Year: 2008

cps
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT
(from an article published in The Liberator)  From Dave Usher usher@mo.net Thanks to Murray Steinberg for sharing these with us.

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Our legal minds will put the cites below to good use.

Please feel free to share them with your attorney. For future reference, these are being added to the ACFC legal cites page. – ACFC Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.

Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on the government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673; 427 U.S. 347, (1976).

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843, (1952).

The Court (U.S. Supreme Court) stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.”

A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1972)

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S.Ct. 549; 434 U.S. 246, 255-56, (1978)

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 U.S. 356, (1886)

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 U.S. 479, (1965) Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protection public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S.Ct. 1598, 435 U.S. 963, Il, (1977)

Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1972)

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S.Ct. 1879; 466 U.S. 429

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored… the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S.Ct. 1102; 4340 U.S. 268 (1979)

The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of sex. No longer is the female destined solely for the homes and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7, 10; 95 S.Ct. 1373, 1376 (1975)

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. WI., (1984)

COMPELLING STATE INTEREST

The following Supreme Court decisions were cited in a published opinion by Chief judge Norman K. Moon of Court of Appeals of Virginia June 3, 1997 in the case Williams and Williams v. Williams and Williams 24 Va. App. 778; 485 S.E. 2d 651 (June 3, 1997)

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.

The Supreme Court noted its “historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S.Ct. 1388; 455 U.S. 745, (1982).

In applying the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[w]here certain fundamental rights are involved… regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest’ …and …legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. State interference with a fundamental right must by justified by a “compelling state interest.” Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113, 155 ; 93 S.Ct. 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973)

State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clause of 14th Amendment… fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights… Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those pre-existing fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution.

Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, as recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of… a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] …

Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

In addition to recognizing as a fundamental liberty interest the right of parents to raise their children, the Supreme Court has also established that the Constitution’s guarantee to fundamental privacy rights also embodies a fundamental right to parental autonomy in child rearing. The Court acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 3210 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431-U.S. 494 (1977)

The Supreme Court has clearly established that to constitute a compelling interest, state interference with a parent’s right to raise his or her child must be for the purpose of protecting the child’s health or welfare. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 230 (1972)

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620: D.C., WI (1973)

SUPPORTING FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS

The rights of parents to 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 , 440 F Supp 1247; U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985)

Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437: 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980)

A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 58-95-599; U.S. Ct. App. (1983)

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)

A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App. Div. (1983)

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205, 1242-45; U.S. Ct. App 7th Cir. WI. No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976)

The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC Section 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981)

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982) U.S. Supreme Court It would seem that the Constitution is violated more than it is honored in matters involving domestic relations. -AFC

cps
Whose Children Are They Anyway?

Whose Children Are They, Anyway?

By: Gregory A. Hession, J.D
June 23, 2008
How does a state child protective services agency even begin to take nearly 500 children from families living in a peaceful religious community in West Texas?
Answer: a night-time raid with tanks, riot police, SWAT teams, snipers, and cars full of Texas Rangers and sheriff’s deputies.
That is the new face of state child protection — social workers backed up with automatic weapons.
In a surprise attack coordinated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) on April 3-4, the Rangers and sheriffs removed an initial group of the 468 children at the Yearning for Zion Ranch (YFZ) in Eldorado, Texas. The raid was initiated with a court order — not a warrant — authorizing them only to have “investigatory access” to a particular teenage mother and her child, neither of whom actually existed. Soon thereafter, the rest of the 468 children were removed, with over a thousand government agents participating in the raids at a cost of nearly $2.3 million according to the Associated Press. The basis for taking these children was a false report to a child-abuse hotline that a teen girl was being forced into an underage marriage at the YFZ Ranch, owing to beliefs of their Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) religion.

This article does not attempt to analyze the FLDS religious belief system, nor does it endorse or disapprove of it. The issue of taking children from any family — regardless of its ideology — must be governed by law and due process, not hysteria over religious or political beliefs fanned by a statist press corps.

It will be useful to chronicle the actions of the Texas child protection agency in the FLDS case — based on my review of the actual court documents, case plan, affidavits of the social workers, warrants, and detailed written accounts of the two-day hearing in court — with a critical eye to see how these same tactics are used in individual actions against innocent families nationwide. Thus, families can be prepared to defend themselves against false allegations of abuse, and not become victims like the children of the FLDS group.

State Child Protection, Wholesale Version
The Texas DFPS first got involved with the families at the Yearning for Zion Ranch when a woman from Colorado phoned a report to the Texas child-abuse hotline on March 29. This woman, Rozita Swinton, age 33, falsely identified herself as a 16-year-old named “Sarah,” from the YFZ Ranch, and stated that she had an eight-month-old child, and was pregnant again by her 50-year-old husband. This Colorado call originated from a person known to be a serial false reporter with a criminal record for making false reports. However, the agency used it to seize on the opportunity that they apparently had been waiting for — a plausible excuse to raid this ranch.

This fraud points to the widespread potential for manipulation in the child-abuse-hotline reporting system. Any disgruntled neighbor, angry ex-spouse or boyfriend, roommate, or enemy can make an anonymous false report and be believed. A mere allegation from such a person will prompt the agency to literally knock down the door to get into a home to check on the children. If and when the agency figures out it has been played for a chump and has improperly brought down the entire weight of the law on an innocent family, a great deal of harm has already been done, as is the case with the children at the YFZ Ranch.

Once the DFPS agency had the false report from “Sarah,” it enlisted legions of law-enforcement personnel and carried out the April 3 military-style raid of the YFZ Ranch starting at 9:00 p.m., without a warrant or a court order. Published photographs show that the Texas Rangers and sheriffs used armored personnel carriers, snipers, and riot gear to force their entry. Once in, agents of the DFPS carried out interviews of parents and children throughout the night and into the next day, and the agents took trucks-full of documents.

The agency readily determined that there was no “Sarah” at the ranch, and no “husband” abusing her. In fact, court records indicate that the agency found no credible evidence of any abuse whatsoever in any home at the YFZ Ranch. However, as the night-time raid stretched into the following day, officials proceeded to remove all 468 children at the ranch from their homes, most under the age of five, starting at 3:00 a.m. Texas law allows removal of a child only if “there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child,” or if it is clear that “the child has been the victim of sexual abuse.” (Tex. Fam. Code, Sect. 262.104(a))

One can imagine the terror that these babies and toddlers felt being ripped from their mothers in the middle of the night by armed strangers. The abducted children were then farmed out to various foster homes around the state, separated from parents and split off from their siblings. This allowed the state to begin accessing large federal reimbursements for foster care, and to unleash an army of social workers, therapists, and state lawyers.

Next, the state put on a show trial on April 17 and 18, to officially verify that the children needed to be rescued from their parents. This hearing was conducted in the District Court for Schleicher County in San Angelo, Texas, presided over by Judge Barbara Walther. Press accounts described the trial with headlines like, “Chaos Rules at Sect Trial,” as could be expected at a proceeding involving 468 children, their parents, and their lawyers. To make matters worse, prior to the trial, the judge had issued a separate order confiscating all the cellphones belonging to both the children and their parents, so that they could not even talk to their lawyers or to each other.

The gist of the state’s complaint was that female children at the ranch were being groomed for marriage to older men at too young an age and that male children were being encouraged to be sexual predators. The agency asserted that 31 children, aged 14 to 17, were pregnant or had borne children by adults. However, the agency now admits that over half of those 31 persons are actually adults, including one who is 27 years old. At the time of the hearing, the agency could not identify a single child married below the legal age, including the nonexistent “Sarah.” (Texas law allows marriage at age 16, or younger with court approval.) Nor was there testimony that any person was physically abused at the ranch.

The DFPS argued, as a reason to take the children, that “there is a mindset that even the young girls report that they will marry at whatever age, and that it’s the highest blessing they can have to have children.” Thus, in the agency’s view, inculcating respect for motherhood is “abuse.”

A review of the trial transcript shows that the judge made no pretense of providing due process, or of trying to decide the cases on an individual basis. Key evidence included a recommendation from a psychiatrist that the children not be returned to their homes, a psychiatrist who admitted that he got most of his information from the media and had never spoken to the leaders of the community. Several DFPS supervisors also testified, repeating the party line about abuse, although they could not cite any instance of it. The state also failed to provide evidence, as required by both federal and state law, that it had made reasonable efforts to keep the children with their parents prior to removing them.

After the two-day preliminary trial, and without hearing any evidence of abuse and neglect, the judge ruled that the DFPS would keep custody of all the children.

After the agency secured possession of the children, they then imposed a case service plan on each parent, which was put together by “culturally sensitive” experts. The plan, which pre-supposes abuse, sets forth tasks that the parents must do, such as taking parenting classes and undergoing psychological evaluations. In reality, these plans contain boilerplate provisions that are primarily designed to provide information to the agency to use at the final trial against the parents — a tactic I’ve seen repeatedly in my legal representation of families torn apart by the so-called child-protection services.

A cover letter of the “plan” contained the following statement: “CPS’s [Child Protective Service’s] investigation of the Yearning for Zion Ranch found evidence under Texas law of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Because of what CPS found, CPS removed your child from the ranch. After a hearing, the judge agreed with CPS’s belief that your child was not safe from abuse. The judge gave CPS temporary custody of you [sic] child.”

Happy Ending Elusive
A crack in the foundation of the case came after several of the FLDS parents petitioned the Texas Appeals Court, which quickly overturned the district-court custody order, and threatened to act if the court “failed to comply.” The May 22, 2008, opinion was unflinching in its condemnation of the agency’s actions. The court found that there was no evidence that male children or pre-pubescent females were in any danger of abuse. There was no evidence as to whether the small number of pregnant teens — five in all — were married or were victims of abuse. The court stated bluntly that “there was no evidence of any physical abuse or harm to any other child.”

The appeals court also noted that DFPS had not “made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the removal of any … children.” The district court had made a perfunctory certification that such reasonable efforts were made, but that was exposed as a false finding by the appeals court.

The appeals-court ruling was a huge public embarrassment for the agency and a repudiation of the DFPS position. The agency was certainly not going to allow the largest child-protection case in United States history to be thwarted without a fight, so it immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. In a brief five-page opinion, the highest court affirmed that the appeals court was correct when it overturned the district-court order, for the same reasons, i.e., that there was no evidence of abuse. The opinion stated tersely, “On the record before us, the removal of the children was not warranted.”

Despite these state high-court rulings, the agency and the district court are placing numerous restrictions and qualifications on the children’s return. The district court is keeping the case open and demanding that parents cede much of their family liberty and privacy as a price for getting their children back.

DFPS has prepared a draft court order for Judge Walther’s signature that requires that parents let DFPS agents enter their homes at any time to inspect them, and allows the DFPS to order psychological testing for the children and parents, as well as to obtain medical exams of the children at any time and place. The agency wants no family member to travel more than 60 miles from home and desires photo identification of all parents and children. The form parents must sign before release of their children chillingly states: “By my signature … I accepted physical possession of the above-referenced child for the Department of Family and Protective Services.” This is a raw power grab, and it is unclear whether or how the higher court might react to this apparent contempt of its order.

But That’s the Way We Always Do It

The tactics perpetrated on the YFZ families are the same ones that CPS uses in almost every child-protection removal case nationwide: insufficient investigation, a superficial initial hearing, a boilerplate case plan whose real purpose is to provide evidence to the agency, splitting children in foster care and moving them far from family, a low standard of proof for abuse, and failure to use reasonable efforts to avoid removal from the home, among others.

What turned this situation around was the extensive publicity that exposed the normally hidden agency wrongdoing. These revelations forced the higher court to reverse the rulings of the agency and of the lower court, which was acting as a puppet of the agency. If each of these 468 cases had been adjudicated individually, hidden from public scrutiny in secret courtrooms as the law provides, the agency might have won most of them, despite having no evidence.

As of this writing, the YFZ families have won an important round in their fight, by getting the Texas Supreme Court to order the return of their children. As of Monday, June 2, the judge had signed a temporary order allowing return of the children to their families, with the many restrictions outlined above.

This temporary order will be in place only until a full trial of the matter, or until the agency comes up with more reasons to take the children away again. It is uncertain what the ultimate outcome of this case will be. The matter could end in a trial, the outcome of which could be anything from full vindication of the parents and dismissal of the case, to a permanent removal and adoption of all the children. Or the Texas DFPS could ultimately decide that it acted without a basis, and ask the court to dismiss the case. Nothing is predictable in child-protection cases, but it should be. The reluctance of District Court Judge Walther to follow the law and provide due process for the affected families compounds the problem.

It is easy to get caught up in the media hype regarding the alleged practices of this religious sect, and thus consider the removal of their children necessary or justified. However, our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children without government interference, in absence of criminal action. All parents are entitled to due process prior to having their children taken, and this was not provided by either the agency or the court. If the state can take children without due process from this religious group, then it can take them from anyone whose religious or personal beliefs are disfavored by the state.

This episode should be a warning to all families that an arbitrary attack by the state against a family can happen to any of us and that a court will likely not protect the family from overreaching state social workers or false reports of child abuse.

Gregory A. Hession practices constitutional and family law in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Original Article-

Whose Children Are They, Anyway? – SlideFrame_1

cps
Its Almost Tuesday’s Been Offline – Sorry About Slow Posts

I would like to thank everyone for your interest in our children and the events that occur each day in our system with regard to families all over our country.

This type of work is very difficult to endure on a daily basis.  Add to it real life, and personal struggles, and sometimes, life gets in its own way…

My sincerest apologies for the slow posts, life has simply gotten in the way, causing a brief interruption in internet services, and It’s Almost Tuesday’s brief pause in updates and articles.

I’m glad to say the month of May is over.   That is the anniversary month that i lost my son, and a very difficult time of year for me.  Its over, I survived, yet another year to keep going and its hard sometimes to keep on going… especially when I fight against my own worst enemy – myself –

Please continue to check in and bear with me as I will keep on truckin’…. and I will keep reporting what I see, hear, and learn, that involves the most important part of all our lives – our future – our children.

I miss my son. I miss my daughter.

But despite all the losses, there is a new addition coming next month – I’m going to be grandmother for the first time, to a precious little granddaughter who is due next month to my one and only firstborn daughter, who I love more than anything.  So its a busy summer, bear with me, and if anyone is interested in being a guest author or helping me out, please contact me at itsalmosttuesday@gmail.com with ideas and/or reference material or resumes.

Thank you. Godspeed.

child death, child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, domestic violence, education, family, foster care, General, government, system failure
Over 1300 online petitioners say judicial actions in FLDS case is deserving of impeachment

Click Here to view the 1385 Online Petition Signatures to Impeach Texas District Judge Barbara Walther Over FLDS Fiasco

Published by Daniel T. Weaver on Jun 01, 2008
Category: Government/Law
Region: United States of America
Target: State of Texas
Description/History:
Texas Judge Barbara Walther authorized the removal of more than 400 children from an FLDS compound in Texas and their placement in foster care.

Both an appellate court and the Texas Supreme Court have ruled that the children and parents must be reunified. Even now Judge Walther is blocking the reunification by attempting to get parents to sign agreements with Child Protective Services before they can be reunited with their children.

Barbara Walther’s actions constitute one of the greatest violation of constitutional rights in the State of Texas and she should be impeached and removed from office. This petition will be forwarded to Texas lawmakers after enough signatures are collected.

Signing this petition does not mean that you necessarily support the FLDS and their religious views.

(This petition was created by a third party who is not necessarily affiliated with nor is this petition the true reflection of the opinion of It’s Almost Tuesday – the views and opinions of this Petition is wholly its own, and independent of Its Almost Tuesday.  We are simply sharing the petition’s information for those who wish to sign it.)

Petition:

Whereas Texas 51st District Judge Barbara Walther has violated the constitutional rights of more than 400 children and their parents of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Church (FLDS);

and whereas Judge Barbara Walther took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Texas and has violated that oath;

and whereas both an appellate court and the Texas Supreme Court have sided with the FLDS children and their parents against Judge Barbara Walther;

and whereas the actions of Judge Barbara Walther have resulted in a great financial cost to the State of Texas and its taxpayers;

and whereas Judge Barbara Walther’s actions constitute one of the greatest violations of constitutional rights in the history of the State of Texas;

and whereas Judge Barbara Walther should have known ahead of time that what she was doing was unconstitutional, since the Island Pond Raid in the State of Vermont in 1984 was almost identical, and there are other similar cases on record where judges refused to support unconstitutional raids by Child Protective Services;

and whereas Judge Barbara Walther has impeded the reunification of parents with their children, even after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that they should be reunified;

we ask that proceedings begin immediately for the impeachment of District Judge Barbara Walther of the State of Texas.

Click Here to Sign the petition

The Impeach Texas District Judge Barbara Walther Over FLDS Fiasco petition to State of Texas was written by Daniel T. Weaver and is hosted free of charge at GoPetition.

please promote this petition

 

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, domestic violence, education, family, General, government, law
ACP Offers Freedom For Abuse Victims in Texas

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.590626&w=325&h=250&fv=]

 

 

more about “Corpus Christi, TX | KRISTV.COM |Texa…“, posted with vodpod

 

I left my abuser…but he keeps coming after me… nobody was there to stop him…so I went back…

If I leave him, he’ll just come find me… so I might as well stay…”

 

I’m afraid to stay home alone… my ex might show up one day if he finds out where I am….”

 

Its been ten years and still I keep the shades closed on the windows, always wondering if he’s out there…”

 

Climbing out broken windows may be the only way to get to safety…

But now, the state of Texas wants to help keep victims of abuse safe once they do leave the abuse…by keeping residential addresses confidential & forwarding abuse victim’s mail to their safe location.

I don’t live in fear anymore…

 

I cleaned my house with the windows open for the first time in years …”

I’m free…. I finally feel like I’ve

gotten my life back…

 

Thank you ACP!

 

Under a new statewide program, Texans who are the victims of stalkers, sexual assault or family violence crimes can now make their home addresses confidential.

State Attorney General Gregg Abbott outlined the new program on Monday, which is designed to protect their privacy and help keep them safe.People who are eligible can sign up to have the Crime Victim Services Division of the Attorney General’s office designate a substitute address for them.

 

 

 

The division will receive the mail, process it, and then forward it to the participant’s actual address.

The substitute addresses can be used on voter and school registration cards, driver’s licenses and most government documents, including court records.

For more information about the Address Confidentiality Program or to learn more about the eligibility criteria, contact the program at ( 512 ) 936-1750 or ( 888 ) 832-2322.

You can also visit the agency’s web site at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

This is a wonderful program I recommend for all 50 states – I was a member of this program in another state until I moved back to Texas where they did not have the program in place. Had this program been in place in Texas when my ex found, stalked and utlimately planned and assisted in abducting my son, I may have never lost my little boy.

 

 

 

 

Attorney General Abbott Announces Confidential Address Program For Crime Victims

Victims of family violence, stalking and sexual assault can register for anonymous address

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today announced that family violence, stalking and sexual assault victims may be eligible to participate in a new, state-sponsored address confidentiality program. Eligible Texans can register for an anonymous address that will appear on voter and school registration cards, driver’s licenses, and most government documents, including court records.

The Attorney General’s Crime Victim Services Division will designate a substitute address for eligible victims; receive service of process and mail for the participants; and forward mail to participants’ actual address. During the 80th Legislative Session, Sen. Eddie Lucio authored legislation creating the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP), which authorizes the attorney general to provide this service to crime victims.

“Texas family violence, stalking and sexual assault victims can now obtain a confidential address that will help them protect their privacy and keep them secure,” Attorney General Abbott said. “We are grateful to the victim assistance organizations that partnered with us to ensure this program provides the meaningful protections intended by the Legislature.”

Applicants must meet with a local domestic violence shelter, sexual assault center, law enforcement, or prosecution staff member to discuss a safety plan and learn more about the enrollment process. To get contact information for local shelters, access the Texas Council on Family Violence Web site at www.tcfv.org or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at (800) 799-SAFE. To contact local sexual assault centers, access the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault Web site at www.taasa.org or the National Sexual Assault Hotline at (800) 656- HOPE. Meeting with a victim advocate is vital to this process and required by law.

Sheryl Cates, chief executive officer of the TCFV and the National Domestic Violence Hotline praised the new program: “The ACP is yet another valuable tool available to victims of family violence in protecting themselves from the perpetrators who abuse them. We are grateful to General Abbott and his staff for seeking input from the Texas Council on Family Violence and many other domestic violence service providers in the development of ACP guidelines.”

Annette Burrhus-Clay, executive director of TAASA, added: “Rape is a crime that removes control from a victim; this measure provides one additional avenue for restoring that control.

TAASA is proud to have worked with the Legislature, the Attorney General and other victim advocacy organizations to see this important program through to fruition and we’re hopeful that survivors of sexual violence, stalking and domestic violence will find this a helpful tool on their path to recovery.”

 
 

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

  AN ACT
  relating to the creation of an address confidentiality program to
  assist victims of family violence, sexual assault, or stalking in
  maintaining confidential addresses.
         BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
         SECTION 1.  Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
  amended by adding Subchapter C to read as follows:
  SUBCHAPTER C. ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM FOR VICTIMS OF
  FAMILY VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, OR STALKING
         Art. 56.81.  DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
               (1)  “Applicant” means a person who applies to
  participate in the program.
               (2)  “Family violence” has the meaning assigned by
  Section 71.004, Family Code.
               (3)  “Family violence shelter center” has the meaning
  assigned by Section 51.002, Human Resources Code.
               (4)  “Mail” means first class mail and any mail sent by
  a government agency. The term does not include a package,
  regardless of size or type of mailing.
               (5)  “Participant” means an applicant who is certified
  for participation in the program.
               (6)  “Program” means the address confidentiality
  program created under this subchapter.
         Art. 56.82.  ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM. (a)  The
  attorney general shall establish an address confidentiality
  program, as provided by this subchapter, to assist a victim of
  family violence or an offense under Section 22.011, 22.021, 25.02,
  or 42.072, Penal Code, in maintaining a confidential address.
         (b)  The attorney general shall:
               (1)  designate a substitute post office box address
  that a participant may use in place of the participant’s true
  residential, business, or school address;
               (2)  act as agent to receive service of process and mail
  on behalf of the participant; and
               (3)  forward to the participant mail received by the
  office of the attorney general on behalf of the participant.
         (c)  A summons, writ, notice, demand, or process may be
  served on the attorney general on behalf of the participant by
  delivery of two copies of the document to the office of the attorney
  general. The attorney general shall retain a copy of the summons,
  writ, notice, demand, or process and forward the original to the
  participant not later than the third day after the date of service
  on the attorney general.
         (d)  The attorney general shall make and retain a copy of the
  envelope in which certified mail is received on behalf of the
  participant.
         Art. 56.83.  ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAM. (a)  To
  be eligible to participate in the program, an applicant must:
               (1)  meet with a victim’s assistance counselor from a
  state or local agency or other entity designated by the attorney
  general under Article 56.92 and receive orientation information
  about the program;
               (2)  file an application for participation with the
  attorney general or a state or local agency or other entity
  designated by the attorney general under Article 56.92;
               (3)  designate the attorney general as agent to receive
  service of process and mail on behalf of the applicant; and
               (4)  live at a residential address, or relocate to a
  residential address, that is unknown to the person who committed or
  is alleged to have committed the family violence or an offense under
  Section 22.011, 22.021, 25.02, or 42.072, Penal Code.
         (b)  An application under Subsection (a)(2) must contain:
               (1)  a signed, sworn statement by the applicant stating
  that the applicant fears for the safety of the applicant, the
  applicant’s child, or another person in the applicant’s household
  because of a threat of immediate or future harm caused by the person
  who committed or is alleged to have committed the family violence or
  an offense under Section 22.011, 22.021, 25.02, or 42.072, Penal
  Code;
               (2)  the applicant’s true residential address and, if
  applicable, the applicant’s business and school addresses; and
               (3)  a statement by the applicant of whether there is an
  existing court order or a pending court case for child support or
  child custody or visitation that involves the applicant and, if so,
  the name and address of:
                     (A)  the legal counsel of record; and
                     (B)  each parent involved in the court order or
  pending case.
         (c)  An application under Subsection (a)(2) must be
  completed by the applicant in person at the state or local agency or
  other entity with which the application is filed.  An applicant who
  knowingly or intentionally makes a false statement in an
  application under Subsection (a)(2) is subject to prosecution under
  Chapter 37, Penal Code.
         (d)  A state or local agency or other entity with which an
  application is filed under Subsection (a)(2) shall forward the
  application to the office of the attorney general.
         (e)  The attorney general by rule may establish additional
  eligibility requirements for participation in the program that are
  consistent with the purpose of the program as stated in Article
  56.82(a).  The attorney general may establish procedures for
  requiring an applicant, in appropriate circumstances, to submit
  with the application under Subsection (a)(2) independent
  documentary evidence of family violence or an offense under Section
  22.011, 22.021, 25.02, or 42.072, Penal Code, in the form of:
               (1)  an active or recently issued protective order;
               (2)  an incident report or other record maintained by a
  law enforcement agency or official;
               (3)  a statement of a physician or other health care
  provider regarding the applicant’s medical condition as a result of
  the family violence or offense; or
               (4)  a statement of a mental health professional, a
  member of the clergy, an attorney or other legal advocate, a trained
  staff member of a family violence center, or another professional
  who has assisted the applicant in addressing the effects of the
  family violence or offense.
         (f)  Any assistance or counseling provided by the attorney
  general or an employee or agent of the attorney general to an
  applicant does not constitute legal advice.
         Art. 56.84.  CERTIFICATION; EXPIRATION. (a)  The attorney
  general shall certify for participation in the program an applicant
  who satisfies the eligibility requirements under Article 56.83.
         (b)  A certification under this article expires on the third
  anniversary of the date of certification.
         Art. 56.85.  RENEWAL. To renew a certification under
  Article 56.84, a participant must satisfy the eligibility
  requirements under Article 56.83 as if the participant were
  originally applying for participation in the program.
         Art. 56.86.  INELIGIBILITY AND CANCELLATION. (a)  An
  applicant is ineligible for, and a participant may be excluded
  from, participation in the program if the applicant or participant
  knowingly makes a false statement on an application filed under
  Article 56.83(a)(2).
         (b)  A participant may be excluded from participation in the
  program if:
               (1)  mail forwarded to the participant by the attorney
  general is returned undeliverable on at least four occasions;
               (2)  the participant changes the participant’s true
  residential address as provided in the application filed under
  Article 56.83(a)(2) and does not notify the attorney general of the
  change at least 10 days before the date of the change; or
               (3)  the participant changes the participant’s name.
         Art. 56.87.  WITHDRAWAL. A participant may withdraw from
  the program by notifying the attorney general in writing of the
  withdrawal.
         Art. 56.88.  CONFIDENTIALITY; DESTRUCTION OF INFORMATION.
  (a)  Information relating to a participant:
               (1)  is confidential, except as provided by Article
  56.90; and
               (2)  may not be disclosed under Chapter 552, Government
  Code.
         (b)  Except as provided by Article 56.82(d), the attorney
  general may not make a copy of any mail received by the office of the
  attorney general on behalf of the participant.
         (c)  The attorney general shall destroy all information
  relating to a participant on the third anniversary of the date
  participation in the program ends.
         Art. 56.89.  ACCEPTANCE OF SUBSTITUTE ADDRESS; EXEMPTIONS.
  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b), a state or local agency
  must accept the substitute post office box address designated by
  the attorney general if the substitute address is presented to the
  agency by a participant in place of the participant’s true
  residential, business, or school address.
         (b)  The attorney general by rule may permit an agency to
  require a participant to provide the participant’s true
  residential, business, or school address, if necessary for the
  agency to perform a duty or function that is imposed by law or
  administrative requirement.
         Art. 56.90.  EXCEPTIONS. The attorney general:
               (1)  shall disclose a participant’s true residential,
  business, or school address if:
                     (A)  requested by:
                           (i)  a law enforcement agency; or
                           (ii)  the Department of State Health
  Services or a local health authority for the purpose of making a
  notification described by Article 21.31, Section 54.033, Family
  Code, or Section 81.051, Health and Safety Code; or
                     (B)  required by court order; and
               (2)  may disclose a participant’s true residential,
  business, or school address if:
                     (A)  the participant consents to the disclosure;
  and
                     (B)  the disclosure is necessary to administer the
  program.
         Art. 56.91.  LIABILITY. (a)  The attorney general or an
  agent or employee of the attorney general is immune from liability
  for any act or omission by the agent or employee in administering
  the program if the agent or employee was acting in good faith and in
  the course and scope of assigned responsibilities and duties.
         (b)  An agent or employee of the attorney general who does
  not act in good faith and in the course and scope of assigned
  responsibilities and duties in disclosing a participant’s true
  residential, business, or school address is subject to prosecution
  under Chapter 39, Penal Code.
         Art. 56.92.  PROGRAM ASSISTANCE. The attorney general
  shall:
               (1)  identify state and local agencies and other
  entities, whether for-profit or nonprofit, that provide counseling
  and shelter services to victims of family violence; and
               (2)  require the identified agencies to provide access
  to the program, including making program information and
  application materials available and providing assistance in
  completing program applications.
         Art. 56.93.  RULES. The attorney general shall adopt rules
  to administer the program.
         SECTION 2.  Article 56.54, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
  amended by amending Subsection (c) and adding Subsection (l) to
  read as follows:
         (c)  Except as provided by Subsections (h), [and] (i), and
  (l), the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund may be used
  by the attorney general only for the payment of compensation to
  claimants or victims under this subchapter.
         (l)  The attorney general may use the compensation to victims
  of crime auxiliary fund to cover costs incurred by the attorney
  general in administering the address confidentiality program
  established under Subchapter C.
         SECTION 3.  Section 18.005(a), Election Code, is amended to
  read as follows:
         (a)  Each original and supplemental list of registered
  voters must:
               (1)  contain the voter’s name, residence address or
  substitute post office box address, if required by Section 18.0051,
  date of birth, and registration number as provided by the statewide
  computerized voter registration list;
               (2)  be arranged alphabetically by voter name; and
               (3)  contain the notation required by Section 15.111[;
  and
               [(4)  until Section 13.122(d) expires, identify each
  voter registered by mail for the first time who failed to provide a
  copy of a document described by Section 63.0101 establishing the
  voter’s identity at the time of registration].
         SECTION 4.  Subchapter A, Chapter 18, Election Code, is
  amended by adding Section 18.0051 to read as follows:
         Sec. 18.0051.  CONTENTS OF LIST: SUBSTITUTE ADDRESS. An
  original or supplemental list of registered voters must contain a
  voter’s substitute post office box address designated by the
  attorney general under Article 56.82(b), Code of Criminal
  Procedure, for use by the voter in place of the voter’s true
  residential, business, or school address if the voter is eligible
  for early voting by mail under Section 82.007 and has submitted an
  early voting ballot application as required by Section 84.0021.
         SECTION 5.  Chapter 82, Election Code, is amended by adding
  Section 82.007 to read as follows:
         Sec. 82.007.  PARTICIPATION IN ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY
  PROGRAM. A qualified voter is eligible for early voting by mail if,
  at the time the voter’s early voting ballot application is
  submitted, the voter is certified for participation in the address
  confidentiality program administered by the attorney general under
  Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure.
         SECTION 6.  Subchapter A, Chapter 84, Election Code, is
  amended by adding Section 84.0021 to read as follows:
         Sec. 84.0021.  CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPANT IN
  ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM; CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
  (a)  An early voting ballot application submitted by a qualified
  voter who is eligible for early voting by mail under Section 82.007
  must include:
               (1)  the applicant’s name and address at which the
  applicant is registered to vote;
               (2)  the substitute post office box address designated
  by the attorney general under Article 56.82(b), Code of Criminal
  Procedure, for use by the voter in place of the voter’s true
  residential, business, or school address; and
               (3)  an indication of each election for which the
  applicant is applying for a ballot.
         (b)  The information contained in an application under this
  section relating to the address at which the applicant is
  registered to vote is confidential, except that the information
  must be disclosed if:
               (1)  requested by a law enforcement agency; or
               (2)  required by court order.
         SECTION 7.  Chapter 221, Election Code, is amended by adding
  Section 221.018 to read as follows:
         Sec. 221.018.  EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
  INFORMATION. (a)  Notwithstanding Section 84.0021(b), the
  tribunal hearing an election contest may examine the information
  contained in an application under Section 84.0021 relating to the
  address at which the applicant is registered to vote.
         (b)  Information may be examined under this section only for
  the purpose of hearing an election contest.
         SECTION 8.  The attorney general shall establish the address
  confidentiality program and adopt rules to administer the program
  as required by Subchapter C, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal
  Procedure, as added by this Act, not later than June 1, 2008.
         SECTION 9.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
  a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
  provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this
  Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
 

Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

 

For more information about the Address Confidentiality Program or to learn more about the eligibility criteria, contact the program at (512) 936-1750 or (888) 832-2322, or visit the agency’s Web site at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

STATES WHICH HAVE ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED FOR DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

State (year of implementation) Statute
Arkansas (2005) Ark. Stat. Ann. 27-16-810
California (1998) Cal. Govt. Code §6206
Connecticut (2004)
Florida (1998) F.S.A. §741.403
Illinois (1999) (no funding) 750 ILCS 61/
Indiana (2001) IC §5-26.5-2
Maine (2002) 5 M.S.R.A. §90-B
Massachusetts (2001) M.G.L.A. 9A §2
Nebraska (2003) Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-1201 through 42-1210
Nevada (1997) N.R.S. §217.462
New Hampshire (2001) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §7:43
New Jersey (1998) N.J. Stat. Ann. §47:4-4
North Carolina (2002) N.C. Gen. Stat. §15C-1
Oklahoma (2002) 22 Okla. Stat. Ann. §60.14
Oregon (2006) 2005 Or. Laws, Chap. 821 (SB 850)
Pennsylvania (2005) 2004 Pa. Laws, Act 188
Rhode Island (1999) R.I. Gen Laws §17-28-3
Vermont (2000) 15 VSA §1152
Washington (1991) RCW §40.24.030


 

 

 

 

cps
German parents post baby on eBay for 1 euro

German parents post baby on eBay for 1 euro

Authorities in southern Germany said Saturday they have taken custody of a 7-month-old boy after his parents posted an ad on eBay offering to sell him for one euro, the equivalent of $1.57.

Peter Hieber, a spokesman for police in the Bavarian town of Krumbach, said the baby was placed in the care of youth services in the southwestern Allgaeu region, although the child’s 23-year-old mother insisted the ad was only a joke.

Authorities have launched an investigation into possible child trafficking against the baby’s mother and 24-year-old father, neither of whom was identified.

“Offering my nearly new baby for sale, as it has gotten too loud. It is a male baby, nearly 28 inches (70 cm) long and can be used either in a baby carrier or a stroller,” police quoted the ad as reading.

No offers were made for the child in the two hours and 30 minutes the ad was posted on Tuesday. EBay later deleted the posting, but assisted police in tracking down the parents.

Several people who saw the ad alerted police.


Blogged with the Flock Browser
child death, child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, domestic violence, education, family, foster care, General, government, system failure
FLDS: READ THE APPEAL COURT RULING: ACTUAL COURT PAPERS

This ruling is an awesome show of the law and how it works.  CPS is rarely overturned.  In particular, to have the Third District Court of Appeals rule so specifically on the terms of what they can constitute “imminent danger” requiring the removal of a child, and also implementing the requirement to make every reasonable attempt to return the child to the home.

This is case law that I’m sure will be used throughout many cases in the future of CPS court.  This is a huge advancement for all families who have been wrongly separated by CPS who have not followed the law like they are now being forced to.  These children will surely find their way into history and law books to come and hopefully save the children of our future from suffering much the same fate.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ACTUAL COURT

RULING OF THE TEXAS THIRD DISTRICT COURT

OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OF LAW

FLDS vs. CPS

child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, education, family, foster care, government, law, system failure
FLDS: Appellate Court Rules CPS HAD NO RIGHT TO REMOVE CHILDREN

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745

AUSTIN, Texas (KXAN) — The Third Court of Appeals has ruled that Child Protective Services did not have the right to remove children from the Yearning for Zion ranch last month.

The ruling comes as a result of a document filed by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid last month. The TRLA is the largest provider of legal aid in Texas, on behalf of 48 FLDS mothers that TRLA is representing in their child custody cases.

“The way that the courts have ignored the legal rights of these mothers is ridiculous,” said TRLA attorney Julie Balovich. “It was about time a court stood up and said that was has been happening to these families is wrong.”

In the decision, the Court ruled that CPS failed to provide any evidence that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily in removing them from their families. According to the Court, “The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department’s witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.”

TRLA will be holding a press conference in front of the courthouse in San Angelo Thursday at 1:30 p.m.

child death, child welfare reform, foster care abuse, cps, domestic violence, education, family, foster care, General, government, law, system failure
CPS v. FLDS: Truth v. Lies: ItsAlmostTuesday v. Media- I CALL FOR A STRIKE

I am disgusted by CPS – again. I am disgusted by the Media – again. I miss my children… again…

So, the saga continues… FLDS, CPS, ElDorado, Media, Rocky, Bullwinkle…. hrrrrm?

My day started out a little emotional with this post as I read the Dallas Morning News Opinion Blog – where Sharon Grigsby posted CPS vs FLDS: 0 for 10 yesterday and i quote:

“The Deseret News and Grits for Breakfast, among others, continue to keep close tabs on those YFZ teens that CPS claims are pregnant. Some on our staff have said they aren’t interested in my continued posts on this topic. Perhaps some readers out there are: Today’s news from the Deseret News is that it turns out no 14-year old girls were found pregnant at the YFZ Ranch during the Great Eldorado…Full Story on The Dallas Morning News:

A lawyer for a 14-year-old girl that is on a list of so-called “disputed minors” said this morning she is not pregnant as Texas child welfare authorities have alleged. “My client does not have children. (She) is not pregnant. She’s the youngest on the list of disputed minors,” said Andrea Sloan.

“The department is communicating to the public that there are 14-year olds who are pregnant,” she said. Texas Child Protective Services caseworker Ashley Kennedy said that investigations were still ongoing.

The bombshell was dropped during the hearing involving Adeline Barlow, 38, the mother of a 10-year-old and the 14-year-old.

That led to quite a discussion when Grits for Breakfast replied as follows:

Posted by Gritsforbreakfast @ 6:29 PM Wed, May 21, 2008

Your observation that “Some on our staff have said they aren’t interested in my continued posts on this topic” confirms my sense that the MSM is less interested in focusing on information that’s not full of salacious accusations against weirdo polygamists. God forbid y’all actually report the truth instead of whatever phony accusation CPS ginned up that day.Pretty amazing that your colleagues would admit it, though. The facts on which they based their opinions were invalid, but they don’t want to revisit their conclusions. I’m asking myself “Why?”, but can’t come up with a single good reason offhand besides some sort of religious bigotry. What else could possibly explain journalists’ callous indifference to truth?

Which led to other comments on DMN Opinion Blog:

Posted by Shirlee @ 6:38 PM Wed, May 21, 2008

Amen! It is very demonstrative of the media’s duplicity that these “corrections” aren’t as widely snapped up and repeated as gospel as CPS’s lies all along, such as their assertion that they were investigating sexual abuse in boys too. That was spread like wildfire through the media, with the implication that the FLDS were guilty. This turned out to be, of course, a red herring to remove attention from their other atrocities. Thanks for having the integrity to point this out.

and

Posted by Kristi @ 7:31 PM Wed, May 21, 2008

Thank you for covering this. I have a friend that keeps saying I should quit yelling their rights have been violated and read some of the books out about them and learn more about their beliefs.

WHY? Their beliefs are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I don’t have to agree with them or disagree with them – that doesn’t matter. What matters is that people are treated humanely, and that citizen’s rights be protected. REGARDLESS of who they sleep with, or what picture hangs in their room. Jeez.

Thanks for covering this. The mainstream media is nothing but a statist mouthpiece. THey aren’t reporting because all they can do is repeat what the govt. tells them. They are afraid of real investigative journalism.

So here’s my take on it – from the perspective of a parent who has lost her child to false allegations & CPS: First I’d like to thank GritsforBreakfast and DMN Opinion Sharon Grigsby for their guts, perseverance and dedication to this story.

Doesn’t it seem eerily like the OJ Simpson Murder trial? Where everyone tuned in, it was a news sensation who-done-it, bestseller, and yet – in the mix – people forgot about Nicole & Ron, the REAL PEOPLE who were brutally murdered in an act that was not from a movie script, but from domestic violence.

These are children. These are mothers.

These are people who do not live like “normal society” – and this is their lives.

In a letter from a former FLDS member, dan fischer, to the parents involved in these proceedings, one of the things he talks about is the way these families lived, and the way these women lived as mothers. They do not have television, friends, movies or dinners out, or clubs or dancing or even pictures hanging on their walls. They have their children. Their children have their mothers. These children, if they get an education, it is not like they would get in public school. It is a different lifestyle, belief, way of thinking and living. Is it wrong? Who’s to say? IT IS ALL THEY KNOW. To say that they will need psychological therapy is an understatement. These families are forever changed. The children are no longer innocent at all, secure, or stable. They are forever altered.

Imagine today, someone comes into your office, takes your computers, your pictures, your children, friends, families, etc., and says “EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING IS NOT NORMAL AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE RIPPED APART AND IMPRISONED FOR IT” and you just thought that’s the way things were in life … you were behaving as “normal” and someone comes and rips it all to pieces – because we forget that ‘normal’ is a perspective….

You can’t imagine it – I know I can’t… tho’ I can try. Day to day routine & what you know is based on your experiences, surroundings, teachings, and perspective. Duh… right? Now – how does that tie into the law? How does that relate to the system?

There’s the debate. But wait a minute – the children…. aren’t they the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ALL OF THIS? Remember the children are no longer protected by the sect and their ‘no television’ rules. They are thrown into “normal’ society – for the first time – So they get their first taste of ‘normalcy’ in a place where children are 11 times more likely to be abused than at their natural home? These are children being introduced to society In a place where anger and rage and social workers and doctors and lawyers and psychotropic medications and abuse and lies and faces change and confusion and more abuse and more rage and new foster mothers and new foster fathers and new schools and new kids and danger and fear and confusion fear confusion confusion…. COME ON THESE ARE CHILDREN!

I am a mother first and foremost, and an advocate for children & families. I fight against pedophiles, crooked CPS workers, and system failures within our government. BUT WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING TO THESE CHILDREN?

As a Mother having gone through this CPS involvement and false allegation thing, I want to say this:

– I know that if I had the media reporting lies & making my case into a rumor-filled-gossip office-watercooler-coffee-break discussion, I probably wouldn’t be here typing this blog post right now. I’d be dead, because I would have committed suicide at least 10 times over from the pain and humiliation and suffering that I ALREADY HAD GOING ON added to that media cherry to the top of the rumor cake. No way. I wouldn’t have made it. I do not speak lightly when I say that. I would not be here. My heart goes out to the mothers and children.

As an Advocate-Paralegal who fights against pedophiles, child abusers, and government system failures – I say this:

Lets suppose a 14 year old gets married to an adult… is the sex still considered pedophilia? If a parent ‘consents’ to marry away the child to their sex partner can they essentially thwart the law? What if that marriage – which makes it legal – is forced …. in the name of ‘consent’ but the child never speaks up… or doesn’t know better..?

Child abuse is child abuse. A child has the right to live an abuse-free life. So then, let’s define abuse….Spanking on the butt? To some – yes. To others – no… Some say “Discipline all children with the rod or the child will be unruly” – Others say “Corporal punishment of any kind is abuse…”

Some say keeping these children apart from mainstream society without the ability to choose for themselves whether or not to watch TV or whether or not to go to public school, is abuse;While to others, its a NORMAL WAY OF LIFE.

Go to college v. get a job ? Dog v. cat ? Toilet paper – put it on the roll with the pull side up? Or down?

We could argue all day long as to who is living right or who is living wrong. We could argue all day about whether or not its abusive to live in a sect or abusive to allow no religious teachings in a family.

But we cannot argue truth vs. lie.

We cannot argue the difference between fact or fiction – perjury – telling the truth in the court of law v. falsifying evidence.

WE CANNOT DEBATE WHETHER CPS WORKERS SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT LIE ABOUT THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES THEY ARE INVESTIGATING…

IT IS NOT OKAY TO LIE ABOUT THE FACTS OF A CASE

IT IS NOT OKAY TO REPORT LIES IF YOU ARE REPORTING THE NEWS

IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE IT IS NOT OKAY TO ADD TO THE PROPOGANDA BY TELLING THE LIE AGAIN AND AGAIN WHEN IT COMES TO REAL PEOPLE’S LIVES & THE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE ON FAMILIES (isn’t that right Nicole, Ron?)

While everyone has an opinion, not everyone has a child.

Not everyone has a family or a family problem with CPS.

Not everyone has abuse issues in their lives, or conflicts to deal with, or a religious leader telling them one thing with a government telling them another with media saying something else with people giving opinions and everything they know being taken away, and not everyone understands what is involved in a case unless you go through it yourself.

It isn’t an easy thing to deal with when you live in mainstream society I CANNOT IMAGINE that happening to me if I lived in a removed, isolated, lifestyle like FLDS mothers, and I HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT – So if I can’t imagine it, knowing what I know, I KNOW there are most people out there who have no idea what they are talking about.

But everyone has an opinion. So, here’s mine –

I ONLY WISH I HAD THE NEWS REPORTING AND WATCHING OVER MY CASE THIS WAY WHEN I LOST MY LITTLE BOY –

Maybe then I wouldn’t have scars on my arm from my suicide attempts and the tears that fall when I post this – feeling the shame as I still write, admitting it, for the sake of children I don’t know.

If I had this kind of attention to my case, I might have back the years I lost, and the many more to come since my case caused me such despair because I WAS LIED ABOUT BY CPS TOO. Maybe I wouldn’t have lost everything I owned, friends of 20 years and my children.

Maybe my family members that I don’t see or speak to anymore would be over this weekend with my children who are not in my life anymore and we’d laugh together instead of yearning for my children & family back.

Maybe if I had someone to blog about me and my case when my son was forcibly removed and traumatized I wouldn’t have these nightmares about seeing him beaten & drugged in foster care, & the LIES BY CPS WORKERS and GAG ORDERS that made it okay to hurt my child and destroy me so a pedophile could get his revenge – finally – against me – for leaving him and trying to protect my child… REALLY protect my child….

That’s not news. That’s a life. That’s my life. My son’s life. That’s their life & their children’s lives in ElDorado. That’s the lives of your children AND mine, and unless you’ve been through this kind of horrible thing, you just may not understand.

I pray you never do understand -But for cryin’ out loud – tell the truth…. whether you’re reporting on it, or working on the case, or just talking about it to your neighbors.

If mainstream media entertainment “sells” more newspapers based on CPS LYING ABOUT THESE FAMILIES…. I URGE ALL OF YOU TO JOIN IN A STRIKE.

RIGHT NOW I URGE US ALL TO STRIKE AGAINST ANY NEWS REPORTING AGENCY, BLOG, NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE OR OTHER NEWS/MEDIA SOURCE WHO KNOWINGLY MISREPORTS ELDORADO OR FLDS FACTS & WHO ASSISTS IN SPREADING CPS’ LIES OR WHO FAILS TO CORRECT ANY MISSTATED FACTS OF ANY FLDS/ELDORADO CHILD WHO IS GOING THROUGH THIS TRAGEDY IN THEIR FAMILY.

IF WE ALLOW CPS TO LIE ABOUT A FAMILY & CALL IT ‘NEWSWORTHY’ THEN WE ARE ALSO CHILD ABUSERS WHO SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY IF WE ARE TO DO RIGHT BY THE CHILDREN. NO FAMILY DESERVES SUCH ABUSE & ATROCITY NO MATTER WHAT THEIR BELIEFS MAY BE – NO MATTER WHAT LIFESTYLE THEY LIVE.

SHOW THE TRUTH WHEN IT IS REVEALED OR BE JUDGED ALL THE SAME. TRUTH IS TRUTH. REPORT IT TRUTHFULLY OR SHUT UP. TRUTH IS TRUTH.

Please. For the sake of these families.

There’s no question about the integrity of truth v. lie ….

just like you can’t be ‘kinda pregnant’….

Because 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. Syl.Pt.3,WALLIS v. SPENCER, 202 F.3d 1126(9th Cir. 2000)

cps
FLDS Parents’ Court Citations published in The Eldorado Success

I can only imagine the cluster-phunk that these CPS cases are in – wow…

CLICK HERE TO READ THE CITATIONS IN THE ELDORADO SUCCESS ONLINE

Authorities attempt to serve dozens if not hundreds of people at the YFZ Ranch with civil citations in state’s custody case. Citations were published in this week’s edition of The Eldorado Success.

CLERK OF THE COURT:
District Clerk
Schleicher County Courthouses
2 North Divide Street
Eldorado, Texas 76936

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY &PROTECTIVE SERVICES:
Daniel Edwards
Gary Banks
622 South Oakes, Suite “L”
San Angelo, Texas 76903

CITATION BY PUBLICATION/POSTING

TO ALL UNKNOWN PARENTS, AND ANY PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A PARENT OF, ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THE YFZ RANCH, ELDORADO, SCHLEICHER COUNTY, TEXAS, BETWEEN APRIL 4, 2008, AND MIDNIGHT ON APRIL 7, 2008, AND TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, RESPONDENT(S):

THE STATE OF TEXAS
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S):

“You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty (20) days after you were served this citation and petition, a default judgment may be taken against you.

“YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and answer before the Honorable 51st Judicial District Court, Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, at the Courthouse in Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, at or before 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next after the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of service of this citation, then and there to answer the First Amended Petitions of the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, filed in said Court.

“The petitions of the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, were filed in the 51st Judicial District Court of Schleicher County, Texas, on May 6, 2008, May 7, 2008 and May 12, 2008, against the various Respondents named above, as well as others not specifically named herein. The suits are numbered 2779 through 2903, and are entitled as follows:

2779 IN THE INTEREST OF BABY GIRL JESSOP #26600675, A CHILD
2780 IN THE INTEREST OF VILATE NIELSEN, A CHILD
2781 IN THE INTEREST OF ESTER NIELSON, A CHILD
2782 IN THE INTEREST OF MARILYN ROBACK, A CHILD
2783 IN THE INTEREST OF SUSIE ANN JEFFS, A CHILD
2784 IN THE INTEREST OF SHANALYN JEFFS, A CHILD
2785 IN THE INTEREST OF SETH JEFFS, A CHILD
2786 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSIAH BARLOW JEFFS, A CHILD
2787 IN THE INTEREST OF STEED JEFFS, A CHILD
2788 IN THE INTEREST OF LEAH JESSOP JEFFS, A CHILD
2789 IN THE INTEREST OF MARILEE JEFFS, A CHILD
2790 IN THE INTEREST OF KAYLEE JEFFS, A CHILD
2791 IN THE INTEREST OF RICHARD JEFFS, A CHILD
2792 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSEPH SMITH JEFFS, A CHILD
2793 IN THE INTEREST OF JAMES RULON JEFFS, A CHILD
2794 IN THE INTEREST OF HANNAH JEFFS, A CHILD
2795 IN THE INTEREST OF ALLEN JEFFS, A CHILD
2796 IN THE INTEREST OF SAMANTHA EMAK, A CHILD
2797 IN THE INTEREST OF ETZEL #26609430, A CHILD
2798 IN THE INTEREST OF FREDDIE #26609430, A CHILD
2799 IN THE INTEREST OF ABRAHAM #26609359, A CHILD
2800 IN THE INTEREST OF AMBER #26609387, A CHILD
2801 IN THE INTEREST OF ANN #26609432, A CHILD
2802 IN THE INTEREST OF DANIELLE BARLOW, A CHILD
2803 IN THE INTEREST OF EZRA BARLOW, A CHILD
2804 IN THE INTEREST OF RENON BARLOW, A CHILD
2805 IN THE INTEREST OF STEVEN BARLOW, A CHILD
2806 IN THE INTEREST OF BEN #26690422, A CHILD
2807 IN THE INTEREST OF BRENDA #26690422, A CHILD
2808 IN THE INTEREST OF ABRAM BARLOW, A CHILD
2809 IN THE INTEREST OF AMON BARLOW, A CHILD
2810 IN THE INTEREST OF AUTUMN BARLOW, A CHILD
2811 IN THE INTEREST OF IDA #26609422, A CHILD
2812 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609432, A CHILD
2813 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI #26609436, A CHILD
2814 IN THE INTEREST OF NETTIE #26609402, A CHILD
2815 IN THE INTEREST OF JAMES #26609371, A CHILD
2816 IN THE INTEREST OF ABRAHAM LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A ABRAHAM LeROY JESSOP,
A/K/A ABRAHAM LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A ABRAHAM LeROY JESSUP, A CHILD
2817 IN THE INTEREST OF ANDREW JESSOP, A CHILD
2818 IN THE INTEREST OF BENJAMIN JESSOP, A CHILD
2819 IN THE INTEREST OF BETHANY JESSOP, A CHILD
2820 IN THE INTEREST OF CHARITY JESSOP, A CHILD
2821 IN THE INTEREST OF DAVID LEROY JESSOP, A/K/A DAVID LeROY
JESSOP, A/K/A DAVID LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A DAVID LeROY JESSOP, A CHILD
2822 IN THE INTEREST OF JAMES JESSOP, A CHILD
2823 IN THE INTEREST OF ALLEN DUTSON, A CHILD
2824 IN THE INTEREST OF MORONI DUTSON, A CHILD
2825 IN THE INTEREST OF NANCY DUTSON, A CHILD
2826 IN THE INTEREST OF REBECCA DUTSON, A CHILD
2827 IN THE INTEREST OF SHAUNA DUTSON, A CHILD
2828 IN THE INTEREST OF BRIGHAM EMACK, A CHILD
2829 IN THE INTEREST OF WADE LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2830 IN THE INTEREST OF ROULENE DUTSON, A CHILD
2831 IN THE INTEREST OF MALE CHILD (NAME UNKNOWN), A CHILD
2832 IN THE INTEREST OF ZAYNE LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2833 IN THE INTEREST OF MARYANN (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609422, A CHILD
2834 IN THE INTEREST OF MARYANN(LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609432, A CHILD
2835 IN THE INTEREST OF MATY (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), A CHILD
2836 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI ROBACK, A CHILD
2837 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON ROBACK, A CHILD
2838 IN THE INTEREST OF RULEN #26609402, A CHILD
2839 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609387 (LAST NAME UKNOWN) A CHILD
2840 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609395, A CHILD
2841 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609432 (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) A CHILD
2842 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609435, A CHILD
2843 IN THE INTEREST OF JOESON JESSOP, A CHILD
2844 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSEPH JESSOP, A CHILD
2845 IN THE INTEREST OF LEROY SUNDERLAND JESSOP, A/K/A LeROY SUNDERLAND
JESSOP, A/K/A LEROY SUNDERLAND JESSUP, A/K/A LeROY SUNDERLAND JESSUP, A CHILD
2846 IN THE INTEREST OF LYLE LEROY JESSOP, A/K/A LYLE LeROY JESSOP,
A/K/A LYLE LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A LYLE LeROY JESSUP, A CHILD
2847 IN THE INTEREST OF MARIA JESSOP, A/K/A MARIA JESSUP, A CHILD
2848 IN THE INTEREST OF MELANIE JESSOP, A/K/A MELANIE JESSUP, A CHILD
2849 IN THE INTEREST OF MELISSA JESSOP, A CHILD
2850 IN THE INTEREST OF REBECCA JESSOP, A CHILD
2851 IN THE INTEREST OF SARA #26609406, A CHILD
2852 IN THE INTEREST OF SETH (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609403, A CHILD
2853 IN THE INTEREST OF SHAWN #26609430, A CHILD
2854 IN THE INTEREST OF ANGELA STEED, A CHILD
2855 IN THE INTEREST OF HARMONY STEED, A CHILD
2856 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSIE STEED, A CHILD
2857 IN THE INTEREST OF SARAH JESSOP BARLOW, A/K/A SARAH BARLOW, A CHILD
2858 IN THE INTEREST OF ESTHER NIELSEN, A/K/A ESTHER NEILSEN, A CHILD
2859 IN THE INTEREST OF KAYLEE STEED, A CHILD
2860 IN THE INTEREST OF ESTHER NIELSON, A CHILD
2861 IN THE INTEREST OF KENDRA STEED, A CHILD
2862 IN THE INTEREST OF LEANNA STEED, A CHILD
2863 IN THE INTEREST OF CURTIS LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2864 IN THE INTEREST OF DANIEL LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2865 IN THE INTEREST OF WENDELL JESSOP, A CHILD
2866 IN THE INTEREST OF WILLIAM LEROY JESSOP, A/K/A WILLIAM LeROY JESSOP,
A/K/A WILLIAM LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A WILLIAM LeROY JESSUP, A CHILD
2867 IN THE INTEREST OF YVONNE JESSOP, A CHILD
2868 IN THE INTEREST OF ZIANA JESSOP, A CHILD
2869 IN THE INTEREST OF AVALON JOHNSON, A CHILD
2870 IN THE INTEREST OF SERMELIA JOHNSON, A CHILD
2871 IN THE INTEREST OF SUZANNE JOHNSON, A CHILD
2972 IN THE INTEREST OF VILATE JOHNSON, A CHILD
2873 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSHUA #26609395, A CHILD
2874 IN THE INTEREST OF LORETTA (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609432, A CHILD
2875 IN THE INTEREST OF LESLIE STEED, A CHILD
2876 IN THE INTEREST OF LEVI STEED, A CHILD
2877 IN THE INTEREST OF LISA STEED, A CHILD
2878 IN THE INTEREST OF LUCINDA STEED, A CHILD
2879 IN THE INTEREST OF LUKE STEED, A CHILD
2880 IN THE INTEREST OF MARTHA STEED, A CHILD
2881 IN THE INTEREST OF MARY STEED, A CHILD
2882 IN THE INTEREST OF MATY STEED, A CHILD
2883 IN THE INTEREST OF MORMON #26609402, A CHILD
2884 IN THE INTEREST OF MILLENNIA #26609395, A CHILD
2885 IN THE INTEREST OF SYLVIA STEED, A CHILD
2886 IN THE INTEREST OF RULEN STEED, A CHILD
2887 IN THE INTEREST OF SARAH STEED, A CHILD
2888 IN THE INTEREST OF SHEM STEED, A CHILD
2889 IN THE INTEREST OF TROY STEED, A CHILD
2890 IN THE INTEREST OF WOODY (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609405, A CHILD
2891 IN THE INTEREST OF WENDELL #26609406, A CHILD
2892 IN THE INTEREST OF WARREN #26609395, A CHILD
2893 IN THE INTEREST OF UNKNOWN BABY BOY #26609354, A CHILD
2894 IN THE INTEREST OF SUNSHINE #26609383, A CHILD
2895 IN THE INTEREST OF ZANE STEED, A CHILD
2896 IN THE INTEREST OF RACHEL STEED, A CHILD
2897 IN THE INTEREST OF OLIVE STEED, A CHILD
2898 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI STEED, A CHILD
2899 IN THE INTEREST OF MONICA STEED, A CHILD
2900 IN THE INTEREST OF MIRANDA STEED, A CHILD
2901 IN THE INTEREST OF HYRUM SMITH JEFFS, A CHILD
2902 IN THE INTEREST OF 330 CHILDREN FROM THE YFZ RANCH
2903 IN THE INTEREST OF 16 CHILDREN FROM THE YFZ RANCH

“Each suit requests (1) Emergency protection of a Child or Children, as the case may be, who are the subject(s) of these suits, (2) appointment as temporary managing conservator of the Child or Children, as the case may be, who are the subject(s) of these suits, and (3) appointment as permanent managing conservator of the Child or Children, as the case may be, who are the subject(s) of these suits.

“The dates and places of birth of the children who are the subject(s) of the suits are set out in the Petitions filed by Petitioner. The children are those children who were removed by Petitioner from the YFZ Ranch, Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, between April 4, 2008, and 12:00 midnight on April 7, 2008.

“The Court has authority in this suit to render any order, judgment or decree in the children’s interest that will be binding on you, including the termination of the parent-child relationship, a determination of maternity for each child, a determination of paternity for each child, and appointment of a conservator with authority to consent to each child’s adoption.”

“ISSUED and given under my hand and seal of the Court at Eldorado , Schleicher County, Texas, this the 12th day of May, 2008.

Peggy Williams
Clerk of the 51st Judicial District Court
Of Schleicher County, Texas.


CLERK OF THE COURT:
District Clerk
Schleicher County Courthouses
2 North Divide Street
Eldorado, Texas 76936

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY &PROTECTIVE SERVICES:
Daniel Edwards
Gary Banks
622 South Oakes, Suite “L”
San Angelo, Texas 76903

CITATION BY PUBLICATION/POSTING

TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS, WHO HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO THE PETITIONER AS ALLEGED PARENTS OF ONE OR MORE OF THE CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THE YFZ RANCH, ELDORADO, SCHLEICHER COUNTY, TEXAS, BETWEEN APRIL 4, 2008, AND MIDNIGHT ON APRIL 7, 2008, RESPONDENT(S):

Name of Alleged Parent & Date of Birth
Allred, Becky November 2, 1987
Allred, Carol Ann Unknown
Allred, Mary December 21, 1976
Allred, Merilyn September 22, 1974
Allred, Richard Unknown
Allread, Mary Unknown
Allread, Helen Unknown
Barlow, Adeline Unknown
Barlow, Amy August 28, 1978
Barlow, Areta Unknown
Barlow, Areta Kathleen Unknown
Barlow, Connie Richelle Unknown
Barlow, D.R. Unknown
Barlow, Dale November 6, 1957
Barlow, Dan Unknown
Barlow, Dianabell Unknown
Barlow, Donald Robert July 28, 1956
Barlow, Dora Mae May 1, 1964
Barlow, Faye Unknown
Barlow, Kayetta Unknown
Barlow, Martha Joy Unknown
Barlow, Nephi May 14, 1983
Barlow, Pauline February 11, 1972
Barlow, Richard Unknown
Barlow, Richard Jessop November 1, 1967
Barlow, Rosanna August 9, 1981
Barlow, Sarah Unknown
Barlow, Susan Unknown
Bradshaw, Louisa Unknown
Cox, Evelyn Unknown
Darger, Joy Unknown
Dockstader, James Unknown
Dockstader, Nancy Unknown
Draper, Sarah Unknown
Dutson, Keith Unknown
Dutson, Keith Jr. December 4, 1984
Dutson, Janice November 4, 1985
Dutson, Martha Emack Unknown
Dutson, Natalie Jessop September 26, 1989
Dutson, Rebecca August 9, 1990
Emak, Michael George Unknown
Harker, Lenora October 15, 1972
Harker, Phyllis Jessop Unknown
Harker, Sterling John Unknown
Hill, Sarah Unknown
Holm, Mary Ann Unknown
Jeffs, Abe Unknown
Jeffs, Abram Unknown
Jeffs, Annette Unknown
Jeffs, Dan Unknown
Jeffs, David Unknown
Jeffs, Ilene Unknown
Jeffs, Janet April 6, 1957
Jeffs, Leroy Unknown
Jeffs, Lyle Steed January 17, 1960
Jeffs, Madeline July 1, 1953
Jeffs, Madilin Unknown
Jeffs, Marylin Unknown
Jeffs, Merilyn Unknown
Jeffs, Nora January 18, 1968 (possible)
Jeffs, Rachel October 15, 1970
Jeffs, Ruth Edna November 12, 1973
Jeffs, Sally Unknown
Jeffs, Sandra Unknown
Jeffs, Sue Unknown
Jessop, Alice Unknown
Jessop, Barbara Unknown
Jessop, Barbara Joyce Unknown
Jessop, Brenda Unknown
Jessop, Carlene January 10, 1981
Jessop, Cathleen Unknown
Jessop, Don Unknown
Jessop, Edson Unknown
Jessop, Elizabeth Unknown
Jessop, Fredrick Unknown
Jessop, Jennetta, Unknown
a/k/a Jennetta Barlow
Jessop, Jim Unknown
Jessop, Joseph, Unknown
a/k/a Joseph Jessop, Jr.,
a/k/a Joseph Johnson
Jessop, Joseph Sr. Unknown
Jessop, Josephine, Unknown
a/k/a Josephine Anne Jessop
Jessop, Joy Unknown
Jessop, Leroy Unknown
Jessop, Lori Unknown
Jessop, Lydia November 25, 1985
Jessop, Marie Unknown
Jessup, Merril Unknown
Jessop, Mindy August 7, 1987
Jessop, Monica Sue Unknown
Jessop, Nathan Unknown
Jessop, Naomi Ruth Unknown
Jessop, Neola Unknown
Jessop, Paula Unknown
Jessop, Richard Unknown
Jessop, Sarah January 19, 1976
Jessop, Sarah January 13, 1992
Jessop, Sarah Cathleen March 27, 1990
Jessop, Sharon Jeffs March 1, 1978
Jessop, William Sunderland June 10, 1979
Jessops, Mary Unknown
Jessops, Pamela December 9, 1989
Johnson, Amy Unknown
Johnson, Charlotte Unknown
Johnson, Faith Ann April 26, 1985
Johnson, Frank Unknown
Johnson, Frank Tillon Unknown
Johnson, Jacob February 9, 1978
Johnson, Jacob Unknown
Johnson, Joseph Unknown
Johnson, Karen August 16 ,1973
Johnson, Lamar Unknown
Johnson, Lydia Unknown
Johnson, Nancy September 2, 1962
a/k/a Nancy Barlow Unknown
Johnson, Patricia Unknown
Johnson, Roleen December 6, 1987
Johnson, Russell January 7, 1972
Johnson, Sarah Elizabeth Unknown
Johnson, Sylvia Elizabeth Unknown
Keate, Allan May 12, 1952 (possible)
Keate, Linda August 4, 1982
Keate, Lorene Unknown
Keate, Marilyn January 7, 1990
Keate, Olrene Julia (approx. 22 years old)
Keate, Rachel July 25, 1989
Keate, Ruland Unknown
Lindsey, Fred Jr. October 9, 1982
Lyndsay, Fred Unknown
Lyndsay, Gladys Unknown
Musser, Amos Nielson Unknown
Musser, Linda Jeffs Unknown
Musser, Marie Unknown
Nielsen, Janet Jeffs Unknown
Nielsen, Lucille April 23, 1983
Nielsen, Vickie Unknown
Nielsen, Wendall Unknown
Nielsen, Wendell Unknown
Nielson, Janet Jeffs Unknown
Nielson, Wendell Unknown
Roback, Ron Unknown
Roundy, Lorraine June 28,1978
Steed, David Unknown
Steed, Fawn Unknown
Steed, Isaac Unknown
Steed, Joann Unknown
Steed, Joseph Unknown
Steed, Joseph Jessop Unknown
Steed, Kathleen Unknown
Steed, Kathleen April 30, 1968 (possible)
Steed, Kathleen Jessop Unknown
Steed, Lanora Unknown
Steed, Lenora Unknown
Steed, Leona Unknown
Steed, Leonna Unknown
Steed, Leroy Unknown
Steed, Leroy July 20, 1966
Steed, Leroy Johnson Unknown
Steed, Lori Unknown
Steed, Louanna Jessop Unknown
Steed, Louise Unknown
Steed, Mane Holm Unknown
Steed, Marie Unknown
Steed, Marie , Unknown
a/k/a Mane Holm Steed
Steed, Marilyn Unknown
Steed, Mindy Unknown
Steed, Rebecca Unknown
Steed, Sara Unknown
Steed, Tina July 30, 1987
Steed, Viola October 23, 1985
Steed, Vye Unknown
Wall, Lloyd Unknown
Williams, Margaret February 26, 1986
Young, Zavanda Unknown
Young, Zavanda November 7, 1964
Zitting, Zion Unknown
Zitting, Priscilla February 14, 1988

“STATE OF TEXAS

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S):

“You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty (20) days after you were served this citation and petition, a default judgment may be taken against you.

“YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and answer before the Honorable 51st Judicial District Court, Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, at the Courthouse in Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, at or before 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next after the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of service of this citation, then and there to answer the First Amended Petitions of the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, filed in said Court.

“The petitions of the TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, were filed in the 51st Judicial District Court of Schleicher County, Texas, on May 6, 2008, May 7, 2008 and May 12, 2008, against the various Respondents named above, as well as others not specifically named herein. The suits are numbered 2779 through 2903, and are entitled as follows:

779 IN THE INTEREST OF BABY GIRL JESSOP #26600675, A CHILD
2780 IN THE INTEREST OF VILATE NIELSEN, A CHILD
2781 IN THE INTEREST OF ESTER NIELSON, A CHILD
2782 IN THE INTEREST OF MARILYN ROBACK, A CHILD
2783 IN THE INTEREST OF SUSIE ANN JEFFS, A CHILD
2784 IN THE INTEREST OF SHANALYN JEFFS, A CHILD
2785 IN THE INTEREST OF SETH JEFFS, A CHILD
2786 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSIAH BARLOW JEFFS, A CHILD
2787 IN THE INTEREST OF STEED JEFFS, A CHILD
2788 IN THE INTEREST OF LEAH JESSOP JEFFS, A CHILD
2789 IN THE INTEREST OF MARILEE JEFFS, A CHILD
2790 IN THE INTEREST OF KAYLEE JEFFS, A CHILD
2791 IN THE INTEREST OF RICHARD JEFFS, A CHILD
2792 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSEPH SMITH JEFFS, A CHILD
2793 IN THE INTEREST OF JAMES RULON JEFFS, A CHILD
2794 IN THE INTEREST OF HANNAH JEFFS, A CHILD
2795 IN THE INTEREST OF ALLEN JEFFS, A CHILD
2796 IN THE INTEREST OF SAMANTHA EMAK, A CHILD
2797 IN THE INTEREST OF ETZEL #26609430, A CHILD
2798 IN THE INTEREST OF FREDDIE #26609430, A CHILD
2799 IN THE INTEREST OF ABRAHAM #26609359, A CHILD
2800 IN THE INTEREST OF AMBER #26609387, A CHILD
2801 IN THE INTEREST OF ANN #26609432, A CHILD
2802 IN THE INTEREST OF DANIELLE BARLOW, A CHILD
2803 IN THE INTEREST OF EZRA BARLOW, A CHILD
2804 IN THE INTEREST OF RENON BARLOW, A CHILD
2805 IN THE INTEREST OF STEVEN BARLOW, A CHILD
2806 IN THE INTEREST OF BEN #26690422, A CHILD
2807 IN THE INTEREST OF BRENDA #26690422, A CHILD
2808 IN THE INTEREST OF ABRAM BARLOW, A CHILD
2809 IN THE INTEREST OF AMON BARLOW, A CHILD
2810 IN THE INTEREST OF AUTUMN BARLOW, A CHILD
2811 IN THE INTEREST OF IDA #26609422, A CHILD
2812 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609432,
A CHILD
2813 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI #26609436, A CHILD
2814 IN THE INTEREST OF NETTIE #26609402, A CHILD
2815 IN THE INTEREST OF JAMES #26609371, A CHILD
2816 IN THE INTEREST OF ABRAHAM LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A ABRAHAM
LeROY JESSOP, A/K/A ABRAHAM LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A ABRAHAM
LeROY JESSUP, A CHILD
2817 IN THE INTEREST OF ANDREW JESSOP, A CHILD
2818 IN THE INTEREST OF BENJAMIN JESSOP, A CHILD
2819 IN THE INTEREST OF BETHANY JESSOP, A CHILD
2820 IN THE INTEREST OF CHARITY JESSOP, A CHILD
2821 IN THE INTEREST OF DAVID LEROY JESSOP, A/K/A DAVID LeROY
JESSOP, A/K/A DAVID LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A DAVID LeROY JESSOP, A CHILD
2822 IN THE INTEREST OF JAMES JESSOP, A CHILD
2823 IN THE INTEREST OF ALLEN DUTSON, A CHILD
2824 IN THE INTEREST OF MORONI DUTSON, A CHILD
2825 IN THE INTEREST OF NANCY DUTSON, A CHILD
2826 IN THE INTEREST OF REBECCA DUTSON, A CHILD
2827 IN THE INTEREST OF SHAUNA DUTSON, A CHILD
2828 IN THE INTEREST OF BRIGHAM EMACK, A CHILD
2829 IN THE INTEREST OF WADE LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2830 IN THE INTEREST OF ROULENE DUTSON, A CHILD
2831 IN THE INTEREST OF MALE CHILD (NAME UNKNOWN), A CHILD
2832 IN THE INTEREST OF ZAYNE LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2833 IN THE INTEREST OF MARYANN (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609422, A CHILD
2834 IN THE INTEREST OF MARYANN (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609432, A CHILD2835 IN THE INTEREST OF MATY (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), A CHILD
2836 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI ROBACK, A CHILD
2837 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON ROBACK, A CHILD
2838 IN THE INTEREST OF RULEN #26609402, A CHILD
2839 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609387 (LAST NAME UKNOWN) A CHILD
2840 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609395, A CHILD
2841 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609432 (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) A CHILD
2842 IN THE INTEREST OF RULON #26609435, A CHILD
2843 IN THE INTEREST OF JOESON JESSOP, A CHILD
2844 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSEPH JESSOP, A CHILD
2845 IN THE INTEREST OF LEROY SUNDERLAND JESSOP, A/K/A LeROY SUNDERLAND JESSOP, A/K/A LEROY SUNDERLAND JESSUP, A/K/A LeROY SUNDERLAND JESSUP, A CHILD
2846 IN THE INTEREST OF LYLE LEROY JESSOP, A/K/A LYLE LeROY JESSOP, A/K/A LYLE LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A LYLE LeROY JESSUP, A CHILD
2847 IN THE INTEREST OF MARIA JESSOP, A/K/A MARIA JESSUP, A CHILD
2848 IN THE INTEREST OF MELANIE JESSOP, A/K/A MELANIE JESSUP, A CHILD
2849 IN THE INTEREST OF MELISSA JESSOP, A CHILD
2850 IN THE INTEREST OF REBECCA JESSOP, A CHILD
2851 IN THE INTEREST OF SARA #26609406, A CHILD
2852 IN THE INTEREST OF SETH (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609403, A CHILD
2853 IN THE INTEREST OF SHAWN #26609430, A CHILD
2854 IN THE INTEREST OF ANGELA STEED, A CHILD
2855 IN THE INTEREST OF HARMONY STEED, A CHILD
2856 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSIE STEED, A CHILD
2857 IN THE INTEREST OF SARAH JESSOP BARLOW, A/K/A SARAH BARLOW, A CHILD
2858 IN THE INTEREST OF ESTHER NIELSEN, A/K/A ESTHER NEILSEN, A CHILD
2859 IN THE INTEREST OF KAYLEE STEED, A CHILD
2860 IN THE INTEREST OF ESTHER NIELSON, A CHILD
2861 IN THE INTEREST OF KENDRA STEED, A CHILD
2862 IN THE INTEREST OF LEANNA STEED, A CHILD
2863 IN THE INTEREST OF CURTIS LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2864 IN THE INTEREST OF DANIEL LYNDSAY, A CHILD
2865 IN THE INTEREST OF WENDELL JESSOP, A CHILD
2866 IN THE INTEREST OF WILLIAM LEROY JESSOP, A/K/A WILLIAM LeROY JESSOP, A/K/A WILLIAM LEROY JESSUP, A/K/A WILLIAM LeROY JESSUP, A CHILD
2867 IN THE INTEREST OF YVONNE JESSOP, A CHILD
2868 IN THE INTEREST OF ZIANA JESSOP, A CHILD
2869 IN THE INTEREST OF AVALON JOHNSON, A CHILD
2870 IN THE INTEREST OF SERMELIA JOHNSON, A CHILD
2871 IN THE INTEREST OF SUZANNE JOHNSON, A CHILD
2972 IN THE INTEREST OF VILATE JOHNSON, A CHILD
2873 IN THE INTEREST OF JOSHUA #26609395, A CHILD
2874 IN THE INTEREST OF LORETTA (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609432, A CHILD
2875 IN THE INTEREST OF LESLIE STEED, A CHILD
2876 IN THE INTEREST OF LEVI STEED, A CHILD
2877 IN THE INTEREST OF LISA STEED, A CHILD
2878 IN THE INTEREST OF LUCINDA STEED, A CHILD
2879 IN THE INTEREST OF LUKE STEED, A CHILD
2880 IN THE INTEREST OF MARTHA STEED, A CHILD
2881 IN THE INTEREST OF MARY STEED, A CHILD
2882 IN THE INTEREST OF MATY STEED, A CHILD
2883 IN THE INTEREST OF MORMON #26609402, A CHILD
2884 IN THE INTEREST OF MILLENNIA #26609395, A CHILD
2885 IN THE INTEREST OF SYLVIA STEED, A CHILD
2886 IN THE INTEREST OF RULEN STEED, A CHILD
2887 IN THE INTEREST OF SARAH STEED, A CHILD
2888 IN THE INTEREST OF SHEM STEED, A CHILD
2889 IN THE INTEREST OF TROY STEED, A CHILD
2890 IN THE INTEREST OF WOODY (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) #26609405, A CHILD
2891 IN THE INTEREST OF WENDELL #26609406, A CHILD
2892 IN THE INTEREST OF WARREN #26609395, A CHILD
2893 IN THE INTEREST OF UNKNOWN BABY BOY #26609354, A CHILD
2894 IN THE INTEREST OF SUNSHINE #26609383, A CHILD
2895 IN THE INTEREST OF ZANE STEED, A CHILD
2896 IN THE INTEREST OF RACHEL STEED, A CHILD
2897 IN THE INTEREST OF OLIVE STEED, A CHILD
2898 IN THE INTEREST OF NAOMI STEED, A CHILD
2899 IN THE INTEREST OF MONICA STEED, A CHILD
2900 IN THE INTEREST OF MIRANDA STEED, A CHILD
2901 IN THE INTEREST OF HYRUM SMITH JEFFS, A CHILD
2902 IN THE INTEREST OF 330 CHILDREN FROM THE YFZ RANCH
2903 IN THE INTEREST OF 16 CHILDREN FROM THE YFZ RANCH

“Each suit requests (1) Emergency protection of a Child or Children, as the case may be, who are the subject(s) of these suits, (2) appointment as temporary managing conservator of the Child or Children, as the case may be, who are the subject(s) of these suits, and (3) appointment as permanent managing conservator of the Child or Children, as the case may be, who are the subject(s) of these suits.

“The dates and places of birth of the children who are the subject(s) of the suits are set out in the Petitions filed by Petitioner. The children are those children who were removed by Petitioner from the YFZ Ranch, Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, between April 4, 2008, and 12:00 midnight on April 7, 2008.

“The Court has authority in this suit to render any order, judgment or decree in the children’s interest that will be binding on you, including the termination of the parent-child relationship, a determination of maternity for each child, a determination of paternity for each child, and appointment of a conservator with authority to consent to each child’s adoption.”

“ISSUED and given under my hand and seal of the Court at Eldorado , Schleicher County, Texas, this the 12th day of May, 2008.

Peggy Williams
Clerk of the 51st Judicial District Court
Of Schleicher County, Texas.