I received a tip from a reader today indicating that William Moon, the former Commissioner of Social Services in Delaware County, New York, has been recently consulted about a current child neglect investigation in Delaware County by a "close friend", obviously in an attempt to influence that investigation.
The embattled and "retired" Bill Moon was involved in enough corruption in Delaware County, with his buddies Carl Becker - now "retired", and Richard Spinney - now also "retired".
Apparently, he can't stop fixing cases for his friends.
Parents in Delaware County, New York, beware.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Thursday, May 5, 2016
States enact child protective laws because of unconstitutional demands of the U.S. Congress - splitting families for money
I was reading recently a certain public document, a review of "efforts" of the New York State Court system and the child protective system to merge their information sharing databases.
In that interesting document, my attention was caught by this phrase:
Every law student, in a required Constitutional Law class in law school, must learn by heart the principle that the U.S. Congress has NO POWER to create legislation providing for general welfare of citizens of sovereign states, that is the power of the states or the people specifically reserved to the states or directly to the people under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
And yet, here we go - the Adoption and Safe Families Act, a statute actively supported by Hillary Clinton and signed into law by Bill Clinton,
"placed new obligations on the courts and child welfare agencies by creating statutory timeframes to expedite achievement of safe and permanent homes for children in foster care system".
This statement is glaringly illiterate because it somehow points at "obligations" of states arising under a federal statute that promotes general welfare - and thus unconstitutional.
Yet, termination of parental rights must be decided through adherence to STATE statutes.
And, even if the federal government dangles money in front of state governments in terms of federal aid for child protective services, such "strings attached" can be offered only as an incentive to act.
When such money is used as a tool of coercion - which is openly recognized in the "Project"'s report, the statute imposing such coercion, as well as any state statutory and regulatory law generated as a consequence or requirement of such a federal statute, is also unconstitutional.
Once again, what I said above is not any kind of brain-storming, it is Constitutional Law 101 taught as a mandatory course in law school. To all students. Including judges. And attorneys for social services.
Look what kind of "obligations" this unconstitutional federal statute "requires" of the states:
===
Termination of Parental Rights (TPR). States are required to file a petition to terminate parental rights immediately and, concurrently to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified adoptive family, in the case of:
a child who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months;
a child who the court has determined to be an abandoned infant (as defined in state law); or
a court has determined that the parent assaulted the child or killed or assaulted another of their children.
==
And, that termination is very nicely arranged by social services by:
1) removing the child from the care of the parents, often through coercion and intimidation, often "by consent" (when social services, fortified with police, without a court order or warrant, come to the parent's home and claim that parents MUST surrender children - or else);
2) denying parents access to the children for 15 months;
3) lying in Family Court to prevent return of the child at pre-trial hearings that allow hearsay in - and boy do social put in hearsay, rumors, in bulk;
4) weaning the child off their ties to biological families by coercing them to call foster parents "Mom" and "Dad" (happened regularly in child neglect and abuse cases I handled - where cases themselves were fabricated).
The "15 to 22 months" time frame operates during the time when the parent is not yet adjudicated as having done anything wrong to the child!
If court child neglect proceedings last 15 months, and sometimes discovery, motion practice and trial dates spaced out by the court months apart result in such delays, then social services have a leverage over the parent in threatening that the parent's parental rights over the child will be terminated ANYWAY, whatever the decision of the Family Court may be - simply because the child was in foster care (rightfully or wrongfully) for 15 months.
And that is - a "requirement" of federal law that somehow trumps considerations of fairness, due process, and statutory law that existed before this unconstitutional Adoption and SAFE FAMILIES Act was enacted by Congress.
And here is the payment for the states obliging the U.S. Congress in its unconstitutional "requirements": money.
Money, pure and simple.
To hell with the child and the child's welfare.
To hell with splitting the child's family and ripping the child away from his parents and extended family, from his roots.
Money talks.
==
Adoption Incentive Payments. The Secretary of HHS is required to make adoption incentive payments to states in which adoptions of foster children in FY 1998 exceed the average number during FY 1995-FY 1997 or, in FY 1999 and subsequent years, in which adoptions of foster children are higher than in any previous fiscal year after FY 1996.
Adoption incentive payments are $4,000 for each adoption of a foster child above the base number, plus an additional $2,000 for a total of $6,000 per special needs adoption. For these incentive payments, $20 million is authorized for each of FYs 1999-2003.
===
I already wrote about the above "incentive" in a separate blog.
Here is another "incentive", shamelessly called "Reauthorization and Expansion of the Family Preservation and Support Program.
The Family Preservation and Support Program, renamed "Promoting Safe and Stable Families," is reauthorized through FY 2001 at the following levels: $275 million in FY 1999; $295 million in FY 2000; and $305 million in FY 2001 (increases of about $20 million each year over the current baseline).
==
So, you are splitting a family for money, and call it "family preservation"?
Can the government officials and service providers who are thriving on this scheme be any more cynical?
And, there are countless more federal aid grants that require to terminate parental rights quicker, no matter what due process says, and do it mechanically, without regard of what is happening in the court case.
So, the state statute requires social services, custodian of children in foster care, to make reasonable efforts for reunification of children with their biological parents.
The federal grant money, on the other hand, provide a diametrically opposite incentive - to keep children under different pretexts in foster care for 15 months (less three months, social services may file a petition 3 months before the expiration of 15 months), and then, whatever the outcome of the child neglect petition, even if it was fabricated by social services - file a petition to terminate parental rights.
And, given the fact (which I have personal knowledge of) that foster parents in need of adoption just happen to be local government officials, the adoption pipeline combines benefits for all (but the parents and the children).
Social Services get federal grant money, and money for support of children, as well as children's own SSI payments during their stay in foster care, as well as support squeezed from parents, and the "adoption incentive" money.
Local government officials who want to adopt, get children they picked as "foster parents".
It is a child selling industry that acts under the smoke screen of "doing right by children.
They are not doing right by the children.
They are doing right by themselves - for money.
===
Termination of Parental Rights (TPR). States are required to file a petition to terminate parental rights immediately and, concurrently to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified adoptive family, in the case of:
a child who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months;
a child who the court has determined to be an abandoned infant (as defined in state law); or
a court has determined that the parent assaulted the child or killed or assaulted another of their children.
==
And, that termination is very nicely arranged by social services by:
1) removing the child from the care of the parents, often through coercion and intimidation, often "by consent" (when social services, fortified with police, without a court order or warrant, come to the parent's home and claim that parents MUST surrender children - or else);
2) denying parents access to the children for 15 months;
3) lying in Family Court to prevent return of the child at pre-trial hearings that allow hearsay in - and boy do social put in hearsay, rumors, in bulk;
4) weaning the child off their ties to biological families by coercing them to call foster parents "Mom" and "Dad" (happened regularly in child neglect and abuse cases I handled - where cases themselves were fabricated).
The "15 to 22 months" time frame operates during the time when the parent is not yet adjudicated as having done anything wrong to the child!
If court child neglect proceedings last 15 months, and sometimes discovery, motion practice and trial dates spaced out by the court months apart result in such delays, then social services have a leverage over the parent in threatening that the parent's parental rights over the child will be terminated ANYWAY, whatever the decision of the Family Court may be - simply because the child was in foster care (rightfully or wrongfully) for 15 months.
And that is - a "requirement" of federal law that somehow trumps considerations of fairness, due process, and statutory law that existed before this unconstitutional Adoption and SAFE FAMILIES Act was enacted by Congress.
And here is the payment for the states obliging the U.S. Congress in its unconstitutional "requirements": money.
Money, pure and simple.
To hell with the child and the child's welfare.
To hell with splitting the child's family and ripping the child away from his parents and extended family, from his roots.
Money talks.
==
Adoption Incentive Payments. The Secretary of HHS is required to make adoption incentive payments to states in which adoptions of foster children in FY 1998 exceed the average number during FY 1995-FY 1997 or, in FY 1999 and subsequent years, in which adoptions of foster children are higher than in any previous fiscal year after FY 1996.
Adoption incentive payments are $4,000 for each adoption of a foster child above the base number, plus an additional $2,000 for a total of $6,000 per special needs adoption. For these incentive payments, $20 million is authorized for each of FYs 1999-2003.
===
I already wrote about the above "incentive" in a separate blog.
Here is another "incentive", shamelessly called "Reauthorization and Expansion of the Family Preservation and Support Program.
The Family Preservation and Support Program, renamed "Promoting Safe and Stable Families," is reauthorized through FY 2001 at the following levels: $275 million in FY 1999; $295 million in FY 2000; and $305 million in FY 2001 (increases of about $20 million each year over the current baseline).
==
So, you are splitting a family for money, and call it "family preservation"?
Can the government officials and service providers who are thriving on this scheme be any more cynical?
And, there are countless more federal aid grants that require to terminate parental rights quicker, no matter what due process says, and do it mechanically, without regard of what is happening in the court case.
So, the state statute requires social services, custodian of children in foster care, to make reasonable efforts for reunification of children with their biological parents.
The federal grant money, on the other hand, provide a diametrically opposite incentive - to keep children under different pretexts in foster care for 15 months (less three months, social services may file a petition 3 months before the expiration of 15 months), and then, whatever the outcome of the child neglect petition, even if it was fabricated by social services - file a petition to terminate parental rights.
And, given the fact (which I have personal knowledge of) that foster parents in need of adoption just happen to be local government officials, the adoption pipeline combines benefits for all (but the parents and the children).
Social Services get federal grant money, and money for support of children, as well as children's own SSI payments during their stay in foster care, as well as support squeezed from parents, and the "adoption incentive" money.
Local government officials who want to adopt, get children they picked as "foster parents".
It is a child selling industry that acts under the smoke screen of "doing right by children.
They are not doing right by the children.
They are doing right by themselves - for money.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
A New York court (finally) rules that a fetus is not included into the protections of the Family Court Act Article 10, child abuse and neglect. Yet, the decision has only a partial bite
I wrote on this blog about the backlash across the country by the government against pregnant women seeking to protect fetuses against pregnant women's behaviors: drug use etc.
And that control got really bad, see my blogs here and here.
Of course, at the background of Roe v Wade, a woman could abort the fetus without asking permission of the government, but obviously if she kept the pregnancy, she was penalized for it by government control over her body during the pregnancy.
In New York, the Family Court Act, Article 10, the statute that gives LIMITED authority to the government to intrude into family lives of people, states that it is designed to protect a "child under 18 years of age".
A child is a "child born alive".
Yet, practices of social services in New York were quite different.
As everywhere else in the country, social services in New York targeted pregnant women, especially those whose newborn were born with drugs in their bloodstream.
Drugs got into their bloodstream obviously before they were "born alive", where it is clear that drugs got into the newborn's bloodstream before birth.
That includes legitimate drug use for pain in labor and in pre-labor surgery, social services persecute pregnant women for use of pain medication for themselves prescribed by physicians, too.
But, whether the drug use was legitimate or illegitimate, it occurred before the child was born alive - and thus is off bounds for Family Courts to pursue specifically as "child neglect", it is "fetal neglect", and fetuses are not included into the protection of the Family Court Act.
Finally, after, as reported, 15 women's rights proponents filed an amicus brief to the appellate court, an intermediate appellate court in New York, Appellate Division 1st Department, has ruled that fetuses are not included into the protection of the Family Court Act.
That happened when a judge in the lower Family Court went out on a limb and, without any tricks that social services use in such situations (they wait until the child is born - and only then bring a child neglect petition, which says a lot about the desire to protect children, waiting until the harm is done) - the judge bluntly stated that he is specifically protecting a fetus, under the Family Court Act.
The 1st Department overruled the lower court that went on and on citing to incorrect decisions of various Family Courts that obviously never came to be reviewed on appeal, as it often happens in such cases (assigned counsel wouldn't appeal, and parents do not have resources or ability to file notices of appeal on their own).
The 1st Department reviewed the case on the merits even though it has become moot because the father by that time was coerced to enter the so-called "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal", and the adjournment period has expired, so the petition was dismissed.
By the way, the appeal that was granted by the 1st Department was, by the way, the father's appeal denying his motion to dismiss the petition even though the women's rights groups filed amicus curiae briefs clearly on behalf of the mother - who did not appeal.)
What bothers me in this whole story is, first, that the mother was made a Respondent in that action at all - because the father strangled HER with the fetus inside her.
So, the government was targeting to punish the victim of a criminal assault for that assault - makes a lot of sense, and such actions were already prohibited by a federal court in Nicholson v Scopetta, which the trial court was aware of and cited in his decision, see description of that case and of the history of social services targeting women, victims of domestic violence, as respondents in child neglect proceedings.
The way to proceed under such circumstances was to charge the man with criminal assault on a woman, not to charge the woman in Family Court for being strangled by a man while being 8-months pregnant.
And, second, the story of social services in New York targeting women for "neglecting fetuses" is not over, even with a court decision that directly stated that fetuses are not included into the protections of the Article 10 of the Family Court Act, from which it logically follows that women in New York cannot be targeted with child neglect and abuse petitions for what occurred before the birth of their child.
Reportedly, social services expressed a resolve to still be able to file petitions for child neglect once the child is born.
With stubbornness even in the face of a declaration that "the child" does not mean the "fetus" within the jurisdictional meaning of the Family Court Act Article 10, somehow social services believe that if the act of neglect occurred when the child was a fetus, stripping them of jurisdiction, jurisdiction can somehow be restored if they word the petition as if they are NOW protecting a child, based on the facts that the child was neglected as a fetus.
So, be prepared to see a lot more of the same cases in New York Family Courts.
And that control got really bad, see my blogs here and here.
Of course, at the background of Roe v Wade, a woman could abort the fetus without asking permission of the government, but obviously if she kept the pregnancy, she was penalized for it by government control over her body during the pregnancy.
In New York, the Family Court Act, Article 10, the statute that gives LIMITED authority to the government to intrude into family lives of people, states that it is designed to protect a "child under 18 years of age".
A child is a "child born alive".
Yet, practices of social services in New York were quite different.
As everywhere else in the country, social services in New York targeted pregnant women, especially those whose newborn were born with drugs in their bloodstream.
Drugs got into their bloodstream obviously before they were "born alive", where it is clear that drugs got into the newborn's bloodstream before birth.
That includes legitimate drug use for pain in labor and in pre-labor surgery, social services persecute pregnant women for use of pain medication for themselves prescribed by physicians, too.
But, whether the drug use was legitimate or illegitimate, it occurred before the child was born alive - and thus is off bounds for Family Courts to pursue specifically as "child neglect", it is "fetal neglect", and fetuses are not included into the protection of the Family Court Act.
Finally, after, as reported, 15 women's rights proponents filed an amicus brief to the appellate court, an intermediate appellate court in New York, Appellate Division 1st Department, has ruled that fetuses are not included into the protection of the Family Court Act.
That happened when a judge in the lower Family Court went out on a limb and, without any tricks that social services use in such situations (they wait until the child is born - and only then bring a child neglect petition, which says a lot about the desire to protect children, waiting until the harm is done) - the judge bluntly stated that he is specifically protecting a fetus, under the Family Court Act.
The 1st Department overruled the lower court that went on and on citing to incorrect decisions of various Family Courts that obviously never came to be reviewed on appeal, as it often happens in such cases (assigned counsel wouldn't appeal, and parents do not have resources or ability to file notices of appeal on their own).
The 1st Department reviewed the case on the merits even though it has become moot because the father by that time was coerced to enter the so-called "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal", and the adjournment period has expired, so the petition was dismissed.
By the way, the appeal that was granted by the 1st Department was, by the way, the father's appeal denying his motion to dismiss the petition even though the women's rights groups filed amicus curiae briefs clearly on behalf of the mother - who did not appeal.)
What bothers me in this whole story is, first, that the mother was made a Respondent in that action at all - because the father strangled HER with the fetus inside her.
So, the government was targeting to punish the victim of a criminal assault for that assault - makes a lot of sense, and such actions were already prohibited by a federal court in Nicholson v Scopetta, which the trial court was aware of and cited in his decision, see description of that case and of the history of social services targeting women, victims of domestic violence, as respondents in child neglect proceedings.
The way to proceed under such circumstances was to charge the man with criminal assault on a woman, not to charge the woman in Family Court for being strangled by a man while being 8-months pregnant.
And, second, the story of social services in New York targeting women for "neglecting fetuses" is not over, even with a court decision that directly stated that fetuses are not included into the protections of the Article 10 of the Family Court Act, from which it logically follows that women in New York cannot be targeted with child neglect and abuse petitions for what occurred before the birth of their child.
Reportedly, social services expressed a resolve to still be able to file petitions for child neglect once the child is born.
With stubbornness even in the face of a declaration that "the child" does not mean the "fetus" within the jurisdictional meaning of the Family Court Act Article 10, somehow social services believe that if the act of neglect occurred when the child was a fetus, stripping them of jurisdiction, jurisdiction can somehow be restored if they word the petition as if they are NOW protecting a child, based on the facts that the child was neglected as a fetus.
So, be prepared to see a lot more of the same cases in New York Family Courts.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
The child's 1.5% of Native American blood removed the child from the reach of state social services
Many times over the years, when I represented parents in New York charged for child abuse and neglect, I read petitions hastily concocted by county departments of social services, where the petitions invariably stated that the Department, before filing the petition, verified whether the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, and that it doesn't.
I then talked to parents and, in many times, verified that the parents' family tree did include Native Americans, often in very close relationship to the child.
Here is a link to the text of the actual Indian Child Welfare Act, and its history, and here are the "Frequently asked questions" about that statute.
Parents have a real way to protect themselves and their children from the grubby (and often dirty) hands of social services by keeping their Native American heritage alive.
As the recent precedent shows, where a girl was taken from a foster family (meaning, the child was placed with that family by social services) because she had 1.5% Native American blood, and was removed from the reach of state social services, gives a good illustration of protections the Indian Child Welfare Act provides.
Social services are sloppy.
When social services rubber-stamp that they did inquiries under the Indian Child Welfare Act, that is usually not true, but if the child qualifies under ICWA, the state social services have no authority to touch the child - ICWA is a jurisdictional statute.
Kudoz for the court to follow the ICWA law and setting this precedent that, I am sure, will help many other children and parents.
I then talked to parents and, in many times, verified that the parents' family tree did include Native Americans, often in very close relationship to the child.
Here is a link to the text of the actual Indian Child Welfare Act, and its history, and here are the "Frequently asked questions" about that statute.
Parents have a real way to protect themselves and their children from the grubby (and often dirty) hands of social services by keeping their Native American heritage alive.
As the recent precedent shows, where a girl was taken from a foster family (meaning, the child was placed with that family by social services) because she had 1.5% Native American blood, and was removed from the reach of state social services, gives a good illustration of protections the Indian Child Welfare Act provides.
Social services are sloppy.
When social services rubber-stamp that they did inquiries under the Indian Child Welfare Act, that is usually not true, but if the child qualifies under ICWA, the state social services have no authority to touch the child - ICWA is a jurisdictional statute.
Kudoz for the court to follow the ICWA law and setting this precedent that, I am sure, will help many other children and parents.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Delaware County litigants in Family Court before Becker - attention
Attention to those litigants in child neglect and abuse proceedings who had Judge Carl Becker (now retired) presiding over their cases after his re-election and ruling against him.
The Petitioner, Delaware County Department of Social Services, is officially represented by the County Attorney.
Porter Kirkwood, who is now running for a judge, was County Attorney since 2013.
Porter Kirkwood and his entire family, according to records filed with the NYS Board of Elections, supported Becker in his re-election campaign of 2012.
I believe, such information had to be disclosed by Becker and by Kirkwood or his "of counsel" assistant County Attorney Amy Merklen.
I am sure such information was never disclosed.
I believe that there are grounds to make motions to vacate findings by Becker in favor of Porter Kirkwood's client based on such non-disclosures.
The Petitioner, Delaware County Department of Social Services, is officially represented by the County Attorney.
Porter Kirkwood, who is now running for a judge, was County Attorney since 2013.
Porter Kirkwood and his entire family, according to records filed with the NYS Board of Elections, supported Becker in his re-election campaign of 2012.
I believe, such information had to be disclosed by Becker and by Kirkwood or his "of counsel" assistant County Attorney Amy Merklen.
I am sure such information was never disclosed.
I believe that there are grounds to make motions to vacate findings by Becker in favor of Porter Kirkwood's client based on such non-disclosures.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The first book in the series of 3-language electronic, print, audiobooks, podcasts and lectures is close to publication in November-December this year
I am preparing a series of informational materials for publication on the topic of defense in neglect and abuse proceedings in New York.
The series will include:
The books will come in three formats:
It will be in English and will be in electronic and print format.
I hope to release the matching audio-book, podcast and a lecture/educational course close in time.
Of course, it is a steep learning curve for me to learn new tricks at my old age - podcasts, audiobooks, online lectures, designing your own book covers...
Yet, it is as exciting as it is difficult, and I value more than anything else my independence from any kind of licensing and permits.
Self-publishing your own books is not yet licensed in this great country, as nearly everything else is, so I will share my knowledge this way.
The Spanish version will be published as soon as the translation is ready. I am working with potential producers and presenters of the Spanish-version podcasts, audiobooks and lectures.
The Russian set will follow the English version.
It is a large project and, I am sure, will take a long time to complete.
Yet, I think that such information is badly needed for the public, and I will do my best to provide it.
==
Update as of March 26, 2016 - suspension of my law license on November 13, 2015, and the time required to fight it, delayed the book's, and the series', publication, but I am working on it.
The series will include:
- 15 single-language books (as planned now) covering various aspects of child neglect and abuse proceedings, from the point of prosecuted parents;
- podcasts;
- lectures/courses of study
The books will come in three formats:
- electronic books (Kindle or other electronic format, I am deciding);
- print;
- audiobooks
- English - author's version;
- Russian - author's version;
- Spanish - translation
It will be in English and will be in electronic and print format.
I hope to release the matching audio-book, podcast and a lecture/educational course close in time.
Of course, it is a steep learning curve for me to learn new tricks at my old age - podcasts, audiobooks, online lectures, designing your own book covers...
Yet, it is as exciting as it is difficult, and I value more than anything else my independence from any kind of licensing and permits.
Self-publishing your own books is not yet licensed in this great country, as nearly everything else is, so I will share my knowledge this way.
The Spanish version will be published as soon as the translation is ready. I am working with potential producers and presenters of the Spanish-version podcasts, audiobooks and lectures.
The Russian set will follow the English version.
It is a large project and, I am sure, will take a long time to complete.
Yet, I think that such information is badly needed for the public, and I will do my best to provide it.
==
Update as of March 26, 2016 - suspension of my law license on November 13, 2015, and the time required to fight it, delayed the book's, and the series', publication, but I am working on it.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent parents from recovering improper child support payments from social services obtained by social services from New York Family Court
I've just posted a blog post in my other blog that pertains, generally, to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and civil rights litigation - but is factually about a case where social services took a disabled child from parents, placed him in a residential facility and then went back to Family Court to sue parents for support payments, and obtained such payments, in the amount of $1,200.00 a month, in violation of federal law.
Parents sued in federal court - and recovered $104,564.32 in reimbursement of child support, plus interest and attorney's fees in the federal civil rights litigation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled, in a case that remains a mandatory precedent for New York, that New York Family Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction for purposes of jurisdictional bar on civil rights actions in federal courts based on claims arising out of federal law.
Parents whose rights are violated in New York Family Courts by social services!
Be aware of this precedent and use it to defend against "Rooker-Feldman arguments" in motions to dismiss in your own federal civil rights lawsuits.
Parents sued in federal court - and recovered $104,564.32 in reimbursement of child support, plus interest and attorney's fees in the federal civil rights litigation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled, in a case that remains a mandatory precedent for New York, that New York Family Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction for purposes of jurisdictional bar on civil rights actions in federal courts based on claims arising out of federal law.
Parents whose rights are violated in New York Family Courts by social services!
Be aware of this precedent and use it to defend against "Rooker-Feldman arguments" in motions to dismiss in your own federal civil rights lawsuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)