns and target practice are a MUST!!! I can go on and on. (AND because of this ritual so can my children and Lisa's girls.)

I am very happy to share the warm memories with my kids. It lessens the pain that they know him from pictures. They can recite the stories to me.
I LOVE my Dad and although he had his own flaws and problems (don't we all?), he was my ONLY Dad.

Us girls talk about what it would be like if he were still here. We can go into great detail of what we would want life to be like and how very different some things would be. I do however worry that by now he may have gone to prison for trying to protect us from a certain someone. He would be besides himself if he knew the hateful and evil things she has done and continues to do to us girls, HIS daughters. BUT thankfully he is saved from her doom and we will see him again one day in Heaven. (My kids talk about that often.)

One of the most wonderful things that both made my heart smile and hurt was from my Aunt Edna. She told me a few years ago that when she died, she hopes the first person she sees would be her "Momma". (Said in the most beautiful Oklahoma accent that my ears can't get enough of.) And then she continued, "then my sister Ag"! How the tears rolled down my cheeks to see her undying love for her momma and her sister (my Grandma Agnes). I love my Great Aunt Edna;) I too want to see my Grandma!

This day also is the 3 year anniversary for Melissa's accident when she was 29 weeks pregnant with my nephew, Baby R. Two died in that accident. Thankfully, Melissa and Baby R were spared on my father's birthday. I can't help but think that my Dad had something to do with that. Vince also had a LOT to do with that. He was one of the two that did not make it out of that car alive that night. He pushed my sister Melissa (who was not in a seat belt) onto the floor board of the car. He did that out of instinct. There was no time or room for error. The choice he made saved her and my nephew who was in utero. Melissa escaped with a broken leg and arm, multiple bruises, and survivor's guilt. BUT she survived and so did that little baby! Thank you Vince!! Words cannot express our gratitude and we won't forget. I personally, will make sure that Baby R knows what you did for him. You thought of his mother and him BEFORE yourself and used the split second you had to react to save them both and not yourself. Thank you is not enough.

Now it is time to go and celebrate the life of my father with my children. Today I wrap myself in his memory and while it hurts me, there is comfort too. My Dad was a good man and he lives on through me and my children. He is not forgotten.

I love you forever. Thanks for still cutting my meat up even though I was 18 years old;) Thank you for your (warped;) sense of humor that I now share with my children. Thank you for hitting me in the arm (lovingly), I don't hit like a girl Pat tells me often! ;) I miss you and I can't wait to see you again. Tell Grandma that I am TRYING very hard to keep our entire family together, as it should be.
Love,
Clem

A place to register if you want to find family.

2009-04-16T16:50:00.000-07:00

It amazes me what you can find on the internet;) Today while doing one of my 20 minute power searches, I found a superb site! For those of you adoptees and birth families there is a FREE registration site that you can visit.

Once you register, you continue to keep your contact information updated, and you STAY registered until there is a match and OR you want to be removed from the registry.

They don't search for you but will notify you if someone is also looking for you. I didn't register...............YET, but it definitely is something to look into.

What about the children adopted that move away? What about the child who needs a bone marrow donor and the birth family would be a GREAT place to start looking? What about those forced adoptions? {yes I am talking about CPS (aka DHS)} Or what about the adoptions where the birth mother was a minor and the parents forced the adoption?

I guess there are SO many good reasons to look for birth family members that I couldn't list them all. AND no this is NOT to interrupt the adoptee's life or the adopter's.
YOU HAVE TO REGISTER TO BE FOUND! THAT IS WHAT I FIND SO WONDERFUL!! HIDING BIRTH PARENTS DON'T HAVE TO BE FOUND OR REGISTER. ADOPTEES DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER EITHER;) In my eyes it is a great way to let either party know that you want to be found, IF they want to find you, then there will be a match and you will be contacted. EASY as that;)

http://www.isrr.net/
Just copy and paste the above link to visit the site and get the information for yourself.
In our specific case, I would rather be registered for IF and when he wanted to find us. My nephew would have to ALSO register (and be 18 or the adopters could search). THEN we would have a match and be contacted. I think it was a great idea;)

Former Senator Speaks Out Against CPS

2009-04-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

A former Senator speaks out against the crimes of CPS. Sadly, we are NOT alone in our pain; losing our nephew! I found this at another Senator's blog, thanks;) Just copy and paste to view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1HjVU-UIQU

fosterclub.com

2009-04-11T15:29:00.001-07:00

I found a really neat resource for foster kids! WOW! There are inspiring stories, message boards, training, and more!

www.fosterclub.com

There is information for foster parents, biological families, etc. there. I have taken advantage of their library training and quizzes. It is amazing the opportunity that the Internet can provide.

Consumer Complaints for LCSW in California

2009-04-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

In California.......................

LCSW's (Licensed Clinical Social Workers) are held accountable to the
Board of Behavioral Sciences
1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S 200
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 574-7830
http://www.bbs.ca.gov

If you want to check on the status of a licensee you can go to their web site. If you have a complaint about a licensee, you can download a Consumer Complaint Form and mail it, or send an electronic copy. I didn't even have the licensee's # prior to finding this web site, but was able to gain access with the name and county of the licensee. Pretty easy and simple even for a busy girl like me;)

If YOU do not take the time to report abuses of power, NO ONE will and then YOU become part of the problem!

Informative Booklet Coming Soon

2009-04-05T16:15:00.001-07:00

"Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after; so that when men come to be undeceived it is too late: the jest is over and the tale has had its effect."
Jonathan Swift
November 9th, 1710

A veil has been lifted and my eyes are now open. Now what? What do I do with this knowledge?
Keep fighting for my nephew? YES!!!!!!
Continue fighting for visitation and contact with my nephew? YES!!!!!!!!!
But what about the next child, nephew, cousin, etc.? What about the people who PURPOSELY kept my nephew in foster care with their lies and manipulation?
Should we TELL? Ask for justice? Should they continue to work with children?

I have been sent countless requests from relatives like me, who WANT their relatives out of foster care. I have tried to email everyone some suggestions and places to go. AND YES WARNINGS on what COULD happen! IF anything good can come from this awful situation, I hope that someone could use our pain to educate themselves and MAYBE save their relative. At this time I am putting together a simple informative booklet to email to those who ask.

I am not an attorney. I cannot give ANY legal advice. BUT I can tell you what happened to me and with hindsight see exactly how my ignorance of the system was used against my family. I have never been subject to a CPS investigation. I am just your ordinary aunt who had to learn the hard way that not all state workers are truthful, trustworthy, or above deception to have things go as THEY intend. Silly me, I thought that there was justice for all.

Any thoughts or questions that you may have just email them to me. I will do my best, with my VERY busy schedule and try to help point you in a good direction. If you have ANY information that may help future relatives, PLEASE let me know. ANY information would be greatly appreciated. Not unless you have been through this, can you be expected to know the path traveled. There are MANY bumps in the road and by sharing what LITTLE information I know, hopefully, you can avoid the same snake nests that I have found myself in.

I love my nephew and I miss him every single day. Once in a while it will just hit me that some foster parents who receive compensation for caring for him, have adopted 2 or 3 other children CAN fight an approved biological aunt for that baby! Are you kidding me?

NO ladies and gentlemen this is no joke! Welcome to America, the land of the FREE!

Foster parents are and can be a wonderful resource. They can provide the love and care that children need during their time of detainment. They SHOULD aid with reunification at ALL times. IF AND WHEN, adoption becomes the only option for that child, the foster parents COULD adopt..............IF and I really mean IF........there is NO BIOLOGICAL family members who are approved, willing, and ABLE to adopt that child. PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM BASHING ON COMPETENT FOSTER PARENTS!!! (Thank you.)
In our case the foster parents were shopping for another child, took a low risk little boy, planned to adopt him, conspired with Environmental Alternatives (foster/adoption agency), Del Norte CPS, and State Adoptions (Arcata) to keep him. Simple as that!
In no way is that in their job description, in no way is that morally correct, in no way is that NOT going to HURT this little boy!

OK so before I continue on my soap box, I will just ask that you be patient with my booklet preparation. I want to have a quick response for everyone who asks me for help. With my schedule I have small pockets of time to work on it. It is SO very important to expose the hidden pitfalls to every relative out there, that I will find the time!
Thanks;)

WEB SITES FOR INFORMATION...........

2009-04-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

Visit these web sites for more information....................

(Below is a list of sites that I got from another site, PLEASE if you find material that is inappropriate, that I have overlooked, PLEASE email me! I found a site that is NOT suitable and have removed it. As time allows I shall check each site. THANK YOU)

www.familyrightsassociation.com
www.the-facts.com
www.theacf.org
www.cchr.org/
www.fightcps.com
www.familylawcourts.com
www.syc.org
www.reliableanswers.com/cps/news.asp
www.familyinjustice.com
www.avoiceforchildren.com
www.poormagazine.com/index
www.caseassist.com
www.allencowling.com/
www.abuse-excuse.com/
www.falseallegations.com
www.cvsa1.com/index.php
www.liftingtheveil.org
www.childrensjustice.org/
www.childprotectionreform.com/index.html
www.jail4judges.org/
www.nccpr.org/about/index
www.cwla.org/default.htm
www.oregonfamilyrights.com/
www.webup.net/net/let-my-children-go/
www.parentsforchildren.net
www.revolution2.us
www.massoutrage.com
www.judicialwatch.org
www.ijfi.org
www.loislaw.com
www.hope4kidz.com

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LINKS ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU. THANKS;)

Steps to take when a relative is detained.

2009-04-05T15:22:00.001-07:00

I do NOT condone abuse in ANY form. Children, women, men, elderly, etc. SHOULD live abuse free lives. I am not naive and know that real abuse does in fact, occur. And the victims of abuse should be PROTECTED, the perpetrators should be punished, and so on.

BUT what happens when the abuser is a governmental agency? When that agency lies in court, distorts facts, withholds evidence, denies children their RIGHT to their biological family, and more? What then?

Sadly, this is happening MORE than I ever dreamed possible. I have been fighting for my nephew for over a year now. He was only 17 months when taken into custody. Within days I contacted Del Norte CPS to inquire on HOW to get my nephew. (Sadly, I was very naive back then.) I did EVERYTHING they asked and have been approved for relative placement TWICE, took fost/adopt classes, DOJ clearances, have an approved adoptive home study, went to court hearings, had (BEGGED for) visits with my nephew, sent photos, etc. and STILL I am without my nephew. He is in a fost/adopt home and they are FIGHTING me to adopt him.

I have been witness to countless (purposeful) errors on behalf of Del Norte CPS. WHY? I scream to myself! WHY would they do this? We are APPROVED biological family members who WANT him. The biological parents even signed him over to us!!

I use to believe that anyone who did NOT have their children or had CPS in their lives were guilty to some extent. I believe that no more. This particular CPS agency has purposely FOUGHT us to keep my nephew with the foster parents. They made a decision and then made the puzzle pieces to fit.

What I am trying to say is NEVER EVER assume that someone involved with CPS is guilty. I know that I will never do that again. My eyes are open and NOW I am reminded that we should NEVER judge others, especially before we know the facts. I said the FACTS!

My nephew is gorgeous but I would still love him if he was green, 3 inches tall, and smelled of skunk;) THAT is what family does. We love each other no matter what. Our government SAYS that relatives have preference. Our family codes READ that family has preference when a child is removed from a home. BUT what really happens is not always what should happen. EVEN if you do what is required, and then some.

BEWARE: What you DO NOT know about the system WILL HURT you and more importantly hurt your relative.

Here are some things I HIGHLY recommend.................
Read everything you can about the system in your state and county.
Ask questions to the social workers
Put EVERYTHING in writing (keep track of all contact information).
Put tracking numbers on ALL letters, packages, etc. to the child & agency.
ASK IF the child has a CASA worker, who it is, and contact them (let them know who you are and what you want).
Ask who the child's court appointed attorney is, contact them!!! (do NOT rely on CPS to do this for you!!) in our case the attorney did NOT know about me until I hired my own attorney! WHY hadn't CPS told the courts about
me? hmmm?
Visit the child, keep up or start a relationship! I KNOW how difficult this is even when the child lives 12 hours away: ask for phone visits, letters, photos, and visits. (send your own on a regular basis)
Fill out a visit summary form after EACH visit, send with proof(via certified letter, received stamp, tracking #) to CPS and keep a copy for you for future reference!
Keep a well documented timeline (organize receipts, phone bills, etc. for easy sharing to the courts, etc.)
KNOW their rules, regulations, W&I (Welfare & Institution) codes.
Join a support and or blog / bulletin group about foster care/ adoption, learn from other's mistakes and successes!!
Hire an attorney who will help you if you can afford to do so.
Take foster care / adoption classes (get certified).
Take CPR and First Aid classes (all adults in your home).
Apply for relative placement through CPS.
Attend court hearings (ask the Social worker and or the parent of the child for dates).
Be kind and honest but do NOT trust that the SW (Social Worker) is going to do the right thing, be SURE that they will by staying in contact.
Consider having bio parents sign over their rights BEFORE they are terminated. {as per 8700(f)} This is extreme but MAY be called for.
Have bio parents ASK in writing to have child placed with you (EVEN if out of county). IF RU (reunification services) are NOT terminated, then work out
a visit schedule for the child and parents with CPS & parents (ride the train if you have to!)
KNOW that once a foster parent has a child for 6 months they CAN fight you for that child in court.
ALSO know that NOT all biological Families, Foster Parents, CPS Workers, State Adoption Specialists, Lawyers, Judges, etc. are BAD or even GOOD. I am not generalizing ANY one group, just arming the willing relatives that are
ABLE to be approved through relative placement, adoptive home studies, etc.!

REMEMBER: IF you don't document it, it didn't happen!!!!! Or worse, they can slant it however they choose.

Below is a link that I feel is very important for people to see. I have found it very informative and helpful.

Fighting Child Protective Services False Accusations

more Updated timeline for nephew; Baby R

2009-04-01T15:47:00.000-07:00

Timeline for Baby R. (I am currently compiling my MANY notes into this easy to follow timeline. ALL receipts, notes, and documents can be delineated upon request.)

November 2007
11-9-07 Spoke to Mike Henderson on phone concerning Baby R
11--07 Susan Wilson told Lisa Turner on the phone that "She would do anything to get that baby away from Melissa."
11-23-08 Baby R taken into custody by CPS (he was 17 months old)-moved from Santa Rosa area to Del Norte County

December 2007
EARLY December 2007 spoke with Susan Wilson via phone about intentions to have Baby R placed with me & he lived with me before (1st 9-10 months)
12-10-2007 wrote letter of intent to Social Services (kinship placement and adopt)& mailed
12-14-2007 overnighted to Social Services (w/confirmation)
12-21-2007 left message for Susan Wilson
12-21-2007 Susan Wilson called me back, gave me Cindy Salatnay's ext. 283, I asked about gift for Baby R, future visit (I asked if it was possible)
12-21-2007 left message for Cindy Salatnay
12-27-2007 mailed out Baby R's doctor and medical history, gifts
12-29-2007 left message for Cindy Salatnay about future visit & what requirements were

January 2008
1-2-2008 Deanna in Del Norte licensing- informed us of fingerprinting & home visit soon
1-23-08 Baby R moved to KD foster home (I was NOT told anything about it, and this is a fost/adopt home)
1-28-08 spoke to Amber Davis in Del Norte licensing about home evaluation
1-29-08 spoke to Amber Davis in Del Norte licensing- about getting home evaluation, gave her email address
1-29-08 received email from Amber Davis about home evaluation worker in our county
1-29-08 sent email to Amber Davis
1-31-08 left message for Lucy Tucker in Fresno County concerning home evaluation visit

February 2008
2-6-08 Patrick & I had our live scans completed in Fresno County
2-6-08 mailed out copies of live scan receipts & information to Cindy Salatnay in Del Norte
2-6-08 receive email from Amber Davis
2-6-08 sent email to Amber Davis
2-6-08 received email from Amber Davis
2-6-08 sent email to Amber Davis
2-7-08 received email from Amber Davis
2-7-08 received email from Amber Davis
2-14-08 spoke to Diane Emry in Fresno County, scheduled home evaluation for 25th @ 10AM- found out what criteria was for home
2-14-08 left message with Cindy Salatnay about date of home evaluation
2-24-08 spoke to Diane Emry in Fresno County, rescheduled home evaluation due to Brynna & Kim having Pneumonia
2-24-08 left message for Cindy Salatnay about rescheduling

March 2008
3-13-08 Diane Emry from Fresno County came for home evaluation
3-13-08 sent email that we FINALLY had home evaluation to Amber Davis
3-13-08 mailed Patrick Fraser's criminal record release to Del Norte (2nd)
3-17-08 received email from Amber Davis that she will let me know if we need anything else for home approval
3-08 Mary Young called is new licensing contact in Del Norte

April 2008

May 2008
5-5-08 Mary Young left message on home phone, our home was approved for relative placement!!
5-7-08 received letter stating our home approved for relative placement

June 2008
6-08 mailed Baby R his gifts, new photos, cards

July 2008
7-7-08 left message with Cindy Salatnay
7-8-08 left message for Cindy Salatnay
7-8-08 Cindy Salatnay called me, gave me new worker's extension Dorita Leno
7-8-08 left message for Dorita Leno
7-14-08 spoke to Dorita Leno, informed of court date (6 month review the first date EVER given to me, said I was going, asked if Baby R needed anything, sizes, asked for visits)
7-23-08 left for Del Norte, spoke to Dorita Leno, told was to meet Tedee Boylan from State Adoptions from Arcata
7-23-08 spoke to Dorita Leno, gave me KD (foster mother's) phone number
7-24-08 spoke to Dorita Leno gave better time of arrival estimate (while driving)
7-24-08 got to Del Norte, spoke to Dorita Leno, got directions
7-24-08 met Dorita Leno and Cindy Salatnay, had visit with Baby R during Melissa's visit, saw 4 bite marks on back, took photos on Lisa Turner's cell phone
7-24-08 had 1.5 hour long visit with Baby R while speaking with Dorita Leno, changed Baby R, played games, was told of Melissa's services being discontinued the next day at court, told of adoptions being forwarded my application and I was priority and Baby R would be placed in my home within 1-2 months by Dorita, witnessed by Lisa Turner, told to renew home evaluation by Fresno County (only lasted 60 days)
7-24-08 left message for Diane Emry in Fresno County concerning renewing home evaluation immediately (I was still in Del Norte)
7-24-08 met foster mom, KD, found out she was friends with our estranged mother and wanted to adopt Baby R, our mom was in support
7-25-08 had visit with Baby R during Melissa's visit, took him 3 shirts, gummy worms, happy meal, took photos, video
7-25-08 attended court with Melissa T., spoke with Dorita, Skudstad about guardianship & adoption Melissa approved; drove to Chris D. (attorney) office Melissa requested meeting for adoption papers (on Dorita's suggestion) (The D Foster Home should have only had placement of Baby R for 6 months and 2 days per Melissa Thornton's and Robert's request to Dorita L. & CPS)
7-25-08 saw estranged mom in court, I never spoke with her, had F for over an hour visit w/ Melissa & Lisa present, ate quick lunch while trying to get appt. w/ Chris D. and Skudstad for adoption, took photos, video (would have kept F longer but mom wanted us to come over to house (suspicious), met at Glen's bakery to exchange F and continue trying to get adoption / permanent guardianship papers completed)
7-25-08 began 12 hour drive home, stayed in hotel late that evening due to exhaustion
7-26-08 completed drive home

August 2008
8-1-08 Mailed and faxed letter to Julie Cain, CPS about the bites I saw on Baby R and concern for his safety, as mandated reporter & aunt. (I NEVER got any response about abuse report.)
8-5-08 attempted call to Gene Schach, Baby R's attorney, after court, not able to leave message, won't return until 8-13-08 (I believed Gene was Baby R's attorney)
8-5-08 Dorita L. called me in AM, gave her Sandy Davis's number Fresno County home evaluations (to get renewal relative placement)
8-5-08 left message for Sandy Davis, Fresno County home evaluations
8-5-08 called Dorita, after court, she told me that my information was forwarded to state adoptions
8-5-08 left message for Julie Cain
8-5-08 left message for Tedee Boylan at State Adoptions in Arcata
8-6-08 left message for Tedee Boylan
8-7-08 Tedee Boylan left message for me
8-7-08 left message for Tedee Boylan
8-7-08 Julie Cain returned my call, told her of bites on Baby R, let her know I still want Baby R placed with me, asked what else I could be doing
8-10-08 mailed Baby R a binder with drawings, letters, extra plastic sheets to be kept WITH him (each home), pair of shoes; size 6, snacks
8-11-08 mailed Baby R a card with copies of kids hands
retained Attorney Cochran in Crescent City (same one I spoke to EARLY in the case but he said I shouldn't waste my money)
spoke with Sutie Wheeler -denied me application, placement, mentioned my mother & previous experience with me, told me relative placement approval was null and void, that I needed adoption home study approval even for a designated relinquishment & I was to call Fresno District Office, she gave NO written request (Sutie W. was made VERY aware of both parents wanting designated relinquishments) she also asked WHY I needed an attorney
spoke to Fresno District Office Anna P. was informed that I would need written request to study my home from Arcata
spoke with Sutie Wheeler and blatantly asked for application and she denied me one, she told me that, "no she would not look into me or my home", despite my asking for a chance to prove myself, she said "she didn't feel comfortable wasting the state's resources even looking into my home if she did NOT plan on placing with me", reminded her that I would need written request to have Fresno DO study my home
8--08 received application for adoption from Fresno DO
8--08 Live Scan completed for Kimber, paid $84
8-08 Live Scan completed for Patrick, paid $84
8-25-08 turned in majority of adoption application to Fresno DO
called Sacramento Central Office for adoptions; spoke to Niccole Larkins & emailed
called Ombudsmen in Sacramento left information,told they would get back to me this week
8-28-08 had renewal of relative placement evaluation on home, approved pending stair gate installation, Lupita, recheck on 4th
8-29-08 called ombudsman & got case worker name & spoke to her, Cynthia McDowell, explained most of story

September 2008

9-4-08 Lupita rechecked gate, home passed for 2nd time relative placement approval renewed, emailed criminal statement back to Lupita (2nd time for that too)
9-4-08 met with Fresno DO State Adoptions, Anna P. in my home (here when Lupita rechecked gate too)
9-10-08 Kim began PRIDE classes at FCC- Sue S. helped set up classes for me (9 sessions each 2.5 hours =22.5 hours total plus homework)
9-11-08 left w/ Lisa for Del Norte, to see Baby R, attend court, 12 hour drive
9-12-08 visit with Baby R in Del Norte, in supervised room (Brynna's & K's birthdays we missed them due to court)
9-13-08 visit with Baby R in Del Norte, at Kidstown park, supervised by DeDe Ward; gave Baby R his packages that were received by Del Norte exactly 1 month prior & had NOT been given to him yet (shoes, binder, photos, letters, cards, snacks)
9-14-08 visit with Baby R in Del Norte, at Kidstown park, supervised by 2 CPS workers, I facilitated sibling visit w/ J & K; gave Baby R more photos of recent visits
9-12-08 attended court hearing in Del Norte
9-15-08 met with Sutie Wheeler. in Arcata, first face-to-face, Tedee Boylan out of office,
9-15-08 left from Del Norte for home, 12 hour drive w/ stop in Arcata for 1 hour, w/ Lisa Turner
9-16-08 Melissa Thornton and Robert met with Tedee Boylan of State Adoptions, to have 1st of stated 2 meetings to sign designated relinquishments; to The Frasers
9-17-08 PRIDE class 6:30 PM to 9 PM, 2nd session
9-24-08 PRIDE class 6:30 PM to 9 PM, 3rd session

October 2008

10-1-08 PRIDE class 6:30 PM to 9 PM, 4th session
10-3-08 Adoptive Home Study w/ State Adoptions Fresno DO, approved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-8-08 PRIDE class 6:30 PM to 9 PM, 5th session
10-14-08 left at 2AM with Lisa for Del Norte by car, 12 hour drive (4 hours of sleep)
10-14-08 arrived in Del Norte @ 2PM exhausted, had visit with Baby R, in small meeting room
10-15-08 had visit with Baby R in Del Norte, in supervised room
10-15-08 Melissa & Robert met with Tedee Boylan, 2nd mtg. to sign designated relinquishments to me per 8700 (f), she denied "knowing" that was why they were meeting (1st of 2 required meetings was on 9-16-08, this was a FULL 29 days later)
10-15-08 Kimberly Fraser met with Tedee Boylan first time, Lisa was present (mom; meds, F. w/ Lisa, mistake), in small meeting room at CPS
10-15-08 attended court hearing for placement of Baby R, w/ Tedee Boylan testimony cont'd, in Del Norte
10-16-08 attended court hearing for placement of Baby R, denied, in Del Norte
10-16-08 DeDe told me outside of court house about "first therapist Remi Vista said Baby R needed no services, he was fine" (Lisa present)
10-16-08 had first overnight visit with Baby R after asking while still in court, facilitated sibling visit with J & K, had Baby R call foster mom to say good night, my family each spoke to Baby R on the phone, bought him a sweatsuit, 2 beanies, 2 pr. gloves, pj's, pkg. socks, pkg. big boy underwear, Diego backpack toy, pkg. of pull-ups & Lisa bought him a Dora doll; saw B.H. at Wal-Mart
10-17-08 returned Baby R to CPS for visit with Melissa & Robert @ 10:15 AM, sent more photos with Baby R of visit, Baby R dropped off 2 dozen bakery cookies to front office staff at CPS (we picked out at breakfast; Glen's Bakery)
10-17-08 drove home with Lisa, 12 hours, got home around 2 AM Saturday
10-19-08 wrote new letter of complaint and sent out to state adoption heads and governor.........and.........ombudsman, attorney.........and...........(list to be updated continuously)
10-19-08 wrote DeDe Ward letter asking for phone contact weekly w/ Baby R (waiting for answer before calling), therapist diagnosis to aid in search for proper therapist here (since they want me to have 2 meetings with first), that Baby R be shown the photos of me and my family to ease transition, for foster family to put an album together of them to ease overnights and transition, for Baby R to listen to us reading the books regularly; sent information about EPU (Exceptional Parents Unlimited) services here in Fresno County
10--08 sent out request to meet with Governor, Senators
10-22-08 PRIDE class 6:30 PM to 9 PM, 7th session
10--09 filed for de facto parent status (Me & Patrick)
10--08 found out date for court via phone (11-07-08)
10--08 Melissa was served with restraining order papers in front of Baby R, during visit (court set for 11-07-08), Baby R had to be removed from visit he got upset
10--08 Mailed Baby R's Halloween Card, K.D.'s (fmom) thank you card w/ homemade laundry soap recipe, Baby R's now clean clothes & DeDe Ward Thank you letter for overnight visit (all inside of a pkg. mailed to CPS w/ tracking number)
10-29-08 PRIDE class 6:30 PM to 9 PM, 8th session

November 2008
11-3-08 spoke to Stacy F. (Central Adoptions) about new psych eval for Baby R & me too (?), waiting for written request, explanation, directions (was told it was a psych eval for all involved with Baby R, NOT a bonding assessment as I specifically asked that question)
11-4-08 Lisa called S.A. (mom) about F to see if we could have a sibling visit with Baby R and J & K (LM, has recording for proof)
11-08 Spoke to 2 different people concerning polygraphs, Fresno $500 1 question and Bakersfield $450 more questions ???
11-7-08 Court for Melissa (foster mom is petitioner) and Kimber (de facto) (Brynna sick- I stayed home with her)
11-7-08 Court granted de facto to the foster parents, set hearing date for Thurs. 13th @ 9 AM for me de facto (CPS & their attorney fighting it)
11-7-08 Called Del Norte CPS visiting, left message on voice mail for over nights w/ Baby R end of next week
11-7-08 Called John Wagner and Glenn Freitas and left messages, to call me for a meeting, as follow up to my letter dated Oct. 19th
11-9-08 Tedee Boylan has YET to make contact or answer any of Melissa Thornton's or Robert calls, emails, faxes, or letters requesting a third and FINAL meeting to sign designated relinquishments. (To date it has been 25 days since 2nd mtg. AND 54 days since 1st actual visit.) Proof that she is DENYING them their rights per 8700 (f).
11-12-08 begin 12 hour drive to Crescent City alone
11-17-08 (scheduled) Class for drug exposed children at FCC
11-20-08 (scheduled) class makeup #6, missed due to court
11-18-08 Phoebe Morison, MSW, Adoption Specialist from Arcata met with Melissa Thornton AND Sutie Wheeler, Supervisor from Arcata ;met with Robert (both at jail but not in same room) next appointment set for Tuesday @ Noon at Del Norte CPS (Melissa stopped by Cochran's office to show papers)
11-19-08 met @ UC Davis Dr. B. C. for assessment, saw Baby R briefly, Sacramento, CA (see my description)
11-20-08 spoke to Melissa about designated relinquishments
11-21-08 spoke to Anna P. about designated relinquishments and Sutie's appointments set with Melissa & Robert
11-25-08 noon, designated relinquishments signed by both biological parents in Del Norte
11-26-08 spoke to Stacy F. about designated relinquishments, and how Arcata mistreated Melissa & Robert during meeting
11-26-08 left message for Anna P. about relinquishments and Arcata's mistreatment of Melissa & Robert

December 2008
sent email to CPS Director Gary Blatnik
received phone call from Crystal M., CPS about Baby R- I am to send email with my complaint to her
12-5-08 .26 hearing (TPR) was continued to 12-19-08 foster parents hired an attorney, Mavris (same attorney mom used when I got restraining order against her)Also same attorney, Melissa said to have been on in her case prior-conflict??
12-10-08 received UC Davis evaluation report, .26 report, State Adoption report via fax from my attorney
12-10-08 began pointing out, in writing, corrections needed on UC Davis report; there are MANY
12-12-08 I called and left message with Visiting CPS for visits on 12-18, 19, 29-08
12-15-08 DeDe W. left message no weekend visits foster family out of town & gave me dates & times I was able to visit
12-18-08 my birthday, drove to Crescent City at 3 AM with sister, through snow, rain, winds gusts, and ice arrived at 2 PM
12-18-08 had visit with Baby R from 3:30 PM until 6 PM, he saw us through glass & screamed our names happily and ran to us!! -he saw K, his sister for a while
12-19-08 had visit with Baby R from 9 AM until noon, he again ran to me when he saw me picking him up in CPS
12-19-08 .26 hearing was held, both Bio parents were TPR'ed against State Adoptions order, I was AGAIN denied return of my overnights, next hearing was to be 1-22-09 but SW had prepaid Mexico tickets for that week, next hearing set for Feb. 4th, 2009, judge is allowing me to work with therapist and nephew as therapist sees is OK for Baby R, Sutie W. was not in court, A.G. was on the phone - silent but on the phone
12-19-08 I called and left message for therapist J.B., then saw her in person to request to be included in therapy; she said she would call me back after the holidays
12-19-08 left messages for both F. Sanchez and G. Freitas at State Adoptions
12-19-08 F. Sanchez called me back and was very gruff, saying the A.G. will be there in person on Feb. 4th
12-19-08 I let my attorney's secretary know about phone calls
12-19-08 5 PM started for home with sister, got to Rohnert Park, and had to pull over to rest at hotel
12-20-08 started again for home, got home in afternoon
12-22-08 received by mail, not certified, notice of my mother to file more papers against me in court over a lawsuit she started in 07, there is a OSC 2-27-09 in Fresno

January 2009
01-13-09 (Tues.) spoke with Jill Babbit, therapist for Baby R, she is unwilling to see me with Baby R. (see summary of phone conversation)
01-15-09 (Thurs.)received voicemail from Assembly member Villines (sp?) office; tried to return call but rep. was gone for day, will get back with her on Monday next week.
01-15-09 received voicemail from DeDe about letter dated 12-17-08 concerning my plans for a week long visit; she wanted to be sure I planned accordingly due to the change in court dates AND she said that Melissa had a visit 1-16-09 11:15 AM - 1:15 PM and that (FINALLY-I asked in OCTOBER!) I could have a phone visit with Baby R at 1:15PM
01-15-09 I LM for DeDe thanking her for the call and confirmed the phone visit for following date and time, gave her my # again
01-15-09 left message with Anna P., state adoptions voicemail and secretary
01-15-09 Anna P. left me a voicemail, Frank Sanchez is leaving dept. 1-22-09 is celebration for him, she let me know for contact reasons
01-15-09 left message with attorney's secretary about Jill Babbit's refusal and about phone visit with Baby R the next day
01-16-09 Melissa, Robert had visit with Baby R 11:15 AM to 1:15 PM at CPS (first for Robert for over a month, Melissa's last visit was over 2 weeks ago)
01-16-09 1:15 PM Sandy at CPS, visiting, called me with Baby R on her lap for a phone visit, he was so good;) He spoke to me for about 15 minutes total (cell phone records will confirm exact times) I thanked Sandy. He snorted for me like Aunt Lisa & told me "I Love you" and I told him the same;) (see summary)
01-28-09 scheduled visit between bioparents and Baby R at CPS (2 hrs. every 2 weeks)
01-28-09 I was unaware that it was today, Melissa let me know via phone, I called DeDe at CPS asked for a phone visit after the parents visit (11:15 AM) DeDe said that there may be a problem, Baby R "may still be out of the area for audiologist appt. and she will call me back." She called back and yes he was still out of area, she forgot to CANCEL parents' visit (they were BOTH sitting in the waiting room for Baby R) scheduled phone visit after next parental visit Monday noon to 2PM they will call me
01-28-09 assembly member representative left me another message

February 2009
02-3-09 left with my ENTIRE family in RV for Crescent City, CA
02-4-09 arrived at 7AM in Crescent City- had 30 minute power nap
02-4-09 court began, Sutie & Tedee make HUGE confessions-damage case, A.G. was present
02-4-09 had 2 hour visit with Baby R, my kids were in HEAVEN, it was great for all!
02-5-09 court
02-5-09 drove back home
02--09 emailed a summary of what Sutie & Tedee did in court to A.P. (State Adoptions)
02-6-09 arrived home in late AM, Pat went to work, kept my kids home from school (we were exhausted)
02-6-09 Melissa & Robert had lawyers put back on case, prepare for TPR appeal
02-10-09 court again (I was in Bakersfield another matter)
02-11-09 in court by phone, denied placement AGAIN, still in Bakersfield
02-11-09 was told that fosterdad took Baby R to a specialist appt. (no details)
02-12-09 drove home
02-17-09 FOIA requests sent via certified mail to State Adoptions & Del Norte CPS
02-18-09 I called CPS for phone visit, told no visit that day?, asked for all future phone visits w/ Sandy in visiting, then LM on DeDe's voicemail for the same
02-18-09 Melissa text me about the visit, she had been in waiting room at CPS, waiting for Baby R and THEN was told that Baby R would not be there, no explanation given! (This is at least the 3rd time in little over a month!)
02-19-09 spoke w/ Anna P. about normal visit routine for PAP, etc.
02-19-09 spoke w/ Advokids.org
02-19-09 spoke w/ attorney- got great news!
02-24-09 still no word from CPS/DeDe Ward about phone visits, LM 2-18-09

March 2009
03-02-09 sent via certified mail, HIPAA violation complaints for BOTH S.W. and T.B.
03-02-09 message about an appellate attorney
03-02-09 STILL no word on FOIA request from either agency, and no word from CPS about phone visits
03--09 Baby R's attorney filed an appeal on his behalf (concerning placement)
03-03-09 spoke with appellate attorney, my attorney, State Adoptions P.R. assemblymember's office contacted them on my behalf;)
03-04-09 scheduled visit between Baby R and bio parents 11:15-1:15PM
03-04-09 spoke with Baby R via phone 1:15PM, cell phone (DeDe called my cell around noon to let me know & LM, I called CPS visitation to confirm, DeDe called me back again) Sandy w/ visitation called with Baby R on phone (speaker phone this time, not as nice as when he holds the phone) He sounded well, no coughing this time;)
03-04-09 spoke w/ appellate attorney at length about appeal (see notes)
03-05-09 received notice from State Adoptions that I will have my FOIA request granted by 03-20-09
03-08-09 received via letter, closure of our relative placement application from CPS in Del Norte; stating that child will remain in current placement DATED 02-18-09
03-09-09 receive letter via certified mail from Gary Blatnick that they have NO records on me or Pat; their response to my FOIA request (????) DATED 03-02-09
03-10-09 appellate attorney LM for me on cell
03-11-09 spoke w/ Mr. Cochran - appeal and visits
03-12-09 sent revocation for UCDavis/Carmichael health releases (HIPAA) via certified mail (k)
03-12-09 received by mail the two certified copies of Baby R's birth certificates; just in case things go badly;(
03-12-09 LM for appellate attorney
03-12-09 got appellate attorney name from Melissa for TPR appeal (D.H.)
03-13-09 spoke w/ appellate attorney again
03-16-09 sent State Grievance for Sutie W. to State Adoptions via certified mail (k)
03-18-09 CPS has scheduled the "exit" visit for bioparents, for 1 hour even though they are appealing TPR (?)
03-18-09 Both Biological parents had their ONE HOUR Exit Visit at CPS. Melissa turned in a request for an appeal hearing for the revocation of her visits with Baby R to CPS in person.
03-18-08 I faxed a request for a schedule for phone visits and in person visits to DeDe Ward at 9AM, gave new cell number (switch from AT&T)
03-18-09 I had an awesome phone visit with Baby R;)
03--09 received via mail FOIA requested documents from State Adoptions; included was only information that I had given to them, photos, CD's
03--09 Cynthia McDowell called me re: the State Grievance, I mailed her a copy, she had also spoken to Baby R's attorney, she was aware of the appeal filed on Baby R's behalf
03-20-09 received letter from Office for Civil Rights, Region IX (was given OCR Reference number and notice that initial review is in process)
03--09 received email of interest from (a popular tv show!!) via Lisa

April 2009
04-1-09 received a response from State Adoptions re: State Greivance for Sutie W., with a case manager's name and date to be available for more information by phone
04-1-09 received letter from Dave Cogdill, Senator, 14th District
04-23-09 Ms. A. L. (appointed Grievance Review Officer) will review my grievance and may call between 8 AM - noon

The United Nations is listening, so WE should TALK!!

2009-03-29T17:20:00.000-07:00

U.N. Form & Instructions
for Reporting Adoption Abuses
to the United Nations

Return to Human Rights & Adoption

THE UNITED NATIONS IS LISTENING!!

E-mail or snail-mail the U.N. about your own adoption horror story or about someone else's adoption problems (no matter how old or recent the adoption), or about Child Trafficking for adoption or other purpose, or about CPS unjustly taking children for adoption or if you suspect any "Severe Risk of a Child Becoming a Victim of CPS and/or the Adoption Industry" (you can ask that our name be kept confidential and CPS will not know of your complaint).

Instructions:
Cut & paste the UN's form below, onto an e-mail;
Enter a very brief opening message summarizing the nature of what you are reporting, below "Dear Dr. Petit,";
Enter your information as requested on the form, as it pertains to your specific case;
Subject (in Subject box above message) as follows:
Special Rapporteur, Sale of Children
At end of Form (where indicated) include info on how to contact you
Address your E-mail & Send to: Webadmin.hchr@unog.ch

ATTN: Dr. Juan Miguel Petit
Special Rapporteur on Sale of Children
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations at Geneva
8-14 ave de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

RE: Sale of Children for Adoption in the United States,
and/or Trafficking (and/or Severe Risk of Being
Victim of Such Offenses)

Dear Dr. Petit,

INFORMATION SHEET

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

- Does the incident involve an individual or a group ?
(Please mark with an X)

- If it involves a group please state the number of people involved and
the characteristics of the group:
- Number of boys/adolescents:
- Number of girls/adolescents:

- Country in which the incident took place:

- Nationality of the victim(s):

2. IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED

Note: if more than one person is concerned, please attach relevant
information on each person separately.

- Family name:

- First name:

- Sex:

- Birth date or age:

- Nationality(ies):

- Ethnic background (if relevant):

3. INFORMATION REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION

- Date:

- Place (location/country):

- Time:

- The nature of the incident (please describe the circumstances of the
incident)

- Number of offender(s):

- Are the offender(s) known to the victim?

- Nationality of offender(s)

- Agents believed to be responsible for the alleged violation:

- State agents (specify):

- Non-State agents (specify):

- If it is unclear whether they were state or non-state agents, please
explain why.

- If the perpetrators are believed to be State-agents, please specify
(military, police, agents of security services, unit to which they
belong, rank and functions, etc.), and indicate why they are believed
to be responsible; be as precise as possible.

- If an identification as State agents is not possible, do you believe
that Government authorities or persons linked to them, are responsible
for the incident, why?

- If there are witnesses to the incident, indicate their names, age,
relationship and contact address. If they wish to remain anonymous,
indicate if they are relatives, by-passers, etc.; if there is
evidence, please specify.

4. STEPS TAKEN BY THE VICTIM, HIS/HER FAMILY OR ANY ONE ELSE ON HIS/HER
BEHALF?

- Indicate if complaints have been filed, when, by whom, and before
which State organization

- Other steps taken

- Steps taken by the authorities:

- Indicate whether or not, to your knowledge, there have been investigations
by the State authorities; if so, what kind of investigations? Progress
and status of these investigations; which other measures have been taken?

- In case of complaints by the victim or its family, how have the organs
dealt with them? What is the outcome of those proceedings?

5. IDENTITYOF THE PERSON OR INSTITUTION SUBMITTING THIS FORM

- Family name

- First name

- Status: individual, group, non-governmental organization,
inter-governmental agency, Government. Please specify:

- Contact number or address (please indicate country and area code)
- Fax
- Telephone
- Email

- Please state whether you want your identity to be kept confidential

- Date you are submitting this form

This information provided courtesy of Abolish Adoption.
E-mail: Info@AbolishAdoption.com
PO Box 401, Palm Desert, CA 92261 USA

Site Copyright © 2000-2005 Scarlett West | Website designed by AllWebTemplate.com

Song by Mike Schultz........He's My Son

2009-03-29T14:07:00.000-07:00

I'm down on my knees again tonight
I'm hoping this prayer will turn out right
See there is a boy that needs your help
I've done all that I can do myself
His mother has tried I'm sure You can understand
Each night as he sleeps she goes in to hold his hand
And she tries not to cry as the tears fill her eyes

Chorus:
Can You hear me?
Am I getting through tonight?
Can you see him?
Can you make him feel alright?
If You can hear me let me take his place somehow
See he's not just anyone, he's my son

Sometimes late at night I watch him sleep
I dream of the boy he'd like to be
I tried to be strong and see them through
But God who he needs right now is You
Let him grow old live life without this fear
What would I be living without him here
He so tired and he's scared
Let him know that You're there

Chorus

Very Interesting information............

2009-03-10T06:38:00.001-07:00

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 820-823

820. (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute (including Section
820.2), a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or
omission to the same extent as a private person.
(b) The liability of a public employee established by this part
(commencing with Section 814) is subject to any defenses that would
be available to the public employee if he were a private person.

820.2. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee
is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where
the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion
vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.

820.21. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the
civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection
workers, and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct
investigations or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with
Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code shall not extend to any of the following, if committed with
malice:
(1) Perjury.
(2) Fabrication of evidence.
(3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence.
(4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of
the Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section
1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section
1575 of the Civil Code.
(b) As used in this section, "malice" means conduct that is
intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury
to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the
person described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious
disregard of the rights or safety of others.

820.25. (a) For purposes of Section 820.2, the decision of a peace
officer, as defined in Sections 830.1 and 830.2 of the Penal Code, or
a state or local law enforcement official, to render assistance to a
motorist who has not been involved in an accident or to leave the
scene after rendering assistance, upon learning of a reasonably
apparent emergency requiring his immediate attention elsewhere or
upon instructions from a superior to assume duties elsewhere, shall
be deemed an exercise of discretion.
(b) The provision in subdivision (a) shall not apply if the act or
omission occurred pursuant to the performance of a ministerial duty.
For purposes of this section, "ministerial duty" is defined as a
plain and mandatory duty involving the execution of a set task and to
be performed without the exercise of discretion.

820.4. A public employee is not liable for his act or omission,
exercising due care, in the execution or enforcement of any law.
Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability
for false arrest or false imprisonment.

820.6. If a public employee acts in good faith, without malice, and
under the apparent authority of an enactment that is
unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable, he is not liable for an
injury caused thereby except to the extent that he would have been
liable had the enactment been constitutional, valid and applicable.

820.8. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee
is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another
person. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from
liability for injury proximately caused by his own negligent or
wrongful act or omission.

820.9. Members of city councils, mayors, members of boards of
supervisors, members of school boards, members of governing boards of
other local public entities, members of locally appointed boards and
commissions, and members of locally appointed or elected advisory
bodies are not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the act or
omission of the public entity or advisory body. Nothing in this
section exonerates an official from liability for injury caused by
that individual's own wrongful conduct. Nothing in this section
affects the immunity of any other public official.
This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

821. A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his
adoption of or failure to adopt an enactment or by his failure to
enforce an enactment.

821.2. A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his
issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by his failure or
refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license,
certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where he is
authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such
authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.

821.4. A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his
failure to make an inspection, or by reason of making an inadequate
or negligent inspection, of any property, other than the property (as
defined in subdivision (c) of Section 830) of the public entity
employing the public employee, for the purpose of determining whether
the property complies with or violates any enactment or contains or
constitutes a hazard to health or safety.

821.5. A public entity or a public employee acting within the scope
of his employment is not liable for failing to prohibit or restrict
the time that cargo tank vehicles required to display flammable
liquid placards may travel through a tunnel.

821.6. A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his
instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding
within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and
without probable cause.

821.8. A public employee is not liable for an injury arising out of
his entry upon any property where such entry is expressly or
impliedly authorized by law. Nothing in this section exonerates a
public employee from liability for an injury proximately caused by
his own negligent or wrongful act or omission.

822. A public employee is not liable for money stolen from his
official custody. Nothing in this section exonerates a public
employee from liability if the loss was sustained as a result of his
own negligent or wrongful act or omission.

822.2. A public employee acting in the scope of his employment is
not liable for an injury caused by his misrepresentation, whether or
not such misrepresentation be negligent or intentional, unless he is
guilty of actual fraud, corruption or actual malice.

823. Neither the widow, widower, nor the heirs of a peace officer,
as defined in Sections 830.1, 830.2, and 830.32 of the Penal Code,
shall be liable individually for any injury or death that may result
from an act or omission of a peace officer that occurs in his or her
line of duty, including an act or omission not directly related to
the officer's death, if the officer was slain while in the line of
duty. Nothing in this section shall preclude any action from being
brought against the estate of the peace officer.

2009-03-04T19:40:00.000-08:00

After speaking with an advocate for children, I found out something VERY important. It won't help my nephew much but...........it may help families out there BEFORE they fall victim to these agencies.

IF you or your family members are on a slippery slope, and NOT yet in the system of DHS (CPS) and are wanting to protect the children involved. You may want to look into a private probate guardianship. It is NOT stealing someone's child, it is insurance. I have been told that CPS or DHS has to recognize this appointment and the child will NOT be placed in a foster home. BUT you have to look into it for your own personal situation. Of course, being the relative, you will have to be appropriate too. (By that I mean be sure that YOU (or whomever is to be the private probate guardian) be in a situation where you are stable, free of drugs, criminal activity, etc.)

This would have to be a DONE and legally binding, by way of court papers, etc., as far as I know.

IN NO WAY CAN I GIVE ANYTHING THAT EVEN LOOKS LIKE LEGAL ADVICE!!! I AM ONLY INFORMING YOU OF A SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE TO ME, AND IN MY CASE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS CHILD FROM BEING PLACED IN A FOSTER HOME. Please look into this suggestion for you or your family members and your own situations and state laws;)

I WISH I had known before my sister left my home. It would have been a good way to get involved and at the same time, respect that NOTHING had been done wrong up to that point. It would be exactly what I called it before.........INSURANCE!

Thanks;)

YOU have the right to have a state administrative hearing.

2009-03-03T20:33:00.000-08:00

You have a right to a state fair hearing and/or a CSOB complaint concerning Child Protective Services (CPS) / Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS)

Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Section 205.10 and/or 205.100, California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 22, section 22-003 gives you that right.
If you feel you have not been treated fairly by CPS/DCFS social workers and their agencies, you may file for a state fair hearing. All inquiries are submitted to:
California Dept. of Social Services
Public Inquiry Response MS 16-23
P.O. Box 944243
Sacramento, CA 94244-2430

Or CSOB to

Rita Saenz, Director of CDSS
744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

In approximately 10 days, the CDSS must send you a confirmation of their receipt of your hearing request.
Within 30 days CDSS must respond to your CSOB complaint.
Within 30 days upon receipt of this request, CDSS must notify you.
Two days prior to the State hearing, they must also notify you and your AR that the County’s agency’s “position statement” is ready and where to pick it up.
“What is a county position statement?” It is the county’s answer to your claim. When you pick up your position statement, you have the right to inspect your file. You may ask for copies of any paperwork in your file. If the county agency refuses to let you see your file, get the person’s name, note it so you can also claim this at the hearing.

Rescue Baby R from Foster Care

2009-03-03T20:29:00.000-08:00

Rescue Baby R from Foster Care

Before I was a Mom...............

2009-02-27T09:42:00.000-08:00

Before I was a Mom,
I never tripped over toys
or forgot words to a lullaby.
I didn't worry whether or not
my plants were poisonous.
I never thought about immunizations.

Before I was a Mom,
I had never been puked on.
Pooped on.
Chewed on.
Peed on.
I had complete control of my mind
and my thoughts.
I slept all night.

Before I was a Mom,
I never held down a screaming child
so doctors could do tests.
Or give shots.
I never looked into teary eyes and cried.
I never got gloriously happy over a simple grin.
I never sat up late hours at night
watching a baby sleep.

Before I was a Mom,
I never held a sleeping baby just because
I didn't want to put her down.
I never felt my heart break into a million pieces
when I couldn't stop the hurt.
I never knew that something so small
could affect my life so much.
I never knew that I could love someone so much.
I never knew I would love being a Mom.

Before I was a Mom,
I didn't know the feeling of
having my heart outside my body..
I didn't know how special it could feel
to feed a hungry baby.
I didn't know that bond
between a mother and her child.
I didn't know that something so small
could make me feel so important and happy.

Before I was a Mom,
I had never gotten up in the middle of the night
every 10 minutes to make sure all was okay.
I had never known the warmth,
the joy,
the love,
the heartache,
the wonderment
or the satisfaction of being a Mom.
I didn't know I was capable of feeling so much,
before I was a Mom.
~ author unknown

First Amendment Freedom............

2009-02-06T01:40:00.001-08:00

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches

Letter to the foster parents in OUR case!!!

2009-01-19T13:04:00.000-08:00

SAVING BABY R.
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. -Confucius

My purpose for writing this is not to paint foster parents as villains. In most cases they are the opposite. Foster parents our very important and should be looked at with high regards and respect by society.

They are there to provide temporary love, support and a family like atmosphere when children are taking away from their biological parents. And at times, the best place for the child to remain permanetly if reunification does not take place with their biological parents should be with the foster parents through legal adoption.

But foster parents should not fight the child’s family when the family has jumped through every hoop required by the State for proper placement especially when the State Adoptions itself recommend the placement with family.

If I may address the “foster parents” of my nephew:
First I would say thank you, thank you for having a heart for children. Being a “foster parent” is a difficult job to say the least. But my thank you ceases there. I find it terribly difficult to praise “foster parents” who would fight a very loving, very qualified and very dedicated family for the return of our beloved family member. Our nephew is very much missed by eight aunts and uncles, ten cousins, two siblings and numerous extended family members. All who did nothing to deserve for him to be taken from us.

We have been there for him since before birth. We anxiously awaited his arrival and were ecstatic to see him take his first breath of this earth. When CPS took him from his biological parents we ALL stepped up and made it very clear we are his family and we want him to be returned to us. You were aware that we have always been here, you met us, we sent pictures of him and his cousins. We provided clothes, toys, valuable family medical information, prayers, support, love and never ending desire to have him remain in the family God blessed him with.

And yet, for your own selfish reasons you did not do what “foster parents” are inteneded to do. You did not promote reunification; you did not care more for this child and his immeasurable love from his family. You cared only for yourselves. You were given proof the State Cleared and even recommends permanent placement to be given to his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought. You attended court date after court dates where you first handed saw his family love and dedication to him and still you fought. You were aware of his biological parents’ wishes and signed designated relinquishment for him to be placed with his maternal aunt and uncle and still you fought.

This fight by you cannot be seen as heroic or you are doing this for the best interest for the child. It could only be seen as organized kidnapping. You should be seen for the villains you are, not heroic “foster parents” it’s quit unreasonable for the foster parents to fight this child you claim to love family and create this acrimonious atmosphere between yourselves and this child’s biological family. This is not a child who has no suitable family to provide permanency for him.

If that were the case then you should be commended to want to provide a loving home and family for a child where there isn’t one. But this has never been the case. You should be ashamed for doing everything in your power to attempt to take a very much loved and wanted member from a family.

All I am left to say is if you are successful, if the Judge determines our nephew is to remain with you, this will come back to bite you, regardless of the outcome. This child will be an adult longer than he is a child, he will learn the truth, and he will be shown the sacrifices happily made by his biological family to keep him with us. And he will see how you kidnapped him. His family will not be erased, his DNA will not be changed and his forever bond with our family will not be stolen forever.

Our family’s hearts are right, we love Baby R. and we want him to remain where God intended for him to be, with our family, with HIS family.

You do not have to be a parent to shudder at the word kidnapping nor do you have to be a parent to feel the pain of the loss of a child. All you need is to have a relationship with a child to know the forever ache of the mere thought of them to be taken from you. I am a parent, a proud mother of two.

I am currently experiencing and grieving a kidnapping in my family today but not of my own biological children a kidnapping of my blood related nephew. This kidnapping did not initiate the Amber Alert, the police are not searching for a criminal, and there will be no court date to see the person responsible for taking my nephew be found guilty. This story may sound like a bad Lifetime movie plot but this unfortunately is my reality, but the kidnappers in my Lifetime story are hidden and protected under the guise of “foster parent.”

My nephew was taking from his biological parents and placed into foster care in November 2007. Since that date, my sister and I have made it very clear that we love our nephew and both sought to have him placed with us. Child Protective Services (CPS) prolonged the case and placed our nephew with a foster family that have already adopted a number of foster children.

My sister was cleared by California State Adoptions for permanent placement of our two year old nephew; she and her husband were also named as defacto parent. The foster parents knew our families request and intent to have our nephew remain in our family and they not only fought us but hired their own attorney. The foster parents frustrated visitation with our family, and they unsuccessfully attempted to get a restraining order on our nephew’s biological mother. Moreover, they have done everything in there power to keep the extended biological family out of his life.

My sister and I have entered into an unbridled war with the foster parents for our nephew to remain with his biological family. His biological parents signed a legal designated relinquishment to severe there rights of their son to be specifically placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. The foster parents still would not cease in there efforts to thwart his reunification with his biological family.
Today, the only thing standing in his way of being returned to his biological loving and highly committed family is the foster parents desire to adopt him. California State Adoptions has done a complete investigation of the maternal aunt and uncle and highly recommends permanent placement and adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle. These are not foster parents who desire to help a child who does not have love or family ties; these are foster parents who out of there own selfish wishes are fighting to keep him.

This situation is not one where family did not make there presence and wishes for the child known to the child’s foster parents until the eleventh hour. The foster parents knew our families intent the entire time, and they still selfishly sought the child. These specific foster parents should be ashamed of their lack of compassion and there intent to keep this child from his natural biological family. This act by the foster parents is not praiseworthy and should not be commended; it is without a doubt malicious. They are attempting to take this child from his family who has done nothing but show love, support and the desire to have him remain in their family. The foster parents are trying to adopt a child that should not be adopted as he has a very supportive and State Approved natural family that wants him.

In the next few weeks the fate of my nephew will be decided by a Crescent City Judge. Our two year old nephew will either be permitted to be adopted as requested by his biological parents and as recommended by California State Adoptions by his maternal aunt and uncle. Or he will be left with his foster parents to be adopted. Unfortunately if the latter is to happen this case will not end there, there will be an appeal filed by our family immediately.

Baby R.’s proud Maternal Aunt Lisa and Uncle Steve Turner

Did you know?????????????

2009-01-16T19:28:00.000-08:00

Did you know that..........................?

D.W. was the CASA worker for at least two of the previously adopted siblings of Baby R's? (since she had so much previous experience with THIS family before, isn't that a conflict of interest to be the SW?)
S.W. told L.T. (maternal aunt) that "she would do anything and everything to get that baby away from Melissa", via phone BEFORE Baby R was taken into custody by CPS?
J.C. LIED in court to the judge's FACE about a summary written by R. of R.V.? dated 10-16-08
D.W. LIED in court about dates and DAYS (stated it was the day AFTER) my overnight visit and it was over a WEEK later, when she drew her own conclusions to take away my overnights?
Melissa's HIPAA rights were violated, proof was given on 10-16-08, see transcripts, when S.A. stated PROTECTED information about the EXACT number of drug tests and their results in court? AND WHO shared this information with her?? CPS? The Foster parents? BOTH? ONLY CPS could have gotten the information!
The Psychologist report had MANY errors and misquotes, so many that the validity of the report itself is in question. (The report is confidential otherwise I would post more.)
D. L. (SW in July 08) stated that S.A. had NOT had ANY contact with Baby R to her knowledge, BUT come to find out she had (or had lied about it)? (see transcripts 10-16-08)
Sutie Wheeler, State Adoptions A., DENIED K.F. an application for an adoptive home study via phone? Then she wouldn't give a written request for Fresno to do the home study, as is customary?
A. State Adoptions, T.B. & S. W. DENIED BOTH biological parents SINCE AUGUST (at least) their rights per 8700(f) to sign designated relinquishments? (see court transcripts for the MANY times of them stating that they wanted to do so, and they BOTH wanted their SON placed with ME!)
T. B. stated in front of: K.F. & L.T. on 10-15-08, before court, AND also in front of L.T., M.T., and R. S. that "SHE (State Adoptions) made a mistake by placing F.A. (previously adopted sibling to Baby R) with S.A.!!!!!!?
T. B. also asked L.T., witnessed by K.F. if there was any way that S.A. would ever agree to place F. A. with her? (10-15-08 before court in CPS visiting room)
CPS, K.D. (foster parent), and State Adoptions (A.) claimed how "fragile" Baby R was both medically and mentally in court, but the R.V. summary stated that there were "NO services needed", meaning no therapy. AND his medical conditions are ALL very minor!? (IN fact, he started seeing his current therapist on 10-7-08, which is odd, since our placement hearing was on 10-15-08)

All of the above IS TRUE AND CORRECT, under penalty of perjury..................we are MORE than willing to take lie detector tests to confirm the validity of these statements!

Disclaimer...................

2009-01-16T19:17:00.000-08:00

Please be patient........and forgiving. As I translate my original documents and letters to more appropriate forms; to protect the juveniles in this case, I am TRYING to keep errors and omissions down to a minimum. I did say TRYING;)
Thanks for understanding;0

As my Freedom of Speech allows I will keep my family and friends updated with my beloved nephew and our FIGHT to bring HIM HOME!!!!!!!!!

December 31, 2008 Complaint letter.........

2009-01-04T15:49:00.000-08:00

Below is a copy of my newest letter of complaint. As I send them out to ALL previous recipients AND more, I can only hope to draw more attention to the HUGE injustice that is happening. I will try to update the contact list as I have time. It seems that the system would love nothing more than for me to disappear, but I simply cannot, for my nephew's sake. Also in the works: a book, (speaking to published authors NOW:),we even have a volunteer to edit our manuscript, charity for relatives in the CPS system,and there is more..............my imagination and writing skills should be able to serve this cause. The longer this takes, the more damage that is done to my nephew, the more OUR entire family suffers, the more DETERMINED I get.

IN NO WAY IS THIS A THREAT! THIS IS A FACTUAL JOURNAL OF OUR STRUGGLE TO BRING OUR FAMILY MEMBER HOME!

Our mission is to BRING OUR NEPHEW HOME, CHANGE legislation, and STOP the individuals & agencies that obstruct justice!

December 31, 2008

Re: Denial of Kinship Care and Adoption

The reason for this letter is to formally complain about Del Norte County's denial of my kinship care rights. I am the maternal aunt to a beautiful and sweet 2 year old little boy, named Baby R J. P. Sinnott. He is funny, smart, and very loving. If you saw us together in public, you would assume he was my son, not just because of our very similar features and coloring but also of our comfortable and loving relationship. The reason I tell you of Baby R's sunny disposition is because of how very much he has overcome in his short little life.

When my sister Melissa Thornton was just 29 weeks pregnant with him, they were in a fatal car accident, where 2 people did not survive. Melissa while still pregnant with Baby R, was then airlifted to Redding, CA for surgery and medical care. After both her broken leg and arm were repaired by the surgeon, little unborn Baby R was stable but a heart anomaly was found. I live in Fresno County and drove to Redding and transported Melissa to my town, so that I could help care for her and Baby R. Baby R was born June 7, 2006 only weighing 4 pounds 11 ounces but was the cutest preemie our family ever laid their eyes on. His heart condition was serious but with delivery and 7 days in the NICU, he was stable enough to come home, along with his mother. He lived as part of our immediate family, in my home, for the first 9 months of his life. My husband, five children, and myself were devastated with Baby R's absence from our daily lives.

My sister moved with Baby R to Del Norte County, where her other children reside. On November 23, 2007 Baby R was taken into the custody of Del Norte CPS and put into a foster home. On December 10, 2007 I sent a formal request for placement of Baby R into my home for both temporary and permanent basis, as a follow up to a phone request made to Susan Wilson, of CPS. I have repeatedly asked for placement, sent cards, photos, clothing, toys, letters, etc. for Baby R. I began the relative placement approval process and was approved 5-5-08, by Del Norte.

While maintaining contact with the department, I was given very little information about the process and how to navigate through the system as a relative. I have driven the 12 hours to visit my nephew on several occasions, attended court, hired an attorney, and "fought" to have an adoptive home study. (State Adoptions in Arcata has had a hand in the problems that we are experiencing also. Their denial of a home study and of both parents REPEATED request to sign designated relinquishments, for months, is it's own problem to be dealt with.) My home study was approved, by State Adoptions Fresno District Office on October 3, 2008. I had 14 glowing references delivered to State Adoptions.

My nephew has been victim to severe bite marks on at least 3 occasions and CPS refused to move him even at the biological parents' request. I have witnessed perjury with my own eyes in court by CPS workers and have been denied "many" requests to keep up my biological relationship with my nephew with digital photos, phone calls, audio recordings of me reading to him, participation in therapy with him, overnights, and above all placement. Baby R has three older half-sisters that have been previously adopted. The two oldest J. and K. were adopted by their paternal grandparents. The youngest of the three was adopted by the maternal grandmother. I am the only one who has facilitated any kind of a relationship between the two older sisters and Baby R since his detainment. Neither the foster mom or CPS has facilitated any visits.

Now even as the named prospective adoptive parents, by State Adoptions, my husband and I have not received placement of my nephew. The foster parents have adopted before and are intent to add my nephew to their collection of children. Environmental Alternatives Adoption Agency, Del Norte CPS, and State Adoptions, Arcata District Office have had an agenda from the beginning; regulations and family codes have not been followed and now a biological relative may be lost forever.

My story is long and my plea very urgent, I am requesting your aid in bringing my nephew home to the first home he has ever known. I am a more than willing, ready, and able relative who has asked from the beginning for his placement. Not only does my immediate family lose out on a close relationship with Baby R if we are denied adopting him, but his two older sisters, his 10 cousins, several aunts and uncles, many-many extended family members to include a great-great aunt, as well as a supervised relationship with his biological parents. (The foster parents even TRIED to get a restraining order against the biological mother.)

Time is of the essence and a little boy is waiting to be brought home. As Martin Luther King Jr., so eloquently put it, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". IF relatives who have been able to do what we have, are as qualified as we are, and have fought this long, I shudder to think how MANY relatives will or have been lost to the average family.

I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience, the next placement hearing is February 4, 2009 in Del Norte. (Documents in support of the above, may be delineated upon request.)

Respectfully,

Kimberly Fraser

cc: CA Foster Parent Ombudsman, Cynthia McDowell (877) 846-1062
Robert Cochran, Attorney at Law (707) 464-3178

Memories are both sweet and painful.......truly bittersweet.

2008-12-07T18:22:00.000-08:00

Memories are a way of holding onto the things you love, the things you are, the things you never want to lose. ~From the television show The Wonder Years

Today as SOON as my sister Lisa showed up.......my 3 girls ALL asked her when we would get to see Baby R. It was BOTH very sweet and sad at the same time. My heart breaks for so many reasons when his name comes up and then part of me enjoys talking about how wonderful he is.

I don't believe that ANYONE sees who they are looking at when they see that cute blond haired, blue eyed little boy. Sure he is unbelievably handsome now and his personality could make an icicle melt! He is smart, funny, and very loving!! I LOVE LOVE this little guy. My kids ALL remember this little man. My baby Bryn would rub Aunt Moony's (Melissa's) pregnant tummy and say Baby R's name. Even before he was born he was a HUGE part of our family.

Due to his heart anomaly, we were very scared he wouldn't live to be born, let alone come home from the hospital. This very scary fact did not stop us from loving him unconditionally from the very beginning. He has overcome some very large obstacles. He was born 4 pounds 11 ounces and gorgeous!

The moment he was born the Perinatologist allowed Melissa to give him a quick kiss and then she handed him off to the medical team to be taken to the nursery. We did NOT know how bad things were going to get. I was there the entire time..........I took a quick look at Melissa and the monitors and saw that she was stable and I followed that baby!

I watched them hook him up to monitors, IVs, and more. I prayed silently with tears welling in my eyes and a HUGE lump in my throat. He was absolutely one of the most gorgeous things I have ever laid my eyes upon. I spoke with every single nurse and the Neonatologist first. I took his first photo, video, and I got to see him open his ONE eye and peek at me!! I was HOOKED and I still am. Forever he is etched into my soul.

He is amazing and fought very hard and won the battle to survive. I have hundreds of photos of him. I spent countless hours holding him to check his vital signs, to be sure he was alive. I carried him when Melissa couldn't due to her healing arm and leg in the stores and at home. I can smell his tiny little head, remember the bumps I got on my chin from having his oily head there so often;), and I can feel his silky hair just above his soft spot on his head.

Out of everyone in the courtroom, ONLY myself, Lisa, Melissa, and Robert KNOW that stuff about him. He is simply AMAZING! I could go on and on about him, my children still do. They are quite frustrated with my answers of when we will see him and WHEN he will be coming home. As much as I want to protect them from being hurt.........I want to tell them the truth. This has become a very difficult balancing act and I am just as frustrated as they are.

They talk about how he spit up all of the time! AND they will even go as far as naming what he spit up on, like when Sierra said to Madison, "Remember when he spit up on YOUR horse....it smelled until Mom washed it." His name comes up daily. We carry his memories with us everywhere we go.

We all want more memories with HIM!!!!! He is STILL very much a part of OUR FAMILY!!!!!!!!! And he always will be!

Letter to Social worker about therapy.

2008-12-06T19:52:00.000-08:00

This is a copy of a letter I wrote and sent to Baby R's Social Worker. Sadly, I have NEVER received a response from her or her supervisor about it. FUNNY how VERY important it was for a lot of these things to be done by ME, and yet they NEVER allowed me to do them! Of course we have the transcripts from court on October 15 & 16, 2008 to back me up.

On 11-13-08 I did ask D. Ward while at the courthouse about some of these things. While J. Cain, her supervisor and Melissa T. were present and guess what I heard.
"We are not willing to have the family show Baby R the photos or play the cassettes, etc. until WE KNOW that he will be placed with you". About the phone calls, Julie Cain said, "Maybe we could set up times for you to call him on the days that he has visits at the department so that the foster parents don't have to deal with it." It infuriates me that I have had to watch CPS and State Adoptions act like the foster parents have MORE rights to this child even while BOTH biological parents have their rights intact. Since July 2008 the foster parents have been treated as the parents! Isn't CPS suppose to work towards family reunification and preservation?
During the same conversation, my sister Melissa asked D. Ward if the two siblings to Baby R could SHARE her visits at the department. Melissa has been asking for months and had been getting the run around, so she asked while I was present. DeDe said "no". Melissa asked to have that in writing and to this date she has NEVER received that either.

Kimberly Fraser
P.O. Box 923
Clovis, CA 92613
(559) 360-0191

October 24, 2008

Deidra Ward
Child Protective Services
880 Northcrest Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531

Re: Baby R

Dear DeDe,

I wanted to thank you again for allowing the wonderful overnight visit, I was able to have with Baby R. He was an absolute angel. It was so great to see him and spend some real quality time with him. I can't wait to get back and see him again. Next time I would like to schedule more overnights, if that is possilble.
At this time, I have found several different options for any therapy that Baby R may need. The EPU (Exceptional Parents Unlimited) has sent me quite a bit of information about their services. Baby R would receive an assessment and then they would recommend services they felt were necessary. I spoke with Sandy (PB) and she enlightened me about even more resources in Fresno. If you wanted to take a look, the phone and web site are as follows; (559) 229-2000 and www.exceptionalparents.org. The list of resources is pretty lengthy to include; workshops, play therapy, IEP (Individual Education Plan), IFSP (Individual Family Service Plan), support groups, and referrals for anything they don't already have. Fresno County is pretty large so when it comes to medical care of any kind, we usually have quite a variety to choose from. A small obstacle to finding the right provider is the question of exactly what Baby R's diagnosis is. At this time without that information I am a little blind in my search for which specialist to choose. In court Tedee Boylan and K.D. only mentioned that Baby R was fragile and that he may have attachment issues. As I approach therapists here, the biggest question that I am asked is, "What has he been diagnosed with?" As we discussed after court, I would like to orchestrate a therapy visit with Baby R. It would be great to hear from the therapist's mouth what they believe Baby R to be suffering from. Perhaps they can even recommend someone with similar credentials nearby. As I research attachment disorders, I see the very wide interpretation of therapies and symptoms. If possible, we could even get a second opinion to be sure of what exactly we are dealing with. Thinking of informed consent, I think it wise to know the entire picture and all possibilities before choosing a treatment path.
Dr. Singh was Baby R's Pediatrician, for his first nine months, and we would love to return him there to follow any treatment until he sees fit to move him. Dr. Frances was Baby R's Pediatric Cardiologist, with Valley Children's Medical Center, and again I would like to get Baby R back there for a follow up and a true comparison of his heart condition. The physical therapist Baby R had for his neck is another place I want to return to for follow up and for any future services he may need, (perhaps his hip).
I am working on a date for our next visit. My plan is to bring my family with me, I am trying to choose the best time to leave with their busy schedule. I would like to ask permission to begin phone calls to Baby R on a weekly basis. He did a great job when I had him call K.D.. He didn't speak a lot but he was listening and showed interest in the phone. If I had known earlier, I would have been calling him. My children and husband were able to speak to him that same day, each briefly, due to the amount of people on the other line. My middle daughter could be heard to Texas, she was so excited. She kept saying how CUTE he sounded, the funny things kids say. They really do love and miss him very much, he was and still is much more like a brother than a cousin.
Accidentally, I brought Baby R's dirty clothes home with me. It was just a shirt, pants, and a pair of socks (and pajamas that I had bought him), so I have washed them and am sending them back through your office. I apologize for the mistake, I think with all of the exchanging of Baby R, car seat, and the like; we forgot. I did give Baby R the cassette recorder with a tape that had me and Brynna reading some of the books I bought and gave to Baby R. Hopefully, his foster family would play that for him on a regular basis, it could help him with any visits and transition. There is also a blank tape I included for the foster family to do the same and of course, I would play it for Baby R during overnights, etc.
In summary I am asking for..........
Weekly phone calls with Baby R, at specified times if possible.
More overnights during my next visit.
The therapist's diagnosis for Baby R and treatment plan to aid in my search for a therapist here.
A session or two with the therapist, with Baby R of course.
For the foster family to play the cassette for Baby R as he looks at his books, on a regular basis.
For the foster family to record themselves reading a book, or whatever they feel comfortable with, for me to play for Baby R. (AND if they could get together a simple photo album of their family too for Baby R.) I would show that to Baby R during overnights, etc.
And that Baby R be shown the many photos that I have provided; the digital frame (photokins) and photo albums of our visits, on a regular basis.
Thanks DeDe, I realize this is a frustrating time for everyone, I just hope we can keep the lines of communication up;) I will be calling soon with a proposed date for a visit and will wait to hear from you on the phone calls to Baby R. I have the number but will not call to speak to Baby R without the foster family knowing beforehand. If we all have Baby R's best interests in mind, then we can all work to make this as easy as possible for him.
Sincerely,

Kimberly Fraser

cc: Tedee Boylan
R.C.

copy of email sent to Gary Blatnick, Director CPS in Del Norte

2008-12-06T09:46:00.000-08:00

Kimber Fraser
P.O. Box 923
Clovis, CA 93613
kimmysbenz@hotmail.com

Re: Baby R.

Attached you will find several items concerning my nephew Baby R. He is my two-year-old nephew who has been in your County's custody since November 23, 2007. I am his maternal aunt and I have REPEATEDLY requested placement of him since December 10, 2007. I have had two relative placement approvals through your county and have an approved adoptive home study through State Adoptions.

After fighting for several months, I have finally been able to get the attention of the State Adoptions Supervisors, in Sacramento. I will be named as the prospective adoptive parent, along with my husband, at the .26 hearing. That hearing is tomorrow, Friday at 1 PM in your County Courthouse.

While this is very positive news and I am very elated to have come this far, it seems that I have allowed your County CPS Department to push me aside. I have been met with great criticism by your County CPS; for trying to get your County to place my nephew with a willing, able, and APPROVED relative. Your county has failed to follow state regulations and codes and has ignored my attempts to be recognized as a resource for both temporary and permanent placement of my nephew. I am aware that your County is going to try and advocate for the current foster parents' adoption of my nephew.

This is very unacceptable and am sure that you must be unaware of many things that have taken place. While my attention was focused on State Adoptions, your County has taken it upon themselves to ignore rules, regulations, and physical abuse. I personally have been witness to your CPS Supervisor Julie Cain perjuring herself in court on November 13, 2008 along with SW DeDe Ward at the very same hearing. As their Director, I am sure that you would want to know about these kinds of behaviors. Of course, there is written proof of this and I would love the opportunity to share it with you. Unfortunately, there are several other items that would definitely be of interest that your department has been party to.

The foster parents wish to adopt my nephew. I can understand their wanting to adopt a child. This child, Baby R, has a very large family who wants to bring him home. I am sure that you will find that I am very persistent and for a very good reason. I love my nephew as my own child and will not stop until he is home. Please feel free to contact any of the State Adoption Officials that are named in my complaint letter or on my adoptive home study.

I believe it is quite necessary for your presence in court tomorrow at 1 PM. I am sure you will find it very evident that I am in fact telling the truth. It is unfortunate that you did not return my call today, but I am sure that you must be busy. I look forward to speaking to you at your earliest convenience and I hope to see you in court. In fact, I would guess that each attorney involved in this case would be interested in exposing the corrupt behaviors of your department. It is very troublesome to witness such outlandish behaviors by your County CPS Dept.,especially when it is suppose to put the best interest of the child first, not personal agendas. I worry about all of the other children who have been harmed, as Baby R has been, by your department.

Respectfully,

Kimber Fraser

letter sent to CPS Supervisor 8-1-08

2008-12-06T09:16:00.000-08:00

The following is a letter that I mailed and faxed to CPS on 8-1-08. SADLY, I NEVER had a written response or even a verbal one! I did speak to J. Cain on the phone BEFORE she received it and she said that "she would look into it" and get back to me. She never did get back to me on this issue. There have been more incidences of bite marks on Baby R. The dates will be on the time line. This was NOT the only time there was proof of physical abuse on Baby R. There was a police report filed at one time but I cannot post that here. Environmental Alternatives is the other agency involved in this case. It amazes me that an agency can ignore and NOT help a little boy remain safe in a foster home.
BTW we still have the photos, I am unsure if I may post them here or not. Just imagine the WORST bite you have EVER seen without the skin breaking! There were 4 of them and all in the same stages of bruising! AWFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kimber Fraser
P.O. Box 923
Clovis, CA 93613
(559) 360-0191
kimmysbenz@hotmail.com

July 31, 2008

Dept. of Health and Human Services
880 Northcrest Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 464-3191

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in regards to Baby R, the minor son of Melissa T. and R.S.. There is an urgent issue that warrants the immediate attention of your office and all agencies involved in the case.
During a recent visit with Baby R on Thursday July 24 of 2008; Melissa alerted myself and our sister Lisa Turner about some very severe injuries on Baby R's back and sides. I personally viewed the bruises after Melissa revealed the injuries by lifting up Baby R's shirt. I saw the imprint of complete bite marks that appeared to be from a youth's mouth, as they were small in diameter. There were several marks that looked quite painful, and there were at least four separate marks. Tiny teeth imprints that were red and purple in hue, were easily visible to the naked eye. Due to the amount of bites, it seemed a very intentional act that was violent in nature. Melissa told us that she reported it to the staff at Social Services and it was noted in the case file. An explanation was offered by the current foster parent K.D. to the staff. The bites were said to be from a little girl about Baby R's age. Melissa said she doubted that Baby R took part in any biting because she had never witnessed or heard of him biting before. I witnessed K.D., telling Melissa about the bite marks in the lobby the next morning just prior to another visit with Baby R. I find the marks on Baby R, very unacceptable. With five children myself I know that children argue and fight. With one or MAYBE two bites you can say that the fight was interrupted quickly and the children were kept from further injury. Due to the amount of bite marks found on Baby R I am worried that Baby R was held down and bit with such force and severity that he had no adult supervision for quite some time. I let Melissa know how very disturbed I was by Baby R's injuries Melissa and Lisa both stated that they felt the same. Melissa did however state that she did what she could by reporting the visible signs of abuse and showing myself and Lisa. My sister Lisa was able to take photos of the bite marks on her cell phone. A foster parent that cannot protect a child's safety, while in their care, should not continue care for that child.

I realize that the foster system may be overloaded and the social workers overworked, but the very reason for such a system is to protect all children from bodily harm. As Baby R's Aunt, a mother, and a medical professional I cannot sit back and not demand that something definitive be done to correct this dangerous situation. It is not OK to be injured so severely, even if by another child. I am deeply concerned about the supervision in the home and the possibility of further injury or worse. Even the pain and time it took for the current injuries to occur are proof of lack of competence. I would be very uncomfortable and derelict in duty, if I did not share my concern about these injuries.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this urgent matter. I would greatly appreciate a reply to my letter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Kimber Fraser
cc: J. Cain
M.S.

2008-12-01T18:38:00.000-08:00

“It is a melancholy truth that even great men have their poor relations.” - Charles Dickens

I found this quote today and it reminded me of how we cannot choose our family. I have been blessed by my family in many ways.........and yet we all know that there are "some" members of our family that we WISH were not related. NO NAMES here but I do believe that we all have a black sheep in every family, OK maybe more than one.

IF anyone out there DOES NOT have one in THEIR family, please give me a call. I bet if anyone who DID believe that would be someone else's black sheep;) LOL

Being an imperfect Christian.....I choose to LOVE my family anyway. I did SAY Love NOT enable and in some cases taking them out of the equation is the best anecdote. Unfortunate, but to be a victim requires your permission.

The WORST suffering that has befallen me has come from one of OUR family's black sheep. As I can love her, I will not tolerate her behavior. I will also not become her. SHE is my cross to bare and in so trying to hurt us..........and weaken us........she has accidentally..........made us stronger.

My sister and Baby R's father were recently treated very poorly by the State Adoptions Supervisor in Arcata. I am VERY thankful that I do not live closer......as I may have shown up on their doorstep (Arcata's) and said some not so kind words;) Thankfully, I was able to support my sister emotionally on the phone as she sobbed the next morning.
She was able to sign the designated relinquishment (as was the father) on Tuesday of last week. Which they have been asking to do for MONTHS! BUT this came at a price. They were repeatedly, told WHILE signing that...........

"IF for some reason Baby R was unable to be placed with me, then they could meet and sign a NEW designated relinquishment over to the foster family." "The foster family is VERY upset that you are signing these papers today."

There is more to the conversation but you get the idea. Basically, what was said to my sister and Baby R's father was that, "The ink you are using on these papers is a waste. "We DO NOT intend, NOR have we EVER intended to place Baby R with your sister!"

I felt so sorry for my sister. She spent the evening after signing papers in bed she was so upset. I am angry that a State Adoption worker treated a HUMAN being so terribly. This was a very serious moment for both bio parents and one that they HAVE NEVER taken lightly. They are both in LOVE with their child but have a problem that involves drugs and the reality that they are not capable of properly caring for Baby R. DOES this mean that they are subhuman and have no feelings or rights? Of course not! EVEN a convicted murderer has rights and is treated with civility.
I encouraged my sister to put her complaint in writing.

I see faults in others that I CHOOSE NOT to repeat. I PRAY that I never treat someone as subhuman even if they have caused me harm.

Lion Video clip

2008-11-28T16:00:00.000-08:00

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=10849410

Today my daughter Madison (age 7) and I were online and saw this video clip about a lion;) It is sooooooooo sweet;) We both cried while watching, and I am not ususally the crying type, take a look. I hope the link works, it is so worth the few minutes to watch!!!!!! IF it doesn't work just cut and paste into your browser and it will show up;)

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!

2008-11-27T09:49:00.000-08:00

Today is Thanksgiving..........................

As my family (some of it) gathers under my roof for a dinner, I wonder what am I thankful for?? My children told me and this is what they have come up with......... (I asked they answered;)

Brynna is thankful for her mom, dad, chicken (the turkey), and her house.
Madison is thankful for Baby R, her grandparents, her parents, and Brynna's "chicken". lol
Sierra is thankful for Baby R, her family, and the world.
Conor is thankful for his family and PS2. (typical for a 10 year old)
Tyler is thankful for skateboards, games, and hair straighteners;)

Still what am I thankful for? For my children, husband, my own family, good friends, and the health that MOST of us still have (especially my Great Aunt Edna, she is very important to me, even more so as I get older!), and I am thankful for the opportunity to take a break from the madness and have some of my family in my home. I am thankful for my Grandma Agnes and all of the SUPER Pumpkin pies she made just for me every year, because I LOVE them so, I LOVE that woman even more;)

Happy Thanksgiving............to the family members who cannot be here today. AND I PRAY that Baby R is in our home for the next Thanksgiving.....................hoping by Christmas THIS year!!

Today we give Thanks and TOMORROW I get back to fighting for Baby R! Even though he is not here, he is NEVER far from our thoughts.

Letter to Governor of California

2008-11-26T14:16:00.000-08:00

October 24, 2008

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Relative placement of Baby R

I have written to you previously concerning my nephew Baby R who is in the foster care system. The letter was dated October 19, 2008 so you may not have had a chance to review it. Today I am writing to you to request to meet with you or your staff concerning this matter.

Time is running out for my nephew who is only two years-old. His parents have both been denied their RIGHT to sign designated relinquishments to me {Family Code 8700 (f)}, by the State Adoptions Arcata District Office. Their rights will be terminated on December 5, 2008 and my nephew will be adopted out of our family UNLESS someone stops this travesty. I am the maternal aunt of Baby R and have requested placement of him since he was first taken into custody of the Del Norte CPS. I have been approved for relative placement twice and have since been approved by, State Adoptions Fresno District Office, for adoption of Baby R. The Arcata Branch refused to study me or even give me an application, which is a violation of my rights.

My nephew lived the first 9 months of his life with my family, here in Fresno County. I want my nephew to come home, but the very agency that is suppose to protect him, is holding him hostage. Family is CLEARLY to have preference when it comes to the placement of a child {Family code 361.3 (a) } and yet I am being pushed aside.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from your office.

Relatives should HAVE preference in adoptions IF they asked for placement from the beginning!

2008-10-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

K.F.
P.O. Box 923
Clovis, CA 93613

October 19, 2008

Glenn A. Freitas, Branch Chief
744 P Street
mail station 8-12-31
Sacramento, CA 95814

Greg Rose, Deputy Director
744 P Street
mail station 8-17-18
Sacramento, CA 95814

John Wagner, Director
744 P Street
mail station 8-17-11
Sacramento, CA 95814

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Baby R.

Baby R is my two year-old nephew. He has been in custody of the D N County CPS since November 23, 2007. Repeatedly, I have requested for an immediate foster placement, and eventual adoption of Baby R. Personally, I provided the department with Baby R's medical care providers' names and numbers, demonstrating that I was both the physical and psychological caretaker. I was more than happy to write letters, send gifts, cards, photos, and clothing to Baby R, as I have continued to do. Diligently, I asked each social worker involved with Baby R's case what steps I could take to ensure placement of my nephew. Unfortunately, I have been pushed aside and condemned for my efforts to try and care for my own blood relative.

Family Code 361.3 (a) clearly states that relatives have preference when it comes to the placing of a child. Not only am I a blood relative but I have provided the day to day needs of this child and treated him as if he were my own for the first nine months of his life, in my home.

Family Code 8700 (f) states that a relinquishing parent may designate with whom their child may be placed with for adoption. In this case BOTH parents; M.T. and R.S. have been asking to sign designated relinquishments from the State Adoptions A District Office and have been denied their rights. Repeatedly, both parents have requested meetings to sign the paperwork from T. B. and S. W. (Supervisor), since August 2008. T. B. has met with the parents on two occasions (while allowing one entire month to lapse between meetings) and still has NOT allowed the signing of documents necessary to have Baby R placed into my home in Fresno County, even with my approved State Adoptions Home Study, completed by the Fresno District Office. The Fresno District Office was the office to complete the home study due to the DENIAL of A District Office. They were so bold as to not provide a written request of the Fresno District Office, as is customary when an applicant lives out of the area.

It is evident that State Adoptions A Branch is biased and unwilling to be objective about the best interests of the child, Baby R. T. B. clearly exhibited her bias during recent testimony in D. N. Court on October 15, 2008, where she stated that Baby R was too fragile to be moved to my home. Baby R clearly has a relationship with me and is very comfortable in my care, as witnessed in photos and video of us together. Allegations of a fragile mental state were made, but we are now aware of an evaluation, by R. V., which resulted in a determination that no services were necessary because Baby R was doing fine. Even if Baby R were to need therapy or services adjusting to the transition into my home, I have made it abundantly clear that I will seek any help he may need. I have confirmed this fact in the past when Baby R was still in utero and after he was born. I personally found the medical professionals necessary to properly diagnose his heart anomaly and provided the necessary transportation and follow through to aid in his successful delivery and recovery. If not for my diligence, I dare to wonder what could have happened to Baby R. Of course, I will seek any and all medical and psychological professionals that he may need now and in the future. Isn't the best determination of future actions shown by past actions?

Both parents have been denied their right to sign designated relinquishments by State Adoptions in A. Both parents have stood in court to ask for placement of Baby R into my home and yet he lingers in the foster home that wishes to adopt him. Time is of the essence the .26 hearing is set for December 5, 2008. The foster parents have made it known in court that they want to adopt Baby R. Foster parents are necessary for temporary nurturing of a child and sometimes when reunification is not possible for the birth parents, but NOT when a ready and able relative has been requesting her very loved nephew since the beginning, especially when she has demonstrated her commitment to him in the past.

April 19, 2006 M.T. was seven months pregnant with Baby R and in a serious auto accident, where two people were fatally injured. She was airlifted to Redding Hospital.
April 20, 2006 M.T. had surgery to repair her broken left leg and left arm, rods were placed in both extremities.
May 2008 I drove M.T. from Redding Hospital to Fresno County, so that she and unborn Baby R would be able to receive proper medical care, there were some heart anomalies on the ultrasound.
Baby R was born 6-7-06 in Fresno County, with a medical team present and support for his heart problems. I was present for his miracle birth.
Baby R spent seven days in the NICU at Valley Children's Hospital. He received follow up care by a pediatric cardiologist, physical therapist, and pediatrician.
Baby R lived in my home, with my family and his mother for the first nine months of his life. Daily I cared for both Baby R, who was born with Ductus Constriction, and his mother who was recovering from the accident and surgery.
After 9 months Baby R and his mother moved to D. N. County, to be near Baby R's three, previously adopted biological siblings and Baby R's father.
November 23, 2007 Baby R was taken into custody of the D. N. CPS.
December 10, 2007 I sent D. N. CPS my formal request to have Baby R placed back into my home, as a follow up to a phone call to S. W. of D.N. CPS, stating the same.
January 2007 I officially received and began application for relative placement home evaluation.
May 5, 2008 my home was approved for relative placement by D.N. CPS.
July 24, 2008 and July 25, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D.N.
July 25, 2008 I attended a court hearing in D.N.
July 2008 I retained an attorney in D.N. County.
August 2008 S.W. of State Adoptions A District Office, denied me an application for adoption. S. clearly stated, "that she did not want to waste state resources studying my home since she was not even considering my home as an adoptive home for Baby R."
August 21, 2008 I formally applied for adoption to State Adoptions Fresno District, on my own without a written request from A. District Office.
August 25, 2008 I filed a complaint with the California Foster Parent Ombudsman.
August 28, 2008 I had my relative placement home evaluation renewed and approved.
September 12, 2008 I attended a hearing in D. N.
September 12, 2008 and September 13, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D.N.
September 14, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D. N. (I also facilitated a sibling visit between R. and two of his biological sisters; J. and K. The first of its kind since R. has been in foster care.)
October 3, 2008 my home was approved for adoptive placement by State Adoptions Fresno District Office. (see attached)
October 14, 2008 and October 15, 2008 I had visits with Baby R in D.N.
October 16, 2008 I attended a hearing to request placement of Baby R, I was denied placement by D.N. County, with T.B.'s testimony.
October 16, 2008 I had an overnight visit with Baby R in D.N. County. (I also facilitated a sibling visit between J, K, and Baby R.)

In summary, Baby R is being denied his rights to his entire biological family. He is being held hostage by the foster parents, who although may care for him, are NOT his biological family. As his maternal aunt I have requested placement, his parents have requested he be placed with me, and to date no one can state as to why it would be, in fact, detrimental to him if he were. He is a miracle baby who has made it through an auto accident, his mother's surgery while in utero, an uncertain heart condition before birth, and now lingers in foster care. And despite this, he is an intelligent, gentle, and affectionate toddler who is happy and fun to be with. I understand the foster parent's affection for him, I am even grateful for their time, I have stated that I would continue their relationship as to honor Baby R's time with them. It is a travesty that relatives are condemned instead of commended for relentless efforts to bring him home to his family. By denying Baby R's placement into my home, State Adoptions A. Branch, is depriving him of his large extended family, sibling contact, and a supervised relationship with his biological parents. Baby R's best interests are, very obviously well served by placement with me as soon as possible.
I thank you in advance for your time and assistance in this matter. Time is of the essence and a little boy is waiting to go home.
Respectfully,

K.F.
cc: My attorney
California Foster Parent Ombudsman