Commentary: CPS Heavy-Handed Overreach
by Senator Bob Corridor
When the overreaching heavy hand of the federal government results in even one occasion of injustice, a bit of little bit of liberty is misplaced for all residents.
On July 2, 2019, in Kaufman County, Texas, one other piece of liberty was chipped from our society. As soon as once more, in a really unhappy courtroom scene, the “authorized” abduction of a Four-year-old baby by the Texas Youngster Protecting Service (CPS) was upheld by what can solely be described as an egregious miscarriage of justice.
Throughout a listening to, that lasted greater than six hours, little to no proof was introduced that indicated both mum or dad, of the Four-year-old boy, had truly completed something remotely near youngster abuse. The truth is, nobody concerned in the entire prosecution course of had ever met or talked with both mum or dad, or met or talked with the kid.
The physician from Youngsters’s Hospital, who apparently initiated the forceful removing, had no historical past of treating the kid, had by no means seen the kid, and didn’t make an entire evaluate of all the youngster’s medical data.
The CPS caseworker, liable for initiating the authorized course of, as an “emergency” necessity, had no firsthand information of any of the alleged expenses she levied towards the mother and father, had by no means met or talked with the kid, and had made no try to finish a background investigation, as required by CPS coverage.
But, the courtroom decide insisted that the method to completely terminate parental rights be continued, that no additional interplay between the kid and the mother and father be allowed besides with CPS approval and supervision, and that CPS be granted complete management over all wants of the kid.
Sure, that’s the similar Texas CPS that’s infamous for the in depth abuse and excessive fee of suicides of youngsters, of their care and of their foster youngster care system.
How Might This Have Occurred?
Every of the 4 events (Hospital/Physician, CPS, Courtroom System and Youngster’s Advert Litem Lawyer) concerned failed in its main duty to behave in accordance with its position of “defending the kid first”.
Whereas all 4 events failed their duty, CPS is the basis of the failure.
This authorities company is the actual genesis of this drawback and others prefer it. There was a number of confirmed instances that CPS doesn’t know when or underneath what circumstances it’s in one of the best curiosity of the kid to be faraway from parental custody.
All too typically it appears CPS errs on the aspect of the father or mother is responsible of kid neglect as an alternative of making certain the safety of the kid from the true evil on the earth.
Sadly, from the testimony given final week, there seems to be little or no supervisory oversight to make sure that overzealous caseworkers are literally working in the most effective curiosity of the kid.
On this occasion, the CPS caseworker had:
1. by no means seen or talked to the kid;
2. not seen or talked to the mother and father;
three. not seen or talked to relations;
Four. not seen or talked to neighbors;
5. not carried out a background investigation;
6. not tried to resolve the difficulty with out removing;
7. refused to reveal the allegations to the mother and father or to their lawyer;
eight. misquoted and misrepresented a hospital physician’s affidavit to acquire the courtroom order and;
9. had no firsthand information of any fallacious doing by the mother and father;
was allowed to provoke an “emergency” motion to take away a toddler from his mother and father and to start the method to completely terminate parental rights.
By declaring it an “emergency”, the caseworker was capable of forcefully take away the kid by requiring his father to place him in a ready police car with out having to first full any of the procedural steps which have been supposedly put in place to make sure that removing from the house was accomplished as a final resort motion.
The courtroom listening to testimony and conduct of the caseworker can solely be described as unusual or weird. On virtually each query that might be answered with a “sure” or “no”, the caseworker would first look down and seemed to be shuffling via papers in search of the reply.
Then she would lookup and on the CPS lawyer who can be nodding her head in both a “sure” or a “no” motion. The caseworker would then reply accordingly. After some time, I started watching the decide and it appeared to me that he, too, was watching the CPS lawyer showing to be teaching the witness, however he by no means referred to as them out.
Regardless that there was an exhaustive collection of questions requested, the caseworker by no means gave a cause why the primary and solely official motion by CPS needed to be an “emergency” order for removing.
It was additionally fairly clear, to me, that the CPS caseworker’s private push led her to take it upon herself to pursue an “emergency” order.
Doing so, in essence, confirmed the household’s lawyer that she was from the federal government, she might do something to that household that she needed to do, when he indicated he was going to take the case up the CPS chain of command.
Figuring out that judges, for self-protection, virtually all the time aspect with CPS was the one path to make sure that she obtained a pelt-for-her-belt.
Half 2: CPS Caseworker
This authorities company, Youngster Protecting Providers (CPS), is the genesis of this drawback and others prefer it. As has been confirmed a number of occasions, CPS doesn’t know when or underneath what circumstances it’s in the most effective curiosity of the kid to take away the kid from parental custody.
All too typically, it appears CPS errs on the aspect of “the mother or father is responsible of kid neglect or abuse” as an alternative of making certain the safety of the kid from the true evil on the earth. Sadly, from the testimony given final week, there seems to be little or no supervisory oversight to make sure that overzealous case staff are literally working in one of the best curiosity of the kid.
The sworn affidavit and testimony of the caseworker has a number of points. Keep in mind, she testified that she had by no means seen or talked to the kid or anybody with firsthand information of the statements that she swears to be true.
A few of the questionable statements in her affidavit in help of removing, dated June 20, 2019, are: (Her affidavit paragraph titles and numbers are under, in daring.)
three. ALLEGATIONS (web page 2)
Primarily, each assertion is both unfaithful, a twisting of an analogous assertion, or simply plain rumour.
Examples of a few of the misstatements:
“… referral alleging the bodily abuse of Kaleb by Ashley Pardo.” – No such assertion is within the hospital physician’s affidavit.
“Ashley is displaying conduct related to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.” – On what foundation? The caseworker is just not a physician and has by no means seen Ashley.
“Ashley satisfied a physician to place in an NG tube … .” – There isn’t a proof or testimony to help this. How does anybody “persuade” a physician to do a medical process towards his will?
“Ashley always wheels Kaleb round within the wheelchair.” – This assertion isn’t within the hospital physician’s affidavit, and the caseworker couldn’t probably have any firsthand information.
“Ashley started telling everybody that Kaleb had epilepsy.” – There isn’t any proof or testimony to help this assertion. Once more, the caseworker is swearing this to be true, although she has by no means heard Ashley converse.
Four. CPS HISTORY (web page Four)
This can be a notably outrageous part during which the caseworker makes use of “allegations” towards Ashley’s earlier husband—who, it seems, has some actual issues—to make it seem to the informal reader that the issues have been with the present household; nothing might be farther from the reality.
The caseworker started this part with the assertion: “The household seems to have earlier CPS historical past” – She then makes use of 4 pages to record a number of regulation enforcement allegations towards Ashley’s first husband; none of which had any discovering of neglect or youngster abuse.
Within the second to final sentence of the 05/23/2014 allegation assertion, the caseworker makes an outright lie when she states:
“Ashly Pardo stated Daniel Pardo struck Ashly Pardo whereas Ashly Pardo was pregnant with Linzey Pardo.” This might not probably be true. Ashly and Daniel didn’t meet till lengthy after Linzey was born.
It seems that the caseworker knew her case towards the Pardo household was extraordinarily weak, subsequently she selected to incorporate these “pink herring” allegations to mislead the courtroom into considering this was a very dangerous household with plenty of violent historical past.
6. CONCLUSION (web page 7)
The caseworker misquotes the hospital physician’s affidavit and makes a press release that’s opposite to courtroom testimony. One of many two statements needs to be unfaithful.
“The Attain clinic has offered its findings as extremely regarding for medical baby abuse.”
The phrase “extremely” shouldn’t be within the hospital physician’s affidavit. In reality, in testimony, the hospital physician made it fairly clear that she merely had “some” considerations after a partial evaluate of the kid’s medical information, and people considerations have been resolved after dialogue with the mother and father. (This dialogue occurred after the affidavit however earlier than the courtroom listening to.)
“The Division has tried to determine protected relations or fictive kin with whom the kid could possibly be positioned versus placement in foster care, nevertheless, no such people might be discovered.”
“Affordable efforts had been made to stop or get rid of the necessity for removing of those youngsters from the Prado’s house … .”
Within the courtroom listening to, the caseworker couldn’t describe any effort made by CPS to resolve the considerations with out eradicating the kid from the house.
Actually, her testimony confirmed that the one motion CPS pursued was that of an “emergency.”
Nevertheless, the “emergency” was allowed to go on for 2 weeks between the time the CPS employee put a enterprise card on the household’s door and the time the kid was eliminated—greater than ample time for folks to be allowed to deal with the allegations with out additional traumatizing the kid.
The courtroom listening to testimony and conduct of the caseworker can solely be described as unusual or weird. On virtually each query that could possibly be answered with a “sure” or “no,” the caseworker would first look down and seemed to be shuffling by way of papers, on the lookout for the reply.
Then she would lookup on the CPS lawyer who can be nodding her head in both a “sure” or a “no” motion. The caseworker would then reply accordingly.
Although there was an exhaustive collection of questions requested, the caseworker refused to reply why the primary and solely official motion by CPS needed to be an “emergency” order for removing.
The one factor near an evidence the caseworker would give for refusing to inform the mother and father or their lawyer the allegations was that she was afraid the mother and father would run and conceal.
It was additionally fairly clear, to me, that the CPS caseworker’s ego led her to take it upon herself to pursue an “emergency” order to point out the household’s lawyer that she was from the federal government and she or he might do something to that household that she needed to do.
Half three: The Hospital/Physician
In what can solely be characterised as an excessive miscarriage of justice, the Texas Division of Youngster Protecting Providers (CPS) acquired an emergency courtroom order in Kaufman County to take away a Four-year-old boy from his household.
On June 20, 2019, the Four-year-old was forcefully taken by CPS with the help of regulation enforcement. Following that, on July 2, 2019, a Kaufman County decide upheld the order.
The physician from Youngsters’s Hospital, who apparently initiated the method which resulted within the forceful removing of a Four-year-old boy from his household by CPS, had no historical past of treating the kid, had by no means seen the kid, by no means spoke with the mother and father, and didn’t even make an entire evaluation of all the baby’s medical data earlier than submitting an affidavit merely expressing some considerations concerning the baby’s medical historical past.
CPS then used (maybe “misused” is extra applicable) this affidavit to get an “emergency” courtroom order to take away the kid from his residence and begin the method of completely terminating all parental rights.
There are a number of issues with the affidavit submitted and the testimony of the hospital physician who was chargeable for the initiation of this CPS motion.
The primary drawback is that each one of her statements concerning the baby and fogeys are pure hypothesis. She by no means noticed or spoke with both father or mother or the kid earlier than submitting the affidavit.
All of the “considerations” she expressed in her affidavit have been merely “considerations.” She introduced no firsthand and even secondhand information of any wrongdoing by both father or mother.
Additionally, she didn’t categorical any urgency for an “emergency” motion, and she or he made no suggestion associated to a necessity for CPS to take away the kid from his household.
A few of the highlights of inconsistencies between the affidavit, testimony, and the conclusions meant for use are:
- In her testimony, she questioned the choice made by the cerebral palsy physician to offer a wheelchair for the kid. But she admitted that she didn’t know and had not talked with that physician. In paragraph 2 of her affidavit, she stated, “I don’t have entry to the kid’s data from the cerebral physician.”
- The physician mentioned a number of medical points, physician visits, remedies, and drugs the kid has confronted in his brief 4 years. These embrace a mind surgical procedure; earlier than permitting it, the household obtained 4 second opinions from different docs relating to the need of the surgical procedure. He was additionally recognized, examined, and handled for a lot of points. These included autism, sleep apnea, stressed leg syndrome, RSV viral lung an infection, milk-protein allergy, cerebral palsy, and reflux. Nevertheless, not all doctor-ordered remedies produced good outcomes. In response to the physician’s seven-page affidavit, each medical analysis and remedy the kid acquired was from a licensed medical physician. But underneath the medical findings on web page 4 of the physician’s affidavit, the physician seems to criticize the mom by stating in Merchandise Four, “. . . mom has expressed considerations for a number of issues through the years.” Wow. What loving, caring, and doting mom wouldn’t be “involved” with so little progress being made by a number of docs? However, the 2 huge questions are:
- Why would CPS settle for a sworn assertion like this one when that physician had by no means met nor talked with both father or mother or the kid?
- Why would an allegedly neutral courtroom system settle for such a doc as reality?
The one “vital” concern expressed by this physician in her affidavit is directed on the competency of the opposite docs, not on the mother and father.
In truth, virtually all of the “considerations” expressed by the physician in her affidavit look like criticism of the earlier physician’s analysis and coverings.
On web page 6, “Kaleb is a Four yo male that’s at present being seen by a number of docs within the Dallas space. With a lot assessment, I’ve vital considerations concerning the accuracy of a few of his diagnoses. I’m very nervous about medical abuse for this baby.”
So, if that is really her perception, why has she not reported these considerations to the Texas Medical Board for a malpractice investigation of the physician for each process she questioned?
In any case, it was the physician, not the mom, that made the analysis and carried out the process.
Regardless that there seemed to be some battle in testimony between hospital physician and the CASA consultant, it was fairly apparent that that they had coordinated their testimony. They each used very comparable phrases and situations to explain the kid within the hospital.
Nevertheless, one among them obtained their information reversed on the difficulty of potty coaching. One stated that “he solely pooped in the bathroom however he peed in his pull-ups,” whereas the opposite said, “he solely peed in the bathroom however pooped in his pull-ups.”
Then, after the kidnapping however earlier than the courtroom listening to, the physician did meet with the mother and father to debate her considerations. It was famous by a number of those that attended the assembly, both in individual or by way of phone conferencing, that the physician stated her considerations had been answered and noticed no cause for the kid to stay within the hospital.
Why, then, does CPS insist on persevering with to hunt custody of the kid and everlasting termination of all parental rights?
These are simply the highlights of the considerations with the physician’s affidavit that started the persecution of this household.
Along with the above, residents ought to have critical considerations with the best way that CPS and officers of the courtroom twisted and misused her statements.
Subsequent Article: Half Four – “Was Justice or Injustice Served” might be a dialogue of the position the courtroom system performed in aiding CPS in its mission to take away the kid from its household.
Touch upon this text at MedicalKidnap.com.
Medical Kidnapping: A Menace to Each Household in America T-Shirt
100% Pre-shrunk Cotton!
Order right here!
Medical Kidnapping is REAL!
See: Medical Kidnapping: A Menace to Each Household in America At present
Assist unfold the notice of Medical Kidnapping by sporting the Medical Kidnapping t-shirt!
Help the reason for MedicalKidnap.com, which is a part of the Well being Impression Information community.
Order right here!
If you realize people who find themselves skeptical and can’t consider that medical kidnapping occurs within the U.S. as we speak, that is the e-book for them! Backed with strong references and actual life examples, they will be unable to disclaim the plain proof earlier than them, and can turn into higher educated on this matter that’s destroying the American household.
1 Guide – 228 pages
FREE Delivery Out there!
Order right here!
Retail: $49.98 (for two books)
FREE Delivery Out there!
Now: $19.99 (for two books)
Order right here!
Revealed on July 24, 2019