Washington State Extended Families Fight CPS for Visitation

Here is the link describing the state liability issues and my commentary afterwards: CLICK HERE

Hundreds of angry people wanting to do a class action lawsuit have contacted me over the last couple of years. I just attended a work session with the Early Learning and Children's Services Committee and the topic of State liability with Child Protective Services. I am going to be uploading the summary of discussion on a separate page with a link. Of interest, the tort payouts have more than tripled in 2008 and 2009 with many of the payouts the result of adoptive and foster care physical and sexual abuse. The highest was over 6 million.

Comments by the legislature leads me to believe they may try to change a 1961 ruling that waived the State's sovereign immunity and may attempt to give themselves qualified or total immunity as it pertains to child protection. The last two years, DSHS payouts were approximately 26 million with 21-22 million payouts from the Children's Administration. Someone is suing and winning. Juries here in Washington State are sick of DSHS incompetance and are expressing it in large payouts.

NOW, to extended families: The courts are ignoring extended families who are DeFacto. DeFacto means that a caregiver has been a primary caretaker of a child for a minimum of six months and can prove it. DeFacto has become a popular legal avenue for the gay/lesbian community in child custody cases where the judges will take DeFacto into consideration. Here in Washington State, the judges ignore DeFacto relatives but will bend to the DeFacto same sex preference groups. This is discrimination. Just thought I would mention that. If the courts are ignoring relative DeFacto, then DeFacto relatives need to pressure the courts for change as a group. You must be able to prove that you were DeFacto so get your stuff together.

HOWEVER, if you had legal standing as a relative and were not "informal" you have standing currently in a court for a tort suit. More on this later.......

A class action means (thanks to the lioness den) that one person has filed a suit then a class action is requested because others have also been damaged. A suggestion is to find ONE very damaged extended family who had legally binding placement to start the tort then request class action for the rest who may have a gray area or two but still have a solid case. I will complete the rest and upload later.

On another issue.....many of us have been damaged because of shoddy court practices and failure to hold CPS accountable coupled with highly destructive judicial rules. I encourage all of you to read the judicial rules and become involved in the process. Here is the process as given to me today:

First, I am providing the links to the court rules, governing the process for adopting statewide court rules (GR 9) and local court rules (GR 7) both of which are on the AOC Web site:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=GR&ruleid=gagr09

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=GR&ruleid=gagr07

A summary of the rulemaking process for state court rules is found at the following:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.gr9summary

When the court rules are put out for comment they are posted on this Web site as well as it the WA State Register.

Here is the link to the court rules presently pending for comment:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposed

Please note the instructions on this page explaining how and when to comment on these proposals.

Rules which have been adopted but not yet become effective may be located at:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.adopted

Finally, we have begun to archive the rules, which were previously published for comments and the comments received thereon. In addition to noting when those rule changes were before the court other useful information is included here. That information can be located at:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.ruleChanges

Here is the link if you wish to sign up for automatic notification of court rule changes:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/notifications/?fa=notifications.home&notgroupID=19

AS A GROUP, WE NEED TO OBJECT TO SOME OF THE JUDICIAL RULES AND MAKE A STAND TO GET THEM CHANGED

LEGISLATION SESSION HAS STARTED: SO WHY SHOULD YOU GET INVOLVED?

1. A special court designed by lawyers and judges inhibits due process of law (family court/dependency)

2. This court allows hearsay and does not hold state employees accountable

3. The courts use psychology as a tool for the prosecution

4. They hold court in the juvenile division where only children have rights not adults

5. Although parents may get charged with a crime that removes a child, it is called "civil" crime so that legal remedies afforded by the Constitution aren't available (like a jury)

6. They use a low standard of evidence to remove and adopt out children with broad definitions of abuse and neglect so that virtually anyone can end up with their children in foster care

7. State workers lie and are supported by their superiors and the judiciary

Don't you think you owe it to yourself to get involved?

WATCH THE HOUSE BILLS THEY ARE TRICKY WITH "SPECIAL" PARAGRAPHS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LISTED TOPIC AND ARE GETTING PASSED. ONE OF THEM INVOLVES SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL CAREGIVERS THE DEPARTMENT MIGHT THINK NEEDS SERVICES AND IT IS NOT PAID FOR ON SHB 1769. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A GRANDPARENT MIGHT BE BABYSITTING AND THE DEPT DOESN'T LIKE HIM OR HER, THEY CAN THEN DENY THE CHILD(REN) GOING HOME UNTIL THAT PARTY SUBMITS TO SERVICES OUT OF POCKET. IF THAT PERSON CAN'T AFFORD THE SERVICES THEN THE CHILDREN DON'T GO HOME. THIS WAS PASSED LAST YEAR BUT NOT BY THE DEADLINE. IT IS RESUBMITTED TO GO INTO LAW THIS YEAR

FAMILY FRIENDLY LEGISLATORS THAT YOU SHOULD GET TO KNOW BETTER are the following: Mary Roberts, Jan Angel, Larry Seaquist, Maureen Walsh, Marcie Maxwell, Phyllis Kenny, Adam Kline, Senators Hargrove, Stevens, Shin and Roach ESPECIALLY ROACH

Bills this session to look up, read, and testify on regarding family and children rights: SB 5653, SB 5654, SB 5656, SB 6416, SB 6417, SB 5811, SB 2680, SB 6432, SB 2798

HB 1239, HB 1944. HB 2106, HB 2107, HB 2687, HB 4644, HB 2421, HB 1031, HB 1170, HB 1337, HB 1101, HB 1161, HB 2084, HB 1607, HB 1769, HB 1375

IF YOU WANT LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE FAMILY THEN GET INVOLVED THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THEY ARE REALLY PULLING SOME FAST ONES AND ARE GEARING UP FOR THE PASSING OF THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD TREATY

Hello Everyone!

This is a personal invitation to attend a church service on family preservation every Sunday at 9 a.m. Pacific time on Blog Talk Radio with a call in number 347-324-3756 on website http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pastor-jan-smith

We will be exploring God's plan for the family and different stressors dividing families and children. Topics may include divorce, parenting, child protection, anger management, parental alienation, psychology trends, public schools, chemical dependency and a host of other issues affecting the family.

I hope you decide to join us on this journey to examine current public policy trends and the spiritual implications of those trends.

Sincerely,

Pastor Jan Smith, Church of Exodus

(Note: Some technical problems but the first church service will be held this Sunday, January 17th @ 9 a.m.)

CPS IN WASHINGTON STATE: Changes are in the works with two newly appointed heads who are saying to the counties, "place with relatives."

Denise Revels Robinson met with Senator Pam Roach along with the AAG with promising results. "Good things are coming down the pike," claims Senator Roach who is an advocate for family placement. There is a newly formed trend to funnel extended family into the Office of Administrative Hearings when there is a grievance. Take note that in order to be heard, statutes and/or Constitution law must be quoted with proof of allegations.

UPDATE: Senator Roach is feeling highly annoyed that nothing is being done about several cases she is advocating for. We need to find out what is going on at the top eschelon of DSHS)

What are some of the common things that are happening in each county that are not being addressed? Correction - new administration is working on some of the following:

1. False documentation 2. Children removed who are not in imminent danger 3. A refusal to place with relatives while looking for reasons to not place with relatives 4. Hearsay based removals 5. Judges who will NOT listen to defense and support CPS agenda only 6. Services not provided for removal reasons 7. A ridiculous amount of required services causing people to lose their jobs and housing if they want their children back 8. No assistance with adequate housing 9. Psychology used for the prosecution only 10. Drug/alcohol assessments are not resulting in appropriate placements 11. After all required services are completed, the children are still not returned 12. Grief and loss behaviors are being used against parents and extended family 13. Children being promised to relatives to get the parents to sign off rights then adopting out to strangers 14. Inadequate representation by court appointed attorneys 15. Judges not following preponderance of evidence laws 16. Judges who are supposed to hold CPS accountable for perjury and failure to produce evidence are not holding them accountable 17. When judges are faced with #16 they usually support CPS recommendations anyway 18. Their goal is currently to remove children and adopt them out to strangers as quickly as possible and by any means necessary with the least amount of resistance.

UPDATE: I did get a response regarding the number of relative placements and I have determined that the numbers of placed children with extended family are approximately 20%. This is 18% or more below their advertised rate. It is, however, 10% higher than what I had publically expected. They still have not answered my other questions regarding their policy on relative placement and relationship to extended family (Oct 11, 2009)

The following link is a training session for DSHS regarding relative placement with an expert. It becomes clear why, with this type of teaching, there would be resistance to placing with relatives. Like all CPS trainings and public policy, there is an element of truth yet the spirit and attitude behind the thrust shadows other very important truths - namely blood is thicker than water. The trainer clearly eulogizes foster parenting and downgrades relative placement even though he was a relative placement himself.

One individual CPS worker states that there is an inherent belief that relatives don't have enough skills to parent. They site the fact that fosters get training where relative placements may not but the miniscule training that they recieve would not and could not justify this thinking. The Pride book in and of itself would not prepare people for parenting nor provide someone who applies for fostering the values necessary to be a good parent. They are over-rating the training fosters get through the State. Pretty much anyone can become a foster parent. Hardly anyone is approved for relative placement.