This is a short video taken this morning in Stratford, of how corrupt the CAS is with their legalized kidnapping. I have voluntarily handed my 3 yr. old Grandson over to them this morning, as a Cancer Patient they did not offer me any help in the care of him other than telling me if I wanted help I would have to apply for Welfare, which I'm not on. They have alienated these 2 brothers against each other who have lived with their Mother since birth, without assistance from either of the boys Dad's. CAS and the Lawyer involved have denied my Daughter her Charter of Rights and failed this Family on every level possible.

Uploaded by TheDeterminedmom on Mar 2, 2012

---

This little guy and his 5 yr. old brother were taken from their Mothers home, because it was messy, yep, from a Mother that has raised them their whole little lives.

momofmytwo 1 day ago

Notice how the workers protect themselves from families behind bullet-proof glass. As soon as the boy sees social workers, he runs back to the safety of grandmother.

— from a Facebook posting by Vern Beck on November 16, 2011. The video must have been recorded near Muskoka Ontario during the spring leaf-out. best guess: Nov 16, 2011.

In the United Kingdom Children should NOT be SEEN OR HEARD. This is a true documentary about Children Removed from their families for no genuine reason. The UK seeks 4000 children for adoption in 2012. If your parents are considering bringing you to the UK in 2012 for the Olympics, take our advice - DO NOT COME. They steal your parents here, give you to strangers, make you unnameables. Silent Children, unheard, unseen.

Addendum: Here is a picture of the baby.

This is a video taken during the second visit that occurred on day 8 of the 13 days. Kim and Craig were required by Child and Family Services to dress and load the children into the minivan so they could go to the foster home.

Following some normal kid play, notice the reaction of the kids when they realize separation is coming. Also notice the torture inflicted on the parents. Posted to YouTube March 20, 2009. Since it has real names, child protectors will bully it off YouTube soon.

From another source, the intervention occurred because the MacNearneys were medical marijuana users.

local copy mp4).

Hello. My name is Mark. My baby was kidnapped by CPS on July 16, 2008 with no claim of abuse or neglect. I have informed CPS, and proved on the record, that they do not have authority or jurisdiction over this baby to remove him from his parents. It is a blatant invasion, without cause, onto the sanctity of family. The CPS workers ignored me, and conspired with the "judge" to rig the game so it looks legitimate - i.e. - covering up their crimes. I have exposed their crimes. Now they have retaliated by getting me arrested. They have altered court records, falsified my name and address and residency status, and thereby have caused me to not be included in their kangaroo court process. I caught them in this deceit and exposed them and the judge on the record for fraud. On Oct 2, at 9:30pm, 4 armed police and a dog attacked me outside my home. Without announcing their purpose or intent they physically attacked me, threw me around the deck area, hit me, tossed me over a table and generally demonstrated their violent inclinations. It is 6 days later and my wrists are still bruised from the vindictive over-tightening of the handcuffs. AFTER all this, they informed me they had a warrant for the arrest of the false name that they assigned to me. The charges: "Intercepting Communications" - A MISDEMEANOR! And they executed it with this much violence? I later discovered CPS workers are so desperate that they falsely accused me of threatening to blow up the court house! These people are sick, psychotic and VERY dangerous. As promised, I will continue to speak out, even from jail. CPS must be abolished. And, the criminal agents must be put in prison for kidnapping. Join the battle to expose them.

The last visit of Dad with his baby. CPS cut off visits after receiving a "psych eval" that was nothing but regurgitated rhetoric handed to the doctor by the social worker. Notice "The Room" that is the same "Room" all over the globe! This poor little baby doesn't even have a name yet! Can any sane human even think that this poor baby is better off in "foster slavery" than with his own parents? He has a happy 2-parent home with a mother and father that love him with all their heart. There is no claim of abuse or neglect! The "State" didn't even know this baby existed for certain until they hijacked the mother in a parkinglot and ripped the baby away from her. On accusation from a social worker from another state that there are other children being held hostage, so this baby might be at risk!? Might? Possible? Can we say "prior restraint" and "denial of due process"? How about "failure to provide pre-deprivation hearing"? How about outright "Kidnapping"!?

The whole "evaluation" crap is a complete fraud. How is it that a father should have to prove himself fit to raise his own children? Are the "caretakers" and "foster parents" subject to these evaluations? Why is a Parent forced to undergo stricter criteria than a complete stranger to the child?

The social worker's husband is DIRECTOR of the county corrections department. He came knocking IN PERSON on Friday to intimidate and harass! He has a staff of psuedo-cops that do in-person contacts for probation matters, but he comes 15 miles in person? The Director of the department? Tell me this isn't harassment! No contract = criminal conduct. They are trying to use Baby to coerce and intimidate Dad and Mom into a contract! "Just sign this agreement for visitation requirements..." CRIMINALS!

Since controversial material disappears quickly from YouTube, we have local copies: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (all in flv format). Only the first is technically awkward.

Phone call recorded May 4, 2008. CPS is doing everything they can to cancel and manipulate the courts to keep us from seeing our children. This social worker was fired from Child and Family Services after we had filed maney complaints on her only for to be hired by Marquette County CPS.

Third recording posted May 8, 2008, no date of the incident is given. A girl in foster care gets at least three vaginal exams.

CPS, CIPS, DCF, DSS, DCFS, or whatever name they go by in your area, have taken children away from parents because of unfounded accusations. Municipalities also "put people in their place" to protect the drug trade!

Friends of mine have been to scared to take their children to the hospital because of an injury that occurred. Due to the corruption of DCF and CPS.

One story of a friend had a four wheeler flip onto his 14 yr old son.

He split his head and was bleeding, wanting to go to sleep. The Father and mother cried for hrs while doing everything they could to help the wound, because they were afraid they would lose their children to DCF.

There are MANY more stories like this all over Florida that are happening everyday.

Another friend has a 3 year old daughter who was spinning in an office chair, fell down and put a bump on her head, the Father and Mother were to scared to take her to the emergency room because they were afraid of DCF stepping in and taking their children on unfounded accusations.

Until we have honest employees, or at least an internal affairs group for DCF, people's children are in danger of suffering at the hands of lying DCF employees. What will happen to these children who need medical help and the parents are to afraid to take their children to the hospital because of being falsely accused and losing their children.

A missionary friend was to fly in to Florida to preach in our area. He had been praying for our family with his family. An 8 year old son was going to fly in with him, but the day of his flight leaving, his son found out they were coming to Florida and would not get on the plane. He said, "I don't want to go where people take children from the Dad and Mom's." He cried excessively until his father told him he did not have to go.

SOMEONE WHO CAN....HELP SAVE THE AMERICAN FAMILY!

DCF is Destroying Children and Families.

• lawyers who do not represent their clients
• a mother had to attend court alone, without family members or a lawyer
• gag orders preventing parents from reporting their case to law enforcement or political representatives
• sexual abuse of a boy in foster care

Posted August 10, 2006.

[06:12] Officer Franklin: No... You listen to me. You listen to me. Let me tell you what's gonna happen. If you don't sign, I'm gonna go right back there where your wife's at, and I'm gonna put her ass in jail. I'm calling the Department of Human Services and I'm gonna take your fucking kids from you today.

and later:

[25:10] Officer Webber: Eugene, sign it buddy, or we're gonna go down and git your wife. You want us to do that?

mp4. Barbara Erb continues interviewing the same witness on December 14, 1992. She is coaching him to be more incriminating.

mp4 Sergeant Thomas Callaghan and Lanark CAS worker Denise Unhola interview the boy again on April 27, 1992. Callaghan is lying when he says he recently talked to Jack. When the boy gives the answer the interrogator wants, he praises the boy saying "That's right!".

mp4 Barbara Erb and Ottawa police sergeant Jill Skinner continue the interviews December 2, 1992. Raymond can now respond that Jack sucked on my dink.

Mr Dominguez's observations coincide with those of fixcas. Affidavits under the names of many workers in Dufferin CAS all showed the same literary style.

Posted to YouTube May 8, 2014. The first minute of video is technically awkward.

Dr McKay is an example of an expert who gave a report unfavorable to children's aid, and got no more referrals as a result. The CBC videos on J are at [1] and [2].

List Of Questions (With Timecode)

00:05

Introduction (Who do you normally represent?)

00:37

Do you ever represent natural, foster, or adoptive parent(s)?

01:43

How does the court define "negligence"?

02:22

Do you have to prove the CAS was negligent?

04:37

How do you prove fault?

07:16

Is the CAS contracting out to group homes to avoid being sued?

08:58

How does the law apply if other children (in a group home) abused the survivor?

10:16

If a file has been sealed for 20 years, or the CAS claims there is no file, can a survivor still sue?

11:08

How much money can a survivor sue for?

15:00

Is it harder to sue the CAS if the child was damaged before they went into care?

15:28

Is it worthwhile for an abuse survivor to sue for damages?

16:56

Are gag orders normally part of the settlement?

18:46

Do the claims cost tax payers when the CAS loses?

20:46

Would you encourage kids - teens or young adults - to sue?

22:30

What if a survivor can't afford a lawyer?

23:08

How do you know if it's "a strong case" ?

24:06

If the abuse happened in a foster home does that mean you can't sue the CAS?

24:42

Is there a statute of limitations?

28:02

Final thoughts...

Literature has long been fascinated with fostered, adopted and orphaned children, from Moses to Cinderella to Oliver Twist to Harry Potter. So why do many parentless children feel compelled to hide their pasts? Poet and playwright Lemn Sissay tells his own moving story. (Filmed at TEDxHousesofParliament.)

An award-winning playwright and popular broadcaster in the UK, as well as the author of five poetry books, Lemn Sissay has a way with words.

In common with many exposés of past abuse, there is no mention that the same practice continues today, with only the justifications altered.

Thursday September 22, 2011
It's mail day. And we have been overwhelmed with responses to the story of Sharon Pederson, a woman shunned, alienated and forced to give up her baby for adoption because she was young and single. That story unleashed a flood of similar stories from other mothers, children and adoptive parents alike. And according to The Current's Kathleen Goldhar, they're just the tip of the iceberg. We hear from her and also get to some of your letters on the entitled generation, erotic capital in the workplace and an update on a asbestos story and the Von Palleske family

audio (mp3).

— blurb from November 2009 TED talk. This talk shows that psychiatrists are in the dark ages when it comes to diagnosis of pediatric behaviors.

Technical note: Dr Vonnegut requires that behaviors be "several standard deviations different" to qualify as ADHD. Surmising that "several" means three or more, of the 75 million Americans under age 18, only 100 thousand are more than three standard deviations above normal. But "almost 4 million children 3–17 years of age (7%) had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)" according to the Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2002 issued by the Centers for Disease Control.

Published on May 6, 2013 The Abia state police command has apprehended a fake social worker; Ngozi Nkwonu, who under the pretense of operating an orphanage, runs a baby-making centre, where teenage girls are impregnated and the babies sold off. For more information log on to www.channelstv.com.

CPS in Texas filed an affidavit with the courts stating, "Baby's mom was positive for illegal drugs." CPS said the house was unclean and unfit for the baby. CPS LIED! For once, their lies did not work. Drug test - NEGATIVE Condition of House - Judge wanted to know why this statement was in the affidavit if known to be untrue.

In seven weeks infant was in foster care she came home with a severe sunburn, diaper rash with pustules, asthma requiring breathing treatments throughout the day!

There is more and as time permits, we will post more.

This baby is so fortunate to have a mother and father who love her dearly, and a grandmother you do not want to mess with!

The baby is Rachel Harrison, daughter of David and Christina Harrison.

The second video shows the Orwellean response to the Luzyn case by Ray Smith of CYF.

Both posted to YouTube July 11, 2008.

Great Britain is one of two European countries where “forced adoption” takes place, whereby a child’s biological parents are given no say in the decision. The alleged motive for the practice is putting the child’s interests first but opponents insist that social workers often abuse their powers simply to meet targets. Many families have been forced to flee the country, just to keep their kids.

The video by the BBC is sympathetic to social workers, but manages to show many abuses of the child protection system. The opening announces correctly that social workers are the most hated professionals. The BBC elected to film the case of a culturally downscale family with an obese mother, minimizing viewer sympathy for the targets, Mike, Tiffany and their three-year-old son Toby. Mike catches on immediately with his statement "You are out to wreck us", though it takes the workers themselves and the BBC a lot longer. When parents can't explain a bruise it is a point against them. Experts who have seen the child for minutes claim more authority than parents who have watched a child for years. The family has to put up with new people entering their home regularly. At a case conference, the two unassisted parents have no chance of prevailing in a meeting staffed with a half-dozen professionals from social services. Workers in the meeting use the word "services" to indicate orders delivered under threat. "Only a judge can decide to remove Toby from his parents" says the narrator, though in hundreds of real cases examined by fixcas, all child removals occurred before the parents had an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Social workers say the home is dirty, yet the parts shown by the camera are sanitary. Social workers try to sucker dad into giving his son up for one night of foster care while Tiffany is hospitalized, but he refuses. Toby is never fooled, he knows it's trouble when the workers try to take him. "See you in court" says the defiant dad. No way. The court acts ex parte, and he never sees anything. The workers have fresh evidence of abuse: dad put Toby's shoes on the wrong feet. Toby goes into foster care and the parents are reduced to three hours visitation a week, visitation with a social worker taking notes on a pad. Tiffany gives birth after Toby is seized, and that baby, born two months premature, goes into foster care immediately on exit from the hospital. Following the loss of their children, the marriage dissolves. In the end Tiffany capitulates and consents to adoption of both children. The social workers show pride in their accomplishment. January 15, 2012.

The second episode goes after another family with little to offer. You won't find it hard to dislike father Shaun. The narrator says he has a history of criminal violence, he is riddled with tattoos, has a chip on his shoulder and can't stop drinking, the camera even catches him taking a few swigs. The social workers act in a way that would drive any man to drink. They have already taken three children from the family and have their eyes on the one not yet born. Social workers strive to keep the baby safe. In their world view that means eradicating all traces of masculinity, even the canine variety. Through inducements not shown on camera they get Marva to leave Shaun. When the baby boy, named Beep, is born, social workers let Marva care for him in a shelter. But weeks later Marva returns to Shaun. Social workers shed tears over the failure of their shotgun divorce, and place baby Beep for adoption.

In episode three the principal case is of mother Louise and her baby Mercedes. There is no need to break up mom and dad in this case, Louise is already living with stepdad Wayne. Once again, these parents have nothing to offer, and will draw no sympathy from the viewer. Louise is a long-term drug abuser. Social workers demand not only that she give up illegal drugs, but her prescription medicine as well. In her case, the social worker looks like a wicked witch. Of course the mother cannot satisfy the demands of the workers, and Mercedes is placed with her grandmother.

A sidebar concerns a 14-month-old baby boy possibly sexually abused. The man in the house was interviewed by police who took no action, and a medical exam found no sexual abuse. But he changed nappies/diapers. Q.E.D. Social workers spend 15 minutes threatening the mother, but she holds her ground. The baby is removed.

In a second sidebar, a child is removed from a home with a clogged toilet.

Overall from all three episodes, the attitude of social workers when dealing with parents is accurate, based on comparison with the experiences of hundreds of real families subject to intervention, though social workers clean up their act when they know the camera is watching. Workers repeatedly assure parents "We are not here to take children", but they do nothing else. The discussions of social workers among themselves lack credibility. On camera, they show a lot more concern for family reunification than in actual practice. The video shows social workers saying on camera that they do not have the power to remove a child on their own, they need court approval first. But it shows them doing the opposite. The selection of clients is not at all accurate. In the real world most targeted families are headed by single mothers. There are few of the hopeless misfits selected by the BBC.

Babies learn who their real mother is before birth. July 2011.

commentary on Kentucky's Maryhurst Treatment Center (pdf). A better solution is not putting kids in the care of strangers or institutions.

The report was criticized a year and a half later.

The CCHR produced this story of the mayhem caused by psychiatric drugs, told through the voice of the mother of Matthew Sean Steubing, a teenager who committed suicide on July 18, 2003 after receiving a prescription for Lexapro. The documentary includes the views of professionals and parents of other children adversely affected by drugs. While the psychiatric industry pays lip service to close observation of patients, families consistently report getting a prescription after only 15 minutes of consultation, with little follow-up. The paragraph below is the blurb accompanying the YouTube posting of April 16, 2011.

Psychiatric disorders are not medical diseases. There are no lab tests, brain scans, X-rays or chemical imbalance tests that can verify any mental disorder is a physical condition. The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging and The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane? comes this searing new documentary, exposing how devastating—and deadly—psychiatric drugs can be for children and families. Behind the grim statistics of deaths, suicides, birth defects and serious adverse reactions is the human face of this global drugging epidemic—the personal stories of loss and courage of those who paid the real price. Psychiatrists claim their drugs are safe for children? Once you hear what eight brave mothers, their families, health experts, drug counselors and doctors have to say instead, you will come away convinced of one thing... Psychiatrists are DEAD WRONG.

The first step is separating children from their parents. In institutional care, they are isolated from normal life and lead an existence inferior to the glory awaiting them in martyr's paradise.

1 hr 43 min 4 sec - 20-Oct-2005

www.garynull.com

In the absence of any objective medical tests to determine who has ADD or ADHD, doctors rely in part on standardized assessments and the impressions of teachers and guardians while the they administer leave little room for other causes or aggravating factors, such as diet, or environment. Hence, diagnosing a child or adolescent with ADD or ADHD is often the outcome, although no organic basis for either disease has yet to be clinically proven. Psychiatrists may then prescribe psychotropic drugs for the children without first making it clear to parents that these medications can have severe side-effects including insomnia, loss of appetite, headaches, psychotic symptoms and even potentially fatal adverse reactions, such as cardiac arrhythmia. And yet, despite these dangers, many school systems actually work with government agencies to force parents to drug their children, threatening those who refuse with the prospect of having their children taken from the home unless they cooperate.

During the reign of Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis in the 1940s and 1950s, an alarming number of healthy children living in sanctuaries were hastily diagnosed as mentally incompetent, psychotic patients. The diagnoses were always swift — the children went to bed orphans and woke up psychiatric patients. The reason? Shrewd fiscal planning; federal subsidies paid out more to hospitals than to orphanages. Some children allegedly endured lobotomies, electroshock, straitjackets and abuse. For the rest of their lives they would struggle to bring attention to their story and demand compensation. They called themselves the Duplessis Orphans.

How does a 14-year-old girl get across 1200 miles of desert? She has bush-smarts. She gets help from an assortment of passers-by, steals eggs from a chicken farmer, even finds a home with an aboriginal maid. When she has to go east, she looks at the desert sun for bearings, then heads in the right direction. In the end, two girls make it home, one is recaptured. The final scenes show the 85-year-old Holly, and tell of her own children being abducted into the system a decade later.

The movie faithfully depicts the bigotry of the authorities who are mystified by the aborigines refusal to accept their services.

Real progress occurs only when the prisoner's wife Jehan is threatened. If she does not cooperate she will be charged with aiding terrorism and her children will be placed in foster care. H seats Jehan in front of Younger, then kills her by slashing her throat. Next step: bring in Younger's two children and seat them in front of Younger and the homicidal H. Younger reveals the location of the bombs.

This website has noted many times that threats against wives and children are not fiction, but are routine in US and Canadian police work. For a Tennessee case, listen to a 45 minute recording of the interrogation of Lester Eugene Siler.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Babies,Ipods and The Like..

I am sooo glad the movie Juno didn't win any major Oscars last night. Even though I champion Canadian actors and film makers, Juno was the 'jagged little pill' I just couldn't swallow. Though I'm sure the people involved in this film may very well possess talent - the storyline following a 16 yr old pregnant girl looking for adopters did not portray reality. Juno took only one award for best original screenplay.

The only people who seemed to enjoy the film were either people looking to adopt or people who have had no experience with adoption personally. The wise cracking teenager made comments like "You shoulda went to China lady they give away babies like Ipods". This was only the beginning.

The film seemed to sugar coat over the most painful and traumatic experiences a first mother goes through. Even when it is an informed choice, it does not take away the loss. Relinquishing children for adoption brings with it a life long loss that never seems to go away. The Hollywood happily ever after just doesnt wash with me.

Juno makes it seem like surrendering a child for adoption is a trendy even cool thing to do. While the shame of pregnancy out of wedlock is slowly being taken away - a new set of ideals are being presented to us via movies and the media.

These new ideals are what continue to pervade adoption. They are just more myths. The myth that a 16 yr old cannot be helped to raise her own child. The myth that a mother can choose adopters and have an 'open adoption'. The myth that a young mother could walk away without any grief or anguish. The myth that babies are property and can be exchanged to someone 'better'. The myth that giving your child away does no damage. The myth that a bond between a mother and child isn't of any value.

At the very least, Juno did provide an opportunity to parents to openly discuss sexuality and related issues with our children. If anything this movie served as a warning. Tell your daughters adoption does not look like this. Juno was a far cry from what most first mothers go through. I'm elated Juno did not take home a major win.