Karried that is a timely and thought-provoking article. And we should stop and think these issues through. Not all people are as ECO sees them; if so, I sure wouldn't do what I do. Yes there are bad apples everywhere. And I guess since most who are put to death or spend years in prison or pay child support for years but who are later found innocent, well thats just the cost of doing business. We're not going to prove that everything DHS does is wrong. But when and where a wrong is done, it needs to be brought to light with an avenue of investigation and remedy. Isn't that the premise of DHS actions. What is our recourse when things are wrong? It may be all well and good - unless it happens to you.

I think charges should be brought against the mother if she was indeed drunk and accidentally suffocated her child. But if a mother was not doing anything wrong and accidentally rolled over on her child, I would call that a tragic accident.
If we made everything a crime that could potentially end in a death, we could hardly leave our houses in the morning. We certainly could never get in a car.
What are the bonding benefits with a child vs the probability that co-sleeping will end in death? I would think public education about safe sleeping habits would be the called-for action. To discourage it and educate about it is right - to make a somewhat natural action a crime is to intrude too far into our personal lives. The harm done when a child is seperated from its mother for YEARS does not = falling asleep alongside ones infant WHEN NO HARM WAS DONE TO THE CHILD.

Dana, it seems that bench trial does not = seeking termination. You would be getting a jury trial if that was the case. Wasn't it described by Toadrax that is when the actual process begins and the judge will determine you are to have a service plan to regain custody? I understand all of your anguish and know that it is warranted, and commend you for bringing this information forward (and hope that someone more knowledgeble than I will provide you the help you need) but its seems now is the time to put much of your focus toward complying with the service plan and doing what you can to regain your grandchild. Document everything. She (he?) will not be the same child you would have had if she had never been removed but she needs all of your efforts in her behalf. I think it would be beneficial if you posted events as they transpire. It would be educational.

I understand that you work with DHS so of course you have to cover for them.

GGRRRRR!!!! I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! See what I mean when I say that many people in this situation hear what they want to hear or expect to hear instead of what they are told - usually repeatedly????

Karried that is a timely and thought-provoking article. And we should stop and think these issues through. Not all people are as ECO sees them; if so, I sure wouldn't do what I do. Yes there are bad apples everywhere. And I guess since most who are put to death or spend years in prison or pay child support for years but who are later found innocent, well thats just the cost of doing business. We're not going to prove that everything DHS does is wrong. But when and where a wrong is done, it needs to be brought to light with an avenue of investigation and remedy. Isn't that the premise of DHS actions. What is our recourse when things are wrong? It may be all well and good - unless it happens to you.

I think charges should be brought against the mother if she was indeed drunk and accidentally suffocated her child. But if a mother was not doing anything wrong and accidentally rolled over on her child, I would call that a tragic accident.
If we made everything a crime that could potentially end in a death, we could hardly leave our houses in the morning. We certainly could never get in a car.
What are the bonding benefits with a child vs the probability that co-sleeping will end in death? I would think public education about safe sleeping habits would be the called-for action. To discourage it and educate about it is right - to make a somewhat natural action a crime is to intrude too far into our personal lives. The harm done when a child is seperated from its mother for YEARS does not = falling asleep alongside ones infant WHEN NO HARM WAS DONE TO THE CHILD.

Dana, it seems that bench trial does not = seeking termination. You would be getting a jury trial if that was the case. Wasn't it described by Toadrax that is when the actual process begins and the judge will determine you are to have a service plan to regain custody? I understand all of your anguish and know that it is warranted, and commend you for bringing this information forward (and hope that someone more knowledgeble than I will provide you the help you need) but its seems now is the time to put much of your focus toward complying with the service plan and doing what you can to regain your grandchild. Document everything. She (he?) will not be the same child you would have had if she had never been removed but she needs all of your efforts in her behalf. I think it would be beneficial if you posted events as they transpire. It would be educational.
We at this point are doing everything we are told the only thing they want her to do is go to drug counseling following the doctored drug test. I told my daughter this is for our benifit in the long run because they will take test every week which will show she is still clean. Yes now it is a bench trial thanks to David Prater I called him when I found out that they were trying to terminate 30 days after pick up because everybody told me that was unheard of and that I needed to make him aware of what was going on so I did. That is when they went to my boss and told him I was talking to too many people and to see if he could shut me up. Needless to say all that did was get me unemployed and so now I have the freedom to talk to as many people as I want to. As far as help on here that won't happen I only came here to get the word out. Nobody can help us we are all alone and DHS has all the power they will adopt him out and I know this. My daughter stills thinks she will get him back and I don't have the heart to tell her it will never happen. To tell her would make her lose all hope and I can not deal with that now. She already now has high blood pressure and it is just my opinion that it is because of all of this. I think the stress is getting to her she can't understand why she sees people that really shouldn't be raising their kids are and she who has done nothing wrong has hers taken. It is all confusing to her and frustrating. She is also taking steps to become permanently sterilized so that she can never have children again. She was on birth control and using condems when she conceived my grandson and still got pregnant. She loves him dearly but doesn't want to take the chance of losing another child so she is making sure she never has another one. As far as documentation goes I have been keeping a journal since the day he was born and everything is in it all the reports visits from the police in fact I have a huge file with the arrest warrant for the case worker, her criminal history etc. etc. I just checked the web site and the warrant is still active as of this morning. If she would just send them the money for the hot checks she could probably make it all go away and make me look like a lier but at this point she has chosen not to do so.

GGRRRRR!!!! I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! See what I mean when I say that many people in this situation hear what they want to hear or expect to hear instead of what they are told - usually repeatedly????

Exactly that is what I have been saying all along and it is usually when I point it out how wrong they are that they give up. I am glad you just described yourself it saved me the trouble.

East Coast Okie,

My replies have >

Once DHS has to prove abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt you can kiss goodbye any protections in place for a huge number of children. Without a civil finding of abuse or neglect to hold over the parents' head, forget about court ordered counseling, parenting classes, etc.

>So let's take the kids, throw out the Constitution with all of it's old fashion notions of "due process" so that untrained, unprofessional, under qualified people in a system of armature wannabes can decide who's guilty of crimes based on their subjective emotional opinions without trial or proper process. Then we can force them to do anything like go to certain counselors and classes ran by service providers to the system who have a financial conflict of interest in the situation because of their contracts with the state.

A lot of kids who think their parents will go to jail won't testify. They WILL testify if they know that the parents are simply facing civil penalties and will be required to go to counseling or therapy or something like that.

>Yes the children are told everything will be better if the parents "get help", but their not told they could end up in foster care forever or adopted. They are also "bribed" in the shelters to cooperate with trips to rock climbing and go cart tracks. And to top it off we have lawyers who fail to represent the children as required so even if the child objects their voice is not heard.

W. Moore, how much time and energy have you spend dealing with families whose children are brought within the DHS system? Do you think I am opinionated because you don't like to think that people are the way I've described, or because you have walked down the same corridors and seen something different? I don't know anything about you and for all I know, you work with these folks all the time and have come to a different conclusion. So which is it? Are you going on opinion, perhaps based on nothing more than your world view? Or are you basing your position on experience with this population? It makes a difference if you are looking for solutions to a difficult problem.

>#1 I don't judge people, not my job or yours. I do judge the actions of those in the system and the system itself as to compliance with the law. Let's remember were talking about court here so the law has to be followed, otherwise there is no legal jurisdiction and any rulings or orders are null and void. I know that's a pain for those who already know who's guilty, (without proof) and how to fix them yet have no real understanding of the law or moral directive to follow and uphold it. And whether you or anyone else likes it even the dysfunctional unwashed masses are entitled to “equal protection” under the law.
As for me, I guess I'm one of those who you describe as “nuts”, “dysfunctional”, “mentally ill”, “social misfit” , just one of the “dregs of society”. Kind of amazing how someone like me, (also male) can beat DHS and the ex to get custody of two infants in divorce court, (1995) or overcome the Juvenile Court sham and get a dismissal on an “immediate termination petition”. I'm involved with advocates here like David Starkey who runs the Rogers Co. Grand jury movement, and Mr. Jim Hall, litigant in the only Juvenile Court case known to have a public order issued by the court admitting the allegations against him were fabricated, (after his children were illegally held for over two years). I also run the state chapter of the American Family Rights Association, and work with other national groups. If you'll take the time to examine the AFRA, Connecticut DCF watch, fight cps.com, etc websites you'll see that corruption has been exposed in many states, Ky. the latest, (along with the little Texas kidnapping event). And at least two jurisdictions have had children's legal representation removed from the local court, (because of screw ups that resulted in due process violations) to be controlled by the state or feds. The current class action suit here will probably result in federal takeover or court monitoring as has happened in other states with terrible records in their DHS systems. And now since the suit and legislative hearings have gotten more public attention we are gaining the numbers for more Grand juries and since the feds are getting involved we are going to start a campaign to bring public force to bear and demand criminal charges for Federal Civil Rights violations in the Juvenile Courts against all involved either directly, by conspiracy, or failure to prevent, (all officers of the court have a duty to prevent or report these crimes).

In the trenches, knowing what you are dealing with is essential. I learned a long time ago to call it straight and not jerk families around being "nice" when, in fact, you are dealing with a bad situation and no one is addressing it. You do no favors to a child to reassure her mother, who is drunk every night, that you know she "means well" and you know she "loves her child" and leave it at that. At a certain point, that is a waste of time and time is not something a young child has. You say, "Lady, your drinking has placed your child in danger. You are exposing her to unsavory characters and are too drunk to protect her or care for her properly. Give up the booze or the baby - your choice." I don't believe in jerking around families. Nine times out of ten, there are some pretty straight forward things they can do that will help a situation, even if it won't completely cure it. Make the kids go to school. Get a job. Clean your house. Take your child to the doctor (that is paid for by the state so it is not like it is costing you). Get up and moving before 9:00 in the morning. Dress for the weather. Take a frickin' bath. Wash their clothes, in the sink if you have to. Don't leave your kids with strangers. Don't call the cops everytime you get mad. Don't throw things everytime you get mad. Read to your child and if you can't read, play a recording you can get from the librairy. Tell them a story. Take a walk with them. Shut off the TV and spend time with them. Quit drinking all the time. Go to AA. If you have to tell someone that, they aren't functioning too well. A lot of these families don't do even this much and that is not counting the ones who are actually abusing them.

>All this sounds good, but until a child is actually harmed and harm can be proven a crime has not been committed. And until we amend the Constitution or overthrow it parenting is a “liberty interest” according to the USSC and requires full “due process” to interfere with it.

I stand by my words that the folks who tend to end up with kids in the system by and large, are dysfunctional, either through mental illness, substance abuse or just because they are dysfunctional. Not all of them, but most of them who end up with a conviction.

>Once again these diagnosis require a qualified, credentialed mental health expert, otherwise they are nothing more than allegations and opinion, to use them in the context of civil court to find guilt criminal acts is a violation of the Constitution via the due process clause. There are no convictions in civil court, we see again the attempt to use the civil court as a criminal one.


Jacodenn, the vast number of headlines you have posted are nothing but accusations and charges, negligence (vs. deliberate). Of COURSE there are bad apples in DHS. There are bad apples everywhere. How about putting up the articles about all the babies out there killed by dirthead parents (and their boyfriends) or the one about that poor baby who was eaten by the puppy in Tulsa when her mama slept in? Does that mean that all parents are bad?

>charges being brought means there is evidence, the allegations in a Juvenile Petition are not charges they are allegations without enough evidence for the D.A. To file charges. If the D.A. Cannot file charges how can you accuse someone of a crime?

It is not an easy decision to decide if a child is safe with its family, sometimes.

>Thats' why it should only be made by competent qualified professional people who understand and follow the law and then be confirmed by a jury.

Sounds like they have not even had a trial on the merits in Dana's case which is frustrating to me

>In Ok. you'll find a "trial on the merits" is one of the many things that rarely occur if at all in the system here, generally because there are no merits and that raises the question of "prosecutorial misconduct" and "abuse of process" because of criminal prosecutors being used in Civil Court.

>Now some words I stand by. Any Officer of the Court or public official who fails to uphold the Constitution, (the Supreme Law of the land) or violate it “under color of law” is in violation of their oath and are criminals. Any citizen who violates another citizens Civil Rights is also a criminal. This is not my view or opinion, it's the law.

ECO---My posts on this thread have only been for the purpose of providing some material to show that there are and there have been some "dysfunctional" employees at OKDHS.

OKDHS is like any other business...some of the employees will set the standard, some will meet the standard, some will be below standard, and some just don't have a clue. Unfortunately for some of us, we have had to deal with those that don't have a clue.

I could go on and on and on as you have, but I typically prefer to keep my posts short.

I'll end by saying, Dana has pointed to some very serious shortcomings within the "system," and it's time the legislature and the public listen up and do something. Thankfully, something is being done.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

East Coast Okie,

My replies have >

Once DHS has to prove abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt you can kiss goodbye any protections in place for a huge number of children. Without a civil finding of abuse or neglect to hold over the parents' head, forget about court ordered counseling, parenting classes, etc.

>So let's take the kids, throw out the Constitution with all of it's old fashion notions of "due process" so that untrained, unprofessional, under qualified people in a system of armature wannabes can decide who's guilty of crimes based on their subjective emotional opinions without trial or proper process. Then we can force them to do anything like go to certain counselors and classes ran by service providers to the system who have a financial conflict of interest in the situation because of their contracts with the state..

Well, now!! Didn't mean to get you all spitting, W. Moore.

Let's calm down and remind everyone that criminal law, which its attendent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is evoked to protect a liberty interest, which IS protected by the constition. DHS doesn't deal with criminal matters, i.e., jail time is left to the prosecutors. Civil penalties attach so the higher standard is not in place. No one is a traitor and the constition is not evoked on purely civil matters so lets not get our boxers in a twist. It is not nearly so dramatic as claiming there is some sort of nefarious attempt by officers of the court to try to overthrow our system of laws, I'll grant you.

But I'll give you this - anytime you are talking about children, people get excited. That is understandable. But tossing out words like traitor on this basis goes into the realm of drama queen. No need to do that. Really.

As to termination of parental rights, that is a separate question and I agree that is a constitutional question. The standard generally used is "clear and convincing" which is not too far off from beyond a reasonable doubt. But there is a great divide between termination of parental rights and stepping in to provide services such as parenting classes or a protective order when the child hasn't been fed in a few days or ends up with bruises because the boyfriend took a belt to a screaming child.

Now, in your post you asserted that the kids who testify aren't told they could go into foster care. Er... who told you that? I ALWAYS tell my kids that. How could you not share that with a child old enough to understand? When you are talking about something bad enough to have them removed from the home, you have to tell them that. I suspect it makes some feel better to think that it is all part of a big plot, and perhaps some don't tell them, but as has been pointed out, there are always bad apples. As a GAL, you can't just "trick" kids into testifying. That is just one of those things tossed around by people who have no way of knowing what actually is said to the kids. And it makes for a better story. And the kids will swear they didn't know so as to avoid getting into trouble. If I had a dime for how many kids ask me to not let their parents know how they really feel ...

W. Moore, it may not be your job to "judge" people but the judges, and to a certain limited extent the SWs and the GALs have to get into that. If someone is abusing their child or not taking care of them, you don't have the luxury of looking the other way. Trust me, it would be a lot easier to just pretend you didn't know something. I can't tell you how many times I have wondered if it would just be easier to throw up my hands and say, "To heck with it - these people have already ruined this kid - why beat our heads against the wall? Who cares, anyway?" All I can say is that I have NEVER gone against my gut and not lived to regret it. Never. Those are the cases that haunt me.

<<>charges being brought means there is evidence, the allegations in a Juvenile Petition are not charges they are allegations without enough evidence for the D.A. To file charges. If the D.A. Cannot file charges how can you accuse someone of a crime? >>

W. Moore, that is just ignorant. Sorry. I am not calling You ignorant. That statement is just out there, though. DHS and the DA are apples and oranges. The DHS is not in the crime business. That is the DAs job. Much more often than not the DHS is dealing with non criminal matters. There is no conflict athough OCCASIONALLY there is overlap. That really is the exception rather than the rule. And let me tell you, charges are brought all the time without much, if any evidence. I don't agree with it, it isn't right, but there you have it. Saying that charges being brought means there is evidence is just half a step from saying that if you are charged you are guilty. That is what trials are for, wouldn't you say?

I completely disagree with you that you have to have a psychological to make the call that a family is dysfunctional or has a substance abuse problem. To have a diagnosis of mental illness, you bet. But if you would read what I said, even casually, you'd see that I didn't say they were all mentally ill, nor did I attempt to diagnose the individuals. What I said is that people in the system tend to be in these categories and my experiences tells me that those conditions lead to this type of court involvement. I am not sure how anyone could even argue against that with a straight face. And I have also posted that plenty of people, especially the excessive discipline cases, DON'T fall in this category. You are cherry picking to try to prove a point. Why do that? If you have the right of it, you don't need to pick and choose what I say to come out on top.

You wrote:
>In Ok. you'll find a "trial on the merits" is one of the many things that rarely occur if at all in the system here, generally because there are no merits and that raises the question of "prosecutorial misconduct" and "abuse of process" because of criminal prosecutors being used in Civil Court.>

I'm no mental health expert but that sure sounds paranoid to this layperson... :) I'll leave it at that.

In all of this, I think we are all forgetting that the whole point of DHS is to protect children and prevent abuse and neglect.

Is the system perfect? No way. But, it's all we have right now and we have to find a way to work it to our advantage.

Dana, become a child advocate, a foster parent, take some community college course on child development... anything to bolster your position in regards to getting your grandson back.

I fear you are too focused on proving wrongdoing and criminal history of your caseworker to the detriment of your case.

Unless you have the means ( money ) to sue or take legal recourse, you're wasting valuable energy going after this woman instead of doing what you and your daughter have to do to get him back.

In your shoes, I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same, I'd go insane if my kids weren't with me, but looking in from the outside and remaining neutral and not emotionally invested, this is what I see.

You need to focus on changing caseworkers if at all possible, getting them on your side and doing whatever they say to do to get him back before you lose him for good.

There have been times, I've felt compelled to go after a teacher or a bully in a very 'postal' manner.... after I've calmed down, I realize that it would have only made it much worse on my child.. .. I try to approach it very professionally and work on getting support for our situation rather than alienate, ie attract more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

We all want to protect our children, but maybe if you focuse solely on the grandbaby and realize that maybe, just maybe your daughter has done some things that may have put your grandson in jeopardy, it might make you rethink how you are approaching this whole situation... is that even a remote possibility?

I feel for you, this is a horrible predicament, but you can turn it around. Good luck again

In all of this, I think we are all forgetting that the whole point of DHS is to protect children and prevent abuse and neglect.

Is the system perfect? No way. But, it's all we have right now and we have to find a way to work it to our advantage.

Dana, become a child advocate, a foster parent, take some community college course on child development... anything to bolster your position in regards to getting your grandson back.

I fear you are too focused on proving wrongdoing and criminal history of your caseworker to the detriment of your case.

Unless you have the means ( money ) to sue or take legal recourse, you're wasting valuable energy going after this woman instead of doing what you and your daughter have to do to get him back.

In your shoes, I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same, I'd go insane if my kids weren't with me, but looking in from the outside and remaining neutral and not emotionally invested, this is what I see.

You need to focus on changing caseworkers if at all possible, getting them on your side and doing whatever they say to do to get him back before you lose him for good.

There have been times, I've felt compelled to go after a teacher or a bully in a very 'postal' manner.... after I've calmed down, I realize that it would have only made it much worse on my child.. .. I try to approach it very professionally and work on getting support for our situation rather than alienate, ie attract more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

We all want to protect our children, but maybe if you focuse solely on the grandbaby and realize that maybe, just maybe your daughter has done some things that may have put your grandson in jeopardy, it might make you rethink how you are approaching this whole situation... is that even a remote possibility?

I feel for you, this is a horrible predicament, but you can turn it around. Good luck again
My mistake was moving her to the home for her protection after the daddy of her baby came over and tried to stab her while I was at work. It put her under the DHS radar, and once he was born all hell broke loose. The only reason I made mention of her record is because it makes no since that a woman with a record can go after a family that doesn't and get away with it. When she didn't get the baby the first time she made it a personal vendetta. She was mad because I stopped her but what was I supposed to do just let her take him?

I know I am joining this discussion a bit late, however after reading all the posts, this is the one sentence that stuck in my mind...


Is the system perfect? No way. But, it's all we have right now and we have to find a way to work it to our advantage.

Personally I think this says it all... no the system is not perfect, in fact it is the furthest thing from perfect and the problem is those who use it to their advantage, be it a parent or an employee, and yes there are incentives to both the office itself, as well as it's employees. All it takes is a little surfing the web to find all the information one could want regarding that fact.

Also, if the DHS isn't corrupt, then why is it in order to find these documents you have to sift through forums, blogs, and websites unrelated to the DHS because they have since removed them from their website?

I noticed there was quite the heated discussion over this "bonus" issue, which is as real as you and I. In fact it is another example of a document removed from the DHS website because they don't want everyone to know. Fortunately there are numerous people who have been smart enough to post them where they cannot be removed and hidden from the public. So for anyone who wants to take the minute it does to read this, here's the OKDHS newsletter (http://saveaparent.org/docs/okdhs/OKDHS-InsideOKDHS-december2004.pdf) which announced the bonus.

Also, when those of you who are interested in reading the above article are through, I would recommend reading this document (http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region6/60200029.pdf) as well.

Lastly, maybe someone would care to explain to me why it is, according to the OK State Totals for 2007 (http://www.okdhs.org/library/stats/cp/2007/docs/cp2007.htm) indicate there are such-and-such amounts of "Referrals Accepted for Investigation" and when you look at the "Total Investigations", the amounts differ greatly in that there are more investigations than referrals for investigations.

So IMHO (in my honest opinion), OK is no different than any other state in that they too receive government kick backs, they doctor statistics, they reward unethical tactics, and they get away with it because to few are willing to dig their heels in and fight.

So I personally don't think DHS is corrupt, I know they are because there are plenty of "facts" out there to prove it. People can express their opinions all they want to and many will write them off as allegations when truth be told, the facts are everywhere if you simply take the time to look for them.

But again, this is just my opinion for what it is worth.

~Dee~

East Coast Okie,

This post addresses one issue alone. You stated, " the constition is not evoked on purely civil matters". Where did you learn that? And are you saying that's how Civil Court DHS cases are handled where you're at? Below is a list of case law concerning the Constitution in these type cases, these are Civil Court cases. I suggest everyone read them and deciede if we do have Constitutional Rights in Civil Court or not.


A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)

Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588.
in White v. Pierce county (797 F. 2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986),
North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family, filed December 18, 2000
, a juvenile judges decision on whether or not to issue a warrant is a legal one, it is not based on “best interest of the child” or personal feeling. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause. “[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . . . a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.” Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999). F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id.”

The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.

The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice, i.e. the “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property
See State v. Hatter, 342N.W.2d 851, 855 (Iowa 1983) (holding the exigent circumstances exception to the Warrant Clause only applies when ‘an immediate major crisis in the performance of duty afforded neither time nor opportunity to apply to a magistrate.’). Second, as noted by the Second Circuit, ‘[I]n context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation . . . a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.’ Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999). F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id.”

. Good v. Dauphin County Social Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 (3rd Cir. 1989) held that a social worker and police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity for insisting on entering her house against the mother’s will to examine her child for bruises.
The 9th Circuit further opined in Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000), that ‘[b]ecause the swing of every pendulum brings with it potential adverse consequences, it is important to emphasize that in the area of child abuse, as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes, the state is constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution. The fact that the suspected crime may be heinous – whether it involves children or adults – does not provide cause for the state to ignore the rights of the accused or any other parties. Otherwise, serious injustices may result. In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed. .’ Id. at 1130-1131.”
“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Brandeis.

children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority. Parents also have legal standing to sue if CPS violated their 4th and 14th Amendment rights. Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. (2000) A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parents. Ward v. San Jose, 9th Cir. (1992) State employees who withhold a child from her family infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan, 7th Cir. (1990)

The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington county, 10th Cir. (1997) Parent’s interest is of “the highest order.” And the court recognizes “the vital importance of curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care professionals and government officials.” Thomason v. Scan Volunteer Services, Inc., 8th Cir. (1996)

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular
emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality.
28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct
App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and
protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State
of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding
disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under
Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase
of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care,
company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from
him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the
state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).


The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is
of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental
principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and
political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this
amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247;
U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered
"with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356,
(1886).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in
preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons
faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need
for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into
ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity
of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma
(1980). .
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining
custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's
custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp
538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Er... "purely" civil cases are "just" civil cases. That is why they are "purely civil." Lots of cases have constitutional elements to them, in which case, they would not be a purely civil case.

You've listed cases with search and seizure and due process holdings, looks like. Cases where this is an issue wouldn't be a purely civil case. Of COURSE problems with those matters would be constitutional issues.

Due process issues are constitutional issues but, again, they don't really go towards what we've been talking about. Anyone who screws with due process can run afoul of the constitution, and it doesn't really matter if you are talking about a case arising from a DHS issue or one that involves a drug deal.

Due process in most cases in the initial, temporary separation of a parent from a child generally means the court has to be given enough information to make a ruling. As a very early step, so long as sufficient evidence is provided (and that is a fact question - it will vary depending on the situation), you aren't going to run afoul of due process. Of COURSE if you skipped that step you'd have a due process problem. However, so long as the parent is entitled to a speedy trial on the merits after the initial, provisional ruling, and you follow the law, you should be okay. Normally, the length of time that can elapse from the time a child is removed until the parents are entitled to their trial on the merits is set by statute. Assuming the statute is followed, attacking the statute as being unconstitutional is your remedy. Are you suggesting that statutes governing the time lines in these types of cases has been over ruled? That they are being ignored? That they are unconstitutional?

Your case about separating families discussed "irretrievable destruction of their family life." Again, that case discusses "procedural" protections. Of COURSE you are entitled to procedural protections. Anytime you are dealing with a constitional right you are entitled to that.

It is unclear to me what you are trying to establish. Are you trying to suggest that I am suggesting parental rights aren't constitional rights? Have you even READ my posts? Darling, you are cherry picking, again.

Here is something straight from one of the cases you just cited (the Thompson case):

"Our court has recognized the liberty interest which parents have in the care, custody, and management of their children. Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1462 (8th Cir.) (Myers) (citing Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 258 (1983)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 828 (1987); see Lux by Lux v. Hansen, 886 F.2d 1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir.1989) (Lux); Fitzgerald v. Williamson, 787 F.2d 403, 407(8th Cir. 1983). However, we have at the same time indicated that this right is not absolute. Myers, 810 F.2d at 1462; see Martinez v. Mafchir, 35 F.3d 1486, 1490 (10th Cir. 1994) (Martinez) ("The right to familial integrity, however, has never been deemed absolute or unqualified."); accord Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157, 163 (4th Cir.) (Hodge), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 581 (1994); Doe v. Louisiana, 2 F.3d 1412, 1417 (5th Cir. 1993)(Doe), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1189 (1994); Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 929 (1st Cir. 1993) (Frazier). As we stated in Myers, "the liberty interest in familial relations is limited by the compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves." 810 F.2d at 1462. Moreover, as the First Circuit has correctly noted, "[t]he right to family integrity clearly does not include a constitutional right to be free from child abuse investigations." Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1993) (Watterson).

Did you read that part? Did you see how many authorities were cited and how recent they are? There is even a recent 10th circuit case that reminds us that the liberty interest of parents have in the care, custody, and management of their children is not absolute.

Please provide any case law or reference to a "purely civil" case where Constitutional protections do not apply. The only time anyone looses their Constitutional/Civil Rights is after a felony conviction. Are you saying any part of a Juvenile case is "purely civil" and Constitutional Rights do not apply?

Your words;
Let's remind everyone that criminal law, which its attendent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is evoked to protect a liberty interest, which IS protected by the constition. DHS doesn't deal with criminal matters, i.e., jail time is left to the prosecutors. Civil penalties attach so the higher standard is not in place. and the constition is not evoked on purely civil matters

>You are incorrect, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the “standard of proof” to meet for conviction, (finding of guilt) by a jury in criminal court. Do you mean to imply or infer that criminal law has to be applied or criminal charges filed to in effect have Constitutional Rights?
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard has nothing to do with the “liberty interest” status confirmed on parental rights by Court precedents or any other Constitutional/Civil Right.

“The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's
custodial rights absent due process protections”. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp
538, D.C. Conn. (1981). “Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children”. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma
(1980).
“The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is
of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental
principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and
political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this
amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.” Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247;
U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).



Your Words;
Er... "purely" civil cases are "just" civil cases. That is why they are "purely civil." Lots of cases have constitutional elements to them, in which case, they would not be a purely civil case.


Your words;
Once DHS has to prove abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt you can kiss goodbye any protections in place for a huge number of children. Without a civil finding of abuse or neglect to hold over the parents' head, forget about court ordered counseling, parenting classes, etc.

>So if a Civil case is not used to "find", (not prove) abuse and neglect which are crimes and require due process parents could not be separated from their children for months without a Termination of parental Rights Trial, which also requires full due process?

Your words;
You've listed cases with search and seizure and due process holdings, looks like. Cases where this is an issue wouldn't be a purely civil case. Of COURSE problems with those matters would be constitutional issues.

>Yes and since according to the Court, "the investigative interview” of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” then the 4th. Amendment applies, (along with due process) from the very beginning of the investigation. (see prior post for case cite)

Your words;
Due process issues are constitutional issues but, again, they don't really go towards what we've been talking about. Anyone who screws with due process can run afoul of the constitution, and it doesn't really matter if you are talking about a case arising from a DHS issue or one that involves a drug deal.

>see above reply.

Your words;
Are you trying to suggest that I am suggesting parental rights aren't constitional rights?

>No I'm questioning the understanding you have of Constitutional Rights and their application. I would suggest study at findlaw, Corrnell, or the many other free legal education and research sites online. For more insite anyone in Ok. Should google search “Michael Chionopoulos”, he is a lawyer and former judge from Ok. Co. He does blogs and writes editorials for the Edmond Sun and others I believe. He will gladly answer questions regarding Constitutional Rights and law. Ask him how well the Family Courts in OKC. Uphold Constitutional Rights and other conditions in the system.

Simple application:
I'm sure some here are bored with this thread. Here is a simple way for anyone who reads it to check things out for themselves. Go to one of the many local or national anti DHS type groups and look for these patterns of indicators in Ok. Cases and other states. Google “kidjacked” or “legally kidnapped” among other sites for examples of cases. In Ok. Google “Jim Hall” or “Rogers Co. Grand jury”. Study for yourselves and see how many cases are handled. Also the 2007 American Bar Association report on the OKC Juvenile Court gives good indication of how the emergency custody hearings are conducted, the hearing that must be held within 2 or 3 days of when a child is removed without prior order based on “exigent circumstances” as addressed in case law. This is the first hearing after a child has been taken and due process has been delayed a little just as allowed by law for the sake of the safety of the child,(a warrant less emergency removal was done) At this point the child is away from the alleged danger so now due process must be applied to justify the use of “exigent circumstances” for the warrant less removal, and to justify not returning the child to the parents. But the ABA report and cases in other states clearly indicate lack of due process in these cases is a big problem.

Indicators:
#1 No warrant or court order were issued prior to child removal.
#2 There is no direct evidence in the court filings that indicate any injury or cause for “exigent "circumstances".
#3 Parents and or children not having legal representation at the first hearing after the child has been removed.
#4 There is no "trial on the merits" or "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law” in the court file.
#5 There are no hearings or evidence presented on the record to extend “emergency custody orders” as required by law.
#6 The holding of the children pending completion of DHS plans is justified by using an adjudication hearing, (much of the time based on “stipulation agreements”) And you will hear many say they were told it was “civil” court or “different” and Constitutional issues or civil rights aren't involved.
#7 Much of the time there will be no court reporter, no transcripts of hearings.
#8 Most will say they were told to “stipulate” to the petition by their lawyers, although the meaning and ramifications were not explained. But they're told that's the fastest way to get a “plan” started to get your children back.

The following information comes from the June 2007 Child and Family Services Review "State wide Assessment" available online at Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS.org) - Stronger Families Grow Brighter Futures (http://www.okdhs.org), and the petition filed in the class action lawsuit against DHS filed by childrensrights.org. and cited news sources.

Regarding OkDHS pay and funding
"In an effort to reduce turnover within the Child Welfare program, monetary incentives have been implemented. In October 2004 and 2005 all OKDHS employees were given $1,000 stipends from federal bonus awards the agency received for high performance in several of its programs. Pay increases were provided to Child Welfare specialists and supervisors in November 2005 and December 2006. A performance based pay incentive was implemented per State legislation in 2006. Eligibility for the performance based pay is dependent the county’s annual State CFSR results, time employed in the county office, annual employee evaluation, and completion of training hours."
~ 2007 Child and Family Service Review.
This shoots down all the "low pay" poor DHS worker, (bonuses two years in a row and raises two years in a row) as well as the "legislature doesn't give DHS enough money" argument now doesn't it? This is their data so if they dispute it they're calling themselves liars. And if it is true it proves them to be liars and frauds every time they say higher pay and more of funding are the answers to fixing the problems, they got those things and children are still being abused and dying at a horrible rate.
Money is not the answer. If you received raises and bonuses but then failed at your job,(DHS) resulting in a loss, (abused and dead children) then told your employer, (the public) it wasn't your fault and that you're not responsible, (no accountability). But then said give me a raise, (more funding,) and then I'll do better, how would that go over?


Regarding the numbers
In February 2005 the daily average of children in foster care was 6,522. In February 2007 the daily average was 7,757 children in foster care.
~ 2007 Child and Family Service Review.

July 1, 2008 newsok.com Oklahoma City
“Currently there are 7,600 children in foster care in about 3,500 homes” ~ George Johnson, DHS Spokesperson
July 1, 2008 KOCO Oklahoma City
"(We have) 11,500 children, 1,000 people doing the work of the entire child welfare system in the state. You do the math," ~ George Johnson, DHS Spokesperson
"This case is brought by the Named Plaintiffs, nine children in foster care,
on behalf of themselves and the more than 10,000 children of Oklahoma who have been removed from their homes by the State. These foster children, who are or will be in the legal custody of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services" (statement from the petition filed in the class action lawsuit February 13th. 2008).

The large discrepancy in the numbers (around 4000 ) is an issue that has to be answered. How many children are there? If there are 7600 why do other sources give such higher numbers? And if the higher counts are correct like the 10,000+ cited in the lawsuit then what explains the drastic increase from 7,757 in February 2007 to 10,000+ in February 2008? If those numbers are correct then that raises other questions doesn't it? I for one think not only do we need a full financial audit of DHS, (not a performance audit). We also need some type of verifiable count of the number of children in the system.

This is recent,(last year) it will be interesting to see what results. It could also be a guide to finding possible corruption here.


Santa Clara County
$400M Fraud & Damages Suit

CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS®
SOUTH BAY CHAPTER

For Immediate Release:
Contact: Karl Hoffower (408)-891-5830
Doug Linde (310)-203-9555



SANTA CLARA COUNTY NAMED IN $400 MILLION

FALSE CLAIMS DAMAGES SUIT OVER DFCS FRAUD

SUIT ALLEGES CPS CHARGED STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

FOR NON EXISTENT CHILDREN

After a Federal False Claims Act suit was unsealed last week, the County of
Santa Clara has been served with a summons to appear on charges of defrauding
State and Federal Social Security funds for Foster Care.

The suit alleges that the Department of Family and Children's Services regularly
bills the State and Federal Governments for managing case files of children that
do not exist. The attorney for the case estimated the damages and fraud at
about $400 million dollars in State and Federal funds.

The Whistleblower in this case reportedly has copies of documents that show DFCS
Management and Supervisors ordered Social Workers to bill for 5 children in one
case rather than for the two children that the mother actually gave birth to.

Dr. Karl Hoffower, the President of the South Bay Chapter of the Citizens
Commission on Human Rights said, "We have been receiving complaints against DFCS
for several years. Parents have brought evidence of improper conduct on the
part of Social Workers that never made sense until now. By this suit it appears
that DFCS Social Workers have a monetary motivation behind their actions."

Dr. Hoffower went on to say, "This lawsuit could also be the explanation for why
40% of the case files in the County's 2003 'Children of Color Study*', that
investigated DFCS on charges of racism, were missing. While it has always
seemed odd that 40% of the DFCS files were never found for that study, this
lawsuit might have the best explanation for that blunder.they just never existed
to begin with.

The suit further charges that several psychologists have assisted in defrauding
the State and Federal programs by billing for therapy sessions that never took
place. The Whistleblower alleges that DFCS contracts with psychologists to
perform therapy sessions to children in the Foster Care System. Those sessions
were reimbursed via a prepaid contract with the County, yet the Whistleblower's
claims no refund was made when the sessions did not take place. In fact the
suit claims to have evidence that DFCS and the psychologists agreed that the
money didn't have to be paid back.

The former Ombudsman and current Legal Redress Officer for the Silicon Valley
NAACP, Ms. Nedra Jones said, "I knew there must be some type of fraud going on
with DFCS. This suit validates the complaints we tried to bring to the
attention of the County back in 2004. The deceitful actions and callous
disregard for the truth was a daily fight we experienced while trying to work
with Social Workers and DFCS Management. No wonder we had a hard time trying to
help right the wrongs of DFCS, they didn't want us looking too far into their
cases for fear of being found out."

If you think you have had your rights violated by Social Workers or DFCS, call
the CCHR hotline at 1-800-330-7290.

The children of Color Study's full title, "An Evaluation of Factors Related to
the Disproportionate Representation of Children of Color in Santa Clara County's
Child Welfare System" http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/SocialWork/cwrt/

Dr. Karl Hoffower, D.C.
President, South Bay Chapter
Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Cleaning up the field of mental health since 1969.

School shootings Antidepressants Depression & Psychiatrists - Citizens Commission on Human Rights (http://www.cchr.org)
Welcome to Fight For Kids (http://www.fightforkids.org)

This article is interesting,(same county as other article). In Connecticut last year something very similar occurred. And there are already many questions and issues regarding this subject here in Ok.


From: save children <theacf@hotmail.com>
Subject: [Child Protection Reform] Santa Clara co. Dependency, Juvi Attorney's violate constitutional due process

State program will oversee Santa Clara County's dependency court lawyers
COUNTY DEPENDENCY COURT LAWYERS UNDER INCREASED SCRUTINY
By Deborah LohseMercury News
Article Launched: 05/26/2008 01:31:54 AM PDT


Santa Clara County Superior Court officials have asked the state to take over
the job of hiring and
overseeing lawyers who
represent parents and
children in
juvenile dependency court, even as an audit continues of the controversial firm
that has been doing much of the job for the past 12 years.

Starting July 1, Santa Clara County will join a $50 million statewide program
intended to improve the little-known court system that decides the fate of
children removed from their homes after allegations of abuse or neglect.

That system has come under increased scrutiny since February, when the Mercury
News published a series of articles describing the slipshod nature of legal
representation and decision-making in dependency court.

Once Santa Clara County joins the state program, state officials will oversee
two groups of attorneys: Santa Clara Juvenile Defenders, which until Oct. 1 has
a contract to represent parents, and has been a focus of criticism; and the
juvenile dependency unit of the
county district attorney's
office, which
represents
children under a contract ending June 30, 2009.

In response to questions from the Mercury News, Superior Court Chief Executive
Kiri Torre said the issues surrounding Juvenile Defenders were 'a
factor,' but not the determining one, in why the court is joining the
program, known as DRAFT. She said the court also wants to support the state
Judicial Council's goal of 'uniform compensation, training and caseload
standards' for lawyers who represent parents and children in dependency
court. The 3-year-old program got under way after state officials, who had been
trying to get more money from the Legislature for dependency legal services,
realized they could not account for how well or poorly the money had been spent
so far.
'We were asking for more funding, but we couldn't provide basic
information like how many clients were being served,' said Leah
Wilson, a
manager with the
Administrative Office of the Courts'
Center for Families,
Children and the Courts.
The problems with Juvenile Defenders were typical of what the state found when
officials began to investigate. The Mercury News series described the firm's
timid defense of parents, scant use of outside experts to bolster parent's
cases, low attorney pay and high turnover.

Among other revelations, the firm's founder Gary Proctor admitted that he
had not hired full-time social workers to assist with families as his contract
required, and his attorneys too infrequently filed appeals when their clients
faced losing their kids. After resigning in mid-February from the firm he
co-founded, Proctor, who had been a highly respected defense attorney in Orange
County, committed suicide March 9.
Since at least December - amid Mercury News inquiries - Torre, the court's
general counsel James Rumble,
and the state Judicial Council
have been trying to
collect 10 years of
financial and other data from Juvenile Defenders. The
inquiry is seeking to determine whether the firm complied with the terms of its
various contracts, which added up to $26 million since 1996.
In February, the county asked for assistance in the audit from the state's
Administrative Office of the Courts.

Current representatives of Juvenile Defenders have not responded to repeated
requests from the Mercury News for comment. But some current employees, who
requested anonymity to avoid getting fired, said the firm has been trying to
hire social workers without success, and that the 18 or so lawyers are still
underpaid, overloaded and unable to return all their client phone calls.
One thing that has changed, they say: Managers have been signing off on the
hiring of experts to bolster parents' cases.

Wilson, while not
commenting directly on that firm, said
such problems are the
reason that the state
DRAFT program was created.
'Dependency lawyers are the people that are really serving at the forefront
of efforts to bring broken families back together,' Wilson said. 'We
can't rely on the social services agencies' benevolence to do that,'
she said.

A request for proposals from law firms or groups hoping to represent parents in
Santa Clara County was issued Friday. Those seeking the job will have to agree
to new terms imposed by the state, although budget constraints may limit the
state's ability to impose some of them:

• Average pay for lawyers representing parents and children in high-cost
counties like Santa Clara should aim to be at least $70,000, rather than the
$50,000 that Juvenile Defenders pays its starting junior lawyers.
• Lawyers must give detailed reports as to how they spend their time.
How
many hours did lawyers spend, on
average, with each client? How much time did
they spend
prepping them for trial?
'I think that's awesome,' said one lawyer for Juvenile Defenders,
who said such reporting might reveal just how overworked and unable to fully
serve clients she and her fellow lawyers are.
• Lawyers should aim to have no more than 188 to 200 clients, and then only
if there is one social worker or investigator for every two lawyers at the firm.
Juvenile Defenders lawyers average about 153 clients apiece, but until the
Mercury News' inquiries, had no social workers or investigators.
• Performance will be monitored. The state will compare the firm's hours
on various tasks - filing appeals, for instance, or meeting in person with
clients - with a statewide average. If a firm comes up short - as Juvenile
Defenders has been accused of doing in several areas - the state will step in
and
make suggestions for changes, Wilson said.


Mercury News Staff Writer Karen de Sá
contributed to this report.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work
in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. GRG [Ref.http://www.law. cornell.edu/ uscode/17/ 107.shtml]

Personally I think this says it all... no the system is not perfect, in fact it is the furthest thing from perfect and the problem is those who use it to their advantage, be it a parent or an employee,


No, no, no. You are taking this statement the wrong way.

I was addressing Dana who is butting heads with her caseworker.

Making it work to her advantage would be to try to figure out a way to get her grandson back first, before making accusations regarding her caseworker's checkered past.

We've all offered suggestions on ways to smooth the way towards that goal but it seems like she is more intent on proving that the caseworker is in the wrong... yes, that may be true - she probably is corrupt.. but if it were my child, I'd do everything I needed to do to get the child back first and then go ballistic after the fact, not before.

That's what I meant by using it to my advantage to get what I wanted, my child back home to a safe environment.

I have been a foster parent for years. Not one child was in my care that shouldn't have been there. They were all abused, neglected and uncared for due to drugs, alcohol and abusive parents. I have no sympathy for any of the above when it comes to innocent children.

Reading Dana's posts, it seems that she genuinely wants her grandbaby back, and I do have compassion for her plight.

But, in this day and age, I'm finding it hard to believe that this is all there is to this story. It's possible but unlikely that a caseworker would make false accusations and give false drug tests in an effort to get money for adopting a baby out.

And if she is, find a way to get another worker, get this baby home and then go after her.

There is a lot at stake here. Parental rights could be terminated and that should be the focus here, what to do to prevent that.

How can you have a caseworker tell you youre a bad person when shes the one with a record and if im not mistaken an active warrant ?Once dhs steals youre kid then maybe you will see exactly what she means.
No, no, no. You are taking this statement the wrong way.

I was addressing Dana who is butting heads with her caseworker.

Making it work to her advantage would be to try to figure out a way to get her grandson back first, before making accusations regarding her caseworker's checkered past.

We've all offered suggestions on ways to smooth the way towards that goal but it seems like she is more intent on proving that the caseworker is in the wrong... yes, that may be true - she probably is corrupt.. but if it were my child, I'd do everything I needed to do to get the child back first and then go ballistic after the fact, not before.

That's what I meant by using it to my advantage to get what I wanted, my child back home to a safe environment.

I have been a foster parent for years. Not one child was in my care that shouldn't have been there. They were all abused, neglected and uncared for due to drugs, alcohol and abusive parents. I have no sympathy for any of the above when it comes to innocent children.

Reading Dana's posts, it seems that she genuinely wants her grandbaby back, and I do have compassion for her plight.

But, in this day and age, I'm finding it hard to believe that this is all there is to this story. It's possible but unlikely that a caseworker would make false accusations and give false drug tests in an effort to get money for adopting a baby out.

And if she is, find a way to get another worker, get this baby home and then go after her.

There is a lot at stake here. Parental rights could be terminated and that should be the focus here, what to do to prevent that.

Once dhs steals youre kid then maybe you will see exactly what she means.

lol... okay. I'll let you know when that day comes and how that all turns out. Look for a heavy ice storm... because that will be when it happens .. when hell freezes over.

'I have been a foster parent for years. Not one child was in my care that shouldn't have been there. They were all abused, neglected and uncared for due to drugs, alcohol and abusive parents. I have no sympathy for any of the above when it comes to innocent children. '

I'm not saying DHS is perfect, but I do believe that it is pretty farfetched to think that a caseworker would create a fake drug test to take a baby away from a mom to get money for an adoption.

It's extremely difficult to terminate parental rights. Something must have happened to get this far.

Biological parents hold the cards here.

Remember the adoption cases where the never before heard from dad pops up demanding his God given right to his kid and the children are ripped from their adoptive parents, crying and sobbing and the adoptive parents are crying and sobbing and the biological crackhead is happy because he sperminated some chick so that makes him the 'parent' with all the rights and he drives away with 'his' child? Yeah that.

So, tell me again that this caseworker stole this baby and is making money on an adoption and I'll tell you again that there is more to this story that we're not hearing.

And just suppose that all the above is true, we've all tried to help and have directed Dana to various outlets where she can get help..... and it just keeps coming back to this caseworker and her record.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. doesn't DHS in Oklahoma have any safeguards in place regarding background checks, felonies or criminal records? I know in California we did.

Regardless, I wish Dana all the best.

If there is more to the story than has already been revealed, I am not sure my heart could take it. :)

Seriously, though, I know we all feel bad for kids caught in the grind. It is all about them, after all.

RE: Background checks

A scandal revealing background checks had not been done by DHS was revealed last year by the Oklahoman. It was also discovered that waivers allowing those with criminal records, (some very serious) to run or work at day cares were allowed without proper checks. Around the same time complaints started surfacing regarding DHS workers being foster parents, (a practice few if any other states allow) and again the lack of background checks was involved. The media attempted to get birth dates of DHS employees released to do background checks but were denied. About a year or so before that a embezzlement suit, (regarding public funds) was filed against Howard Hendrick and others. One of the litigants in the suit was Bear Mountain Records, a NY company that does background checks. Although the case was dismissed quickly it was appealed, the dismissal overturned and sent to the Ok. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent it to the Court of Civil Appeals in Tulsa. The case was still waiting to be heard last I knew. All reports regarding background checks stopped and two of the reporters left state. Everywhere you look in DHS and related agencies you find scandal and secrecy. Everyone talked of the adoption money but there are more federal funds involved as well. DHS is being sued by the feds for "over collecting" Medicare funding, the state also recently lost ownership of the OSU Med Center in Tulsa through a lawsuit settlement against the Ok. Health Care Association, (Howard Hendrick is on the board) regarding "over collection" of federal funds. And HCA also lost the state $18 million in a lawsuit resulting from the cover up of an infant being injured. Last year at least two suits were filed against DHS by the IRS, I have no details but again we see money as the issue. We need a full financial audit but our legislature resist, why? Why are there so many issues regarding all different types of federal funding? And if the state has been over collecting so much where did it go? Where did the foster care money go that the class action suit has revealed was not paid to foster parents?

.

lol... okay. I'll let you know when that day comes and how that all turns out. Look for a heavy ice storm... because that will be when it happens .. when hell freezes over.

'I have been a foster parent for years. Not one child was in my care that shouldn't have been there. They were all abused, neglected and uncared for due to drugs, alcohol and abusive parents. I have no sympathy for any of the above when it comes to innocent children. '

I'm not saying DHS is perfect, but I do believe that it is pretty farfetched to think that a caseworker would create a fake drug test to take a baby away from a mom to get money for an adoption.

It's extremely difficult to terminate parental rights. Something must have happened to get this far.

Biological parents hold the cards here.

Remember the adoption cases where the never before heard from dad pops up demanding his God given right to his kid and the children are ripped from their adoptive parents, crying and sobbing and the adoptive parents are crying and sobbing and the biological crackhead is happy because he sperminated some chick so that makes him the 'parent' with all the rights and he drives away with 'his' child? Yeah that.

So, tell me again that this caseworker stole this baby and is making money on an adoption and I'll tell you again that there is more to this story that we're not hearing.

And just suppose that all the above is true, we've all tried to help and have directed Dana to various outlets where she can get help..... and it just keeps coming back to this caseworker and her record.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. doesn't DHS in Oklahoma have any safeguards in place regarding background checks, felonies or criminal records? I know in California we did.

Regardless, I wish Dana all the best.
I guess you didn't see the video that shows the two drug tests taken on the same day. She took my grandchild as a personal vendetta we did nothing wrong. She is well known for her bad temper that is one of the reasons she got fired from the Attorney General's office. We did not neglect, abuse, or harm him in any way that is why the first police officer that came to my house would not take him. He knew what she was doing also but I guess because you have been on the other side you will never see what it is like to be where I am. They will not transfer the case I have already tried that because of the fact that I used to work in the OKC office they are afraid I will use my connections to get him back and that is what they don't want. As far as making false accusations about the worker I have a public my space page feel free to check it out. Go to my pictures and there you will see her record and the warrant for her arrest and then don't tell me they are false. You will find that I do not lie I will never say something I can't prove. Go to the URL Dana_lawhon and see for yourself.

No, no, no. You are taking this statement the wrong way.

I was addressing Dana who is butting heads with her caseworker.

Making it work to her advantage would be to try to figure out a way to get her grandson back first, before making accusations regarding her caseworker's checkered past.

We've all offered suggestions on ways to smooth the way towards that goal but it seems like she is more intent on proving that the caseworker is in the wrong... yes, that may be true - she probably is corrupt.. but if it were my child, I'd do everything I needed to do to get the child back first and then go ballistic after the fact, not before.

That's what I meant by using it to my advantage to get what I wanted, my child back home to a safe environment.

I have been a foster parent for years. Not one child was in my care that shouldn't have been there. They were all abused, neglected and uncared for due to drugs, alcohol and abusive parents. I have no sympathy for any of the above when it comes to innocent children.

Reading Dana's posts, it seems that she genuinely wants her grandbaby back, and I do have compassion for her plight.

But, in this day and age, I'm finding it hard to believe that this is all there is to this story. It's possible but unlikely that a caseworker would make false accusations and give false drug tests in an effort to get money for adopting a baby out.

And if she is, find a way to get another worker, get this baby home and then go after her.

There is a lot at stake here. Parental rights could be terminated and that should be the focus here, what to do to prevent that.
Just so you will know I have tried everything you suggested and some you haven't the problem because of the money and the political connection nobody seems to want to touch it even with all the evidence I have. They have been so good at sweeping so many under the rug they think they can sweep me too. I won't lay down and let them railroad me. I did nothing wrong and neither did my daughter they just got mad because they came to get him twice before and I knew enough about the law to know they were wrong. Since I kept getting in their way they waited for me to go to work and then came back and got him. Then when I went to the DA to stop the termination they got mad and went after my job. She told my boss he needed to find a way to shut me up. Since where I worked had the contract for all DHS depositions and all the depositions held by Lawyers for children through DHS I am sure she threatened to pull the Federal funding for the firm. It wouldn't surprise me she did the same thing at Wal-Mart when she couldn't get waiting on. I can prove this too it happened on Saturday May 24, 2008 at 10:00a.m. I know you people don't believe me but I am telling the truth this woman should not be working for DHS. She is evil and uses her job to threaten people and make them do what she wants.

Just one last note everybody seems to think that I should keep my mouth shut about this evil woman well that is not going to happen. You say I should basically kiss her ass even though she did and is still breaking the law well that won't happen. You say I should leave her criminal record out of it well if she can tell lies about my daughter and me then I can tell the truth about her. You say I am only going to make things worse well they can't get any worse they have him and they don't ever plan on giving him back they never did. He is my only grandson I have nothing left to lose she took my grandson and my job. I had been there for 8 years and while I was working for DHS in OKC she was drawing welfare (TANF). I have always been a hard worker and a good person and I do a lot for others in need while she cares only for herself so don't tell me I am wrong. I have a clean record I just had another background check on me during my last volunteer job for the Red Cross for the hurricane victims of Gustav. So don't say this can't happen because it did and now she has taken everything of value from me so you see I have nothing else to lose so I won't lay down and just let her walk on me. The government might be able to let her get away with it but nobody can shut me up until the day I die. So I guess you could hope that she pulls this off fast and then you won't have to deal with me anymore because once he is adopted and gone for good so am I and I don't really expect anybody to care about that either. It is not like anybody has cared so far.

Although I prefer to believe Dana's main concern is for her daughter and grandchild, as the posts are a continual rant over a caseworker, I can certainly see how some folks could think trashing the worker frequently in a public manner has become a most important goal to Dana as well.

I wish the best for your daughter, your young relative, and yourself. I offer a hope that your desire to win a battle regarding the character of the caseworker doesn't preclude attaining what should be the only goal, restoration of the family unit if it is possible to do so.

If the young relative came under the radar by the mother being in your home, perhaps it is worth some consideration to whether you are the most appropriate champion ofr your daughter and the child at the present time.

I don't know the answer,not trying to suggest an answer. I simply offer a thought and wish your family well as you proceed.

Dana I'm curious, what did you say to keep the officer from taking your grandson the first two times they tried? What law that you were able to site that kept them from taking him?

Although I prefer to believe Dana's main concern is for her daughter and grandchild, as the posts are a continual rant over a caseworker, I can certainly see how some folks could think trashing the worker frequently in a public manner has become a most important goal to Dana as well.

I wish the best for your daughter, your young relative, and yourself. I offer a hope that your desire to win a battle regarding the character of the caseworker doesn't preclude attaining what should be the only goal, restoration of the family unit if it is possible to do so.

If the young relative came under the radar by the mother being in your home, perhaps it is worth some consideration to whether you are the most appropriate champion ofr your daughter and the child at the present time.

I don't know the answer,not trying to suggest an answer. I simply offer a thought and wish your family well as you proceed.

She didn't come under the radar while living with me she was in a home for unwed mothers for her protection against the father of the child. By the time he was born we had a VPO in place. All of this is in earlier blogs or you can also check out the my space page I made.

Dana I'm curious, what did you say to keep the officer from taking your grandson the first two times they tried? What law that you were able to site that kept them from taking him?

No warrant, no court order and clearly visibly no immenant danger.

She didn't come under the radar while living with me she was in a home for unwed mothers for her protection against the father of the child. By the time he was born we had a VPO in place. All of this is in earlier blogs or you can also check out the my space page I made.

I apparently misread your prior statement, response 69, where you noted:

> My mistake was moving her to the home for her protection after the daddy
> of her baby came over and tried to stab her while I was at work.
> It put her under the DHS radar, and once he was born all hell broke loose.

I missed the 'the' home' and thought you meant your home. Why living in the protected environment of a home for unwed mothers created an issue for your daughter and grandchild, I'm not clear on, but nor do I need to be.

Again, best wishes for a resolution that maximizes what's best for the youth, up to and including family restoration and unity if this can be achieved.

I offer a hope that your desire to win a battle regarding the character of the caseworker doesn't preclude attaining what should be the only goal, restoration of the family unit if it is possible to do so.

Thank you, you just said in one sentence what I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across for days.

Dana, I do believe what you say, but it's hard to focus on the issues due to your relentless goal to discredit the caseworker. I have no doubt that she may have many flaws and probably is a horrid person... but there has to be a way to set that aside for now and get your grandbaby back... and then go after here after the fact if that is your desire.

Best wishes to you in getting your grandchild home.

Dana, I just sent this to Britton Follett (reporter) hoping it will bring more media attention to your case:

"Hi, I am very interested in the story of Dana Lawhon and her grandson.

Can you please do a follow up story and let the viewers know the outcome and status of her case?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64)

Thank you, "

Here is her email if anyone else wants to do the same.. she might be inclined to do a follow up story if there is a lot of interest.

bfollett@okcfox.com Send her an email, can't hurt.

Dana,

Try Jessica Jackson at "The Oklahoman" as well at JJackson@opubco.com (she had a clip on my Son in last weeks Sunday paper Fair insert), and Ernie Paulson at KFOR (he ran my story last year).

As always, let me know what I can do to help.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

Dana, I just sent this to Britton Follett (reporter) hoping it will bring more media attention to your case:

"Hi, I am very interested in the story of Dana Lawhon and her grandson.

Can you please do a follow up story and let the viewers know the outcome and status of her case?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64)

Thank you, "

Here is her email if anyone else wants to do the same.. she might be inclined to do a follow up story if there is a lot of interest.

bfollett@okcfox.com Send her an email, can't hurt.

Thank you very much I figure if I keep my grandson in the spotlight that will get him back home. That is why I focused on the worker I figured once I could show that he was not taken for just cause but prove it was personal on her part they would give him back to right a wrong. Now you know why I thought it was easier to just show where laws were being broken so that they would have to uphold the law. If they truely uphold the law then my grandson will come back home and that is all I am asking.

Dana,

Try Jessica Jackson at "The Oklahoman" as well at JJackson@opubco.com (she had a clip on my Son in last weeks Sunday paper Fair insert), and Ernie Paulson at KFOR (he ran my story last year).

As always, let me know what I can do to help.

Dennis
Oklahoma City
Thanks again Dennis as always you are there for me again.

Thank you, you just said in one sentence what I've been trying unsuccessfully to get across for days.

Dana, I do believe what you say, but it's hard to focus on the issues due to your relentless goal to discredit the caseworker. I have no doubt that she may have many flaws and probably is a horrid person... but there has to be a way to set that aside for now and get your grandbaby back... and then go after here after the fact if that is your desire.

Best wishes to you in getting your grandchild home.
I will be honest with you my only desire is to get my grandson back I don't really give a damn about the worker. I only started investigating her when I knew what she was doing was personal and she was using her job to break the law and I wanted it stopped and this was the only way I knew how, to prove we are innocent and let the people know why she was doing what she was doing so I could get it stopped.

Sheeple,

I would like to touch on this one part of your question from earlier,
"How can you have a caseworker tell you you're a bad person..."

When the alienating parent (CP) in my case filed false allegations against me last year, CPS NEVER interviewed me. Oh, they contacted me at my home, but they REFUSED to conduct the interview when I politely informed them that I would have a witness present for the duration of the interview.

In the end, they (CPS Caseworker) informed me in writing that it had been determined that I "was a perpetrator of abuse (other)" and recommended that my Son receive counseling. I was also informed that OKDHS/CPS would be forwarding their decision to the DA's office, as required by State Law. The Caseworker, his Supervisor, nor the Division Head ever answered one question...What the hell do you mean by "other?"

Do you want to know what I was guilty of? TEACHING MY SON HOW TO SWIM! (not yelling, just adding emphasis).

I have NEVER abused my Son. Do I believe in discipline (not the spanking variety)...you betcha. Do I believe in boundaries? Your darn right I do. Do I believe in praising a child and building up there self-esteem? All the time.

Now that my Son has been subjected to parental alienation for over 14 months...should the mother be investigated for child abuse?

Sheeple, I would like to invite you to browse through the website, Children Need Both Parents at Children Need Both Parents (http://cnbpinc.ning.com/) when you have the time and familiarize yourself with what is going on with regards to what DHS is doing to families.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

Dennis, what did they claim you did that was abusive? Did you appeal their decision? Is this still pending for criminal charges or did the DA do anything with it?

East Coast Okie,

They (CPS) never, ever answered any of my questions as to the specifics. Apparently, from what I can gather from the paperwork CPS sent me, someone interviewed my Son, his mother, and her three older children from a previous marriage whom I had not had any signicant contact with in over 4-5 years. In fact most, if any contact with her three oldest children wouldn't even amount to one minute in time and could be counted on one hand.

Yes, there was an appeal...but only on paper, that being what they (CPS) already had in file. The Administrator specifically said that the appeal would be a "paper review only" and that no one would be contacted for further statements.

And when I called the DA's office, I was told that they "could not talk to me." No, there were no charges filed and no one began any deprived child actions.

According to CPS, in their eyes, I am "a perpetrator of abuse (other)."

The Attorney will take care of this as well, I hope.

Oh, BTW, the mom confided in a "mediator" that she "made a mistake calling CPS." Too little, too late.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

When the alienating parent (CP) in my case filed false allegations against me last year, CPS NEVER interviewed me. Oh, they contacted me at my home, but they REFUSED to conduct the interview when I politely informed them that I would have a witness present for the duration of the interview.



So you tried to tell them how to conduct their interview, and now you're surprised that you basically lost by default when you wouldn't conform? I'm not saying it's right or fair, but I don't think you have any sort of fundamental right to have a witness there, and it's like arguing with a cop: whether you're right or wrong, it's best not to argue because they win by default.

OKCMAllen,

I take it you have never had any dealings with OKDHS/CPS. Being stopped by a Police Officer along the road is one thing. Being interviewed by a first year rookie CPS Caseworker out on his first "evaluation run" is something entirely different.

In the event you or someone close to you ever have the unfortunate experience of coming in contact with OKDHS/CPS...make sure you or they either have a witness or some device to record the interview.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

OKCMAllen,

I take it you have never had any dealings with OKDHS/CPS. Being stopped by a Police Officer along the road is one thing. Being interviewed by a first year rookie CPS Caseworker out on his first "evaluation run" is something entirely different.

In the event you or someone close to you ever have the unfortunate experience of coming in contact with OKDHS/CPS...make sure you or they either have a witness or some device to record the interview.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

If you're going to assume that they are corrupt/incompetent no matter what, then you might as well mail it in now and move to Canada. Or another state, or whatever.

Dana, I just sent this to Britton Follett (reporter) hoping it will bring more media attention to your case:

"Hi, I am very interested in the story of Dana Lawhon and her grandson.

Can you please do a follow up story and let the viewers know the outcome and status of her case?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIRFtZ1m64)

Thank you, "

Here is her email if anyone else wants to do the same.. she might be inclined to do a follow up story if there is a lot of interest.

bfollett@okcfox.com Send her an email, can't hurt.
Thank you so much for the email Britten called me today for an update she couldn't believe that the judge did nothing when showed the drug tests I said yea me too. Later she had to go to Morrissette's office on another matter but mentioned me again and he called again. If they decide to go through with the class action law suit they want to include our case. I told them go ahead whatever it takes to get my grandson back I will do whatever. By the way I think you and I have a mutual friend with the initials P. T. I don't want to mention her name out of respect for her privacy. She lives in the same town that you do and if you think about it I am sure you will know who I am talking about. She is a very nice lady and has been a great help to me lately.

OKCMAllen,

I take it you have never had any dealings with OKDHS/CPS. Being stopped by a Police Officer along the road is one thing. Being interviewed by a first year rookie CPS Caseworker out on his first "evaluation run" is something entirely different.

In the event you or someone close to you ever have the unfortunate experience of coming in contact with OKDHS/CPS...make sure you or they either have a witness or some device to record the interview.

Dennis
Oklahoma City
Dennis I don't know this person but have seen his posts to you and me both and I guarantee you that he is either a judge or a lawyer. He seems to be too quick to defend them without doing the research so you are waisting your time with this man. That's politics for you and the good ole boy society they protect their own even if who they are defending is not following the letter of the law.

Dana,

He/She is actually neither. I just remember what P.T. Barnum said, "There's one born every minute..."

Even still, he/she has a right to say what they want.

Dennis
Oklahoma City

P.S. Glad to read the updates. WTG!!!

Thank you so much for the email Britten called me today for an update she couldn't believe that the judge did nothing when showed the drug tests I said yea me too.


That's great news. I'm glad some attention was brought to your case.

For the latest update on Dana's daughters case, please go to:

GOODBYE TO ALL MY FRIENDS - Children Need Both Parents (http://cnbpinc.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2066027%3ABlogPost%3A41255)

Thank You

omg... that is so sad.

I agree with everyone else.... Dana, don't give up yet.

Dana,

Sometimes, brokenness brings us closer to that which we seek. And, sometimes, we have to get out of the way so God can do what He wants to do.

Don't give up before the miracle happens!

Your Friend,

Dennis
Oklahoma City

Here is the latest from Dana...

Ok things are getting really bad here I had to get rid of my computer and the worker is trying to have me arrested. I am fine and regained my strength I think I know why god has given me this challenge. I think he wants me to fight for those who can't here is my cell phone # ******* so that if you want updates for the group you can get them. Could you please let everybody in the groups know that I am fine and will check in when I can. I am going to Adult Adopties to let Bizzi know I think he is the only friend of mine you don't know. Once again thank you for all your help.

Dana

Dana reports that they gave her grandchild to the father who is a 2 time convicted felon and a current drug dealer, known for his violent temper.

I think that is utter nonsense. If he is a known drug dealer, he would be facing charges. Tell us his name so we can look up his criminal record. How is he known for his violent temper? In the 10 years I have been doing guardian ad litem work, I can't recall a single time that a parent who lost custody of a child was put in jail on contempt for hitting a door. In fact, I don't recall them even being put in jail for in court behavior, period. If this is as bad as you say, there is no reason to exaggerate. Does anyone really believe the court gave this child to a violent, convicted felon who is a current drug dealer.

And let's get to the the biscuit - Dana, what about all that stuff that DHS was trying to "steal" your grandson so they could adopt him out to gain a subsidy? There is a lot more to the story than we've been told.

Dana reports that they gave her grandchild to the father who is a 2 time convicted felon and a current drug dealer, known for his violent temper.

I think that is utter nonsense. If he is a known drug dealer, he would be facing charges. Tell us his name so we can look up his criminal record. How is he known for his violent temper? In the 10 years I have been doing guardian ad litem work, I can't recall a single time that a parent who lost custody of a child was put in jail on contempt for hitting a door. In fact, I don't recall them even being put in jail for in court behavior, period. If this is as bad as you say, there is no reason to exaggerate. Does anyone really believe the court gave this child to a violent, convicted felon who is a current drug dealer.

And let's get to the the biscuit - Dana, what about all that stuff that DHS was trying to "steal" your grandson so they could adopt him out to gain a subsidy? There is a lot more to the story than we've been told.Ok first off I did not say that the daddy has custody yet it is in the works. I know what they are doing they are using him to help get custody from Emma. Once they get her terminated then they will tell him I'm sorry it is against policy to give you the child because of your record and then they will adopt. Another thing you were not there so you do not know what they are doing. I was and I know what the judge told her. As a matter of fact when she walked out to tell me they were charging her with contempt and throwing her in jail the judge got mad at her and asked her do you want to go to jail today. If you are so dead set that I am lying try going to the juvenile court and witness it for yourself. This woman is evil and will use her job to bring as much pain as possible. She lied and told the judge that I threatened her with physical harm when I hadn't even talked to her in a month. Had me served with a VPO then waited 2 hours and called the police and told them that I violated the VPO which is another lie. I have been told that there may be a warrant for my arrest. Now I know why the Attorney General fired her she was this way when she worked there too. You don't have to believe me I don't care but I know the truth and I know what is happening but you need to quit calling me a lier since you are not willing to investigate and learn the truth. You are just protecting her because you are a DHS employee so you are blinded because of your connection. If you are not willing to look at the truth then you should not comment on what you know nothing about.

I'm not saying that she didn't slam the door and get threatened by the judge. I'm saying that in my experience, nearly every parent faced with a difficult situation manages to hold it together and even when they don't, the judge will give them the benefit of the doubt. He must be pretty fed up with your situation if he follows through on anything.

Dana, you recite so many horrible things that are occurring and they are never, never, never anything (according to you) but further evidence that you are being wrongly persecuted. Seems like every time you post someone got fired, or the police were called or charges were brought or threats were made (or not made), etc. I am not going to comment further on this debacle because the more you write, the more obvious it is that you have one messed up family.

As for others on this board who have had difficult times with DHS or the courts - my own personal opinion is that people should be discriminating about who they choose to champion. Just because things didn't go well for some of us (and some of us might have gotten a raw deal) doesn't mean that everytime a parent comes out on the short end of the stick in court that it is unjustified. Often, that would be comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not saying that she didn't slam the door and get threatened by the judge. I'm saying that in my experience, nearly every parent faced with a difficult situation manages to hold it together and even when they don't, the judge will give them the benefit of the doubt. He must be pretty fed up with your situation if he follows through on anything.

Dana, you recite so many horrible things that are occurring and they are never, never, never anything (according to you) but further evidence that you are being wrongly persecuted. Seems like every time you post someone got fired, or the police were called or charges were brought or threats were made (or not made), etc. I am not going to comment further on this debacle because the more you write, the more obvious it is that you have one messed up family.

As for others on this board who have had difficult times with DHS or the courts - my own personal opinion is that people should be discriminating about who they choose to champion. Just because things didn't go well for some of us (and some of us might have gotten a raw deal) doesn't mean that everytime a parent comes out on the short end of the stick in court that it is unjustified. Often, that would be comparing apples to oranges.
For one thing I have never said that the whole system is bad or that all workers are bad. However this woman is the exception to the rule I have never in my experience even when I worked at DHS met a woman this vicious that would use her job to destroy peoples lives. This woman even if you don't believe me is evil and now I am wondering how many more people she has done this too. I do know a few things #1 I never threantened her with bodily harm like she said and I never called her on the phone after being servered with a VPO that stemed from the lie that she told the judge. You just have no idea how bad this woman is and that is why I am saying before you judge me and call me a lier do the research yourself. I am telling you she is not like any worker I have ever met and I know a lot of them from when I worked there for 2 years. The ones that I personally know and worked with were nice people but this woman does not fall in this category. Trust me when I tell you that somehow someday the truth will come out and everybody is finally going to know just how evil this woman is.

One more thing in the future if you are going to talk about what I post on other sites could you please do so as it was written and not twist it the way you have been so you can make me look like a lier. Unless of course you are really Tiffany then it all makes sense she would not know the meaning of the word "TRUTH". That is why I told her "do you know to tell when AnTiffany McDaniel is lying? Her lips are moving.

I investigated this story. I know that Dana is telling the truth. Seriously how can DHS hire a worker whose financial situation is out of control. It doesn't take much to research it. I saw all of the court records against for bad debts and bad checks. She has them in Arkansas. If she is going to be pointing fingers at others, she better have a very clean record.

How many times have you fallen asleep with your child on your shoulder? I have pictures of my husband doing that with both of my daughters. How is that a crime or placing your child in danger?

I think there are ulterior motives here. The maternity home belong to Catholic Charities. I know Catholic Charities well enough. I bet money that their fingers in this mess as well. Why? She did not want to place her child for adoption. They want their money back on the services rendered at the maternity home. That baby is worth a good fifty grand. If DHS does the adoption, that is income in their pocket. Ms. Daniel Fears probably could some cash to clear up her debts. DHS also has that pesky little lawsuit to deal with as well.

The more I read about foster care the more I believe that we have set it up to be corrupt and crooked. The solution is not to throw more money at it because the children are not getting the care that they need. The parents are not getting the support that they need. In fact, the system is currently set up to hurt than help.

So you're saying it's a fact that DHS workers personally receive a bounty for each child they adopt out?

Is that really what you're saying?

I'd comment, but I need to reline the tinfoil hat and just don't have the spare time this morning. Maybe tomorrow

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/jacodenn/OklahomaFamilyRightsAssociation.jpg

Here is the latest news from DANA...

Thursday, Oct 16, 11:49 PM...

"Ok guys it just got worse formal charges have now been filed against me and a warrant should be issued tomorrow so just letting you know I will be off for awhile I figure I will be arrested tomorrow. I didn't really think they could go this far and have me thrown in jail over a lie but I was obviously wrong. Pray for me please that nothing happens to me in there. Spread the word and let everybody know why I am missing in action. I am so glad that CASA jumped in to help me like they said they would yea right."

Friday, Oct 18, 12:36 AM...

"Ok here it is my daughter has one child Evan they took him and they are mad at me for exposing their corruption.

They know that I am all alone and that nobody will help me so they are coming after me hard.

The worker made up this lie so that she could get me thrown out of the juvenile center so I couldn't help my daughter.

Then she filed a VPO then 2 hours after being served she called the police and told them I violated the VPO which is also a lie.

2 days later she drove all the way across town to park next to my house which should be a violation of her own VPO.

I have now lost everything and they are harrassing me daily now they know they can get away with it so each day get worse.

They are allowing my daughters ex-boyfriend to threaten her with death and there is nothing we can do.

Now they have charged me with threatening to do harm with violence which is at this point a criminal misdemeanor. I never threantened anybody but it doesn't matter they are going to railroad me.

Depending on how the state wants to push it I could do anywhere from a year to 10 years in prison if they bump it to a felony.

They are not going to be happy until I am dead in the ground. I have been too much of an embarassment to them and they just want me to disappear by whatever means possible. They know I am on the edge and they are just trying to push me the rest of the way over.

This woman wasn't kidding when she said she would destroy me I just didn't think she could do all this.

They are going to hurt me in jail I am so screwed.

I still can't believe all this is happening to me it is so unreal.

God has deserted me and I don't know why. I am not a bad person.

I just wanted my grandson to be happy and safe.

I didn't want the same thing to happen to him that happened to Charlie and now I am going to go to jail for it.

People say that since they didn't pick me up today that I am safe for the weekend but who knows.

All these people who said they would help were lying to me OCCY & CASA they are nowhere and are going to let me fry.

I will try to keep checking in when I can I go to court on Tuesday at 1:30 and have been told that if I haven't been
arrested yet I will be on Tuesday for sure.

I am so scared of what they are going to do to me now but I will try to keep you updated as best I can.

Thanks to all of you for being my friends in case I can't get to you again."

I will keep you posted as information becomes available.

Should you care to follow the proceedings, the case number appears to be:
Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CM-2008-4217

Did anyone hear you (Dana) threaten her or is it her word against yours?