Jurisdiction

1. Juvenile court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the following reasons;
A. Neb. Rev. Stat 28-720; 28-720.01, NAC 390 4.008.01 Original allegations must be related or relevant to adjudication to be classified as court substantiated otherwise must be unfounded.
B. Judge did not follow law when he refused to address challenge to his jurisdiction, which robbed him of any he may have had prior to the challenge (Davidson Chev. Inc. v City & County Denver 330 P 2d 1116)
Void attacked at any time, in any court, directly or collaterally. Incapable of enforcement. Relief is mandatory not discretional.

2. The child protection act of 1993 requires revokation of the protection order when there has been a significant change in circumstances. D.V. relationship had ended seven months prior to the call alleging drugs that initiated the investigation resulting in this removal.

3. Engaging in DV is not sufficient cause for removal (family policy act) 43-532 (nicholson 203 F supp 2d 153, 171, 179, 181, 186, 188, 191, 195)
Requiring psych eval on abused mothers is a policy based on misguided interpretations of state law and an indifference to constitutional law. Children exposed to DV are at a significantly higher risk of suffering from separation anxiety disorder if separated from their mothers. The action violates childrens 4th amend right to be free from undue seizure and 9th amend. 13 amend and 19 amend rights of all parties. Children from this situation are far more vulenrable to trauma created from thier removal (New York Task Force Findings) Removal should be used only as a last resort in the face of imminent danger to life or limb. Children rarely experience long term affects from witnessing DV however trauma may be permanent when victim of attachment based parental alienation perpetrated by narcissistic borderline personality disorder.

4. Conspiracy against rights occured due to exparte motion being based on heresy and lies

5. Widely accepted that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children. Bond and fitness evidence in previous case and current case in pictures and reports and statements made by ¨care professionals¨¨¨ as well as requests and letters from Kiyah expressing her wishes prior to no contact order
10-26-2004 The NY court of Appeals unanimously held that mothers inability to protect from witnessing abuse does not constitute neglect. Removal must be weighed against the psychological harm of removal itself (9, 14, 13, 19 AMend)

6. A parents right to the preservation of his relationship with his child desires from the fact that thte parents achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on ability to participate in rearing of his children. (Franz v US 707 F 2d 582, 595a, Q599, US Ct. of appeals (1983)

7. Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissableunder the equal protection clause of the 14 amend
(Palmore v. SIdot 104 S CT 1879, 466 US 429)

8. State and federal judges have responsibility to respect and protect persons from violation of federal constitutions rights
Gross v St of Illinoios 312 F 2d 257 (1963) Individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters protected by constitution under griswold courts can protect the life, libert, pursuit of happiness phrase the right of man to enjoy mutual care, company, love, and affection of children.

9. Pierce Society of Sisters Basic rights of man, choices of marriage, family life and childrens upbringing are deemed rights of utmost importance

10. Nebraska Family Protection Act- Requires specific info on action mother took and if those action fell below standard of care Id 250

11. N.C.G Recommends court shall insist on agency attempting to prove neglect on the part of the tmother who is the victim of DV, Allege what efforts wer made to protect children and the way in which they failed and why. Identify and perp who may have precluded or impeded her from carrying out parental duties

12. Croft v Westmoreland 3rd Cir 1997 Social worker who received allegations of abuse and threatened to remove child if father did not leave and no imminent danger of abuse engaged in an arbitrary abuse of governmental power in ordering the father to leave
(Brokaw v Mercer County (7 cir 2000) Children have constitutional right to live with parent without undue government interference

13. Retaining custody and integrity of family is greatest importance. (weller v Dept ss Baltimore)

14. Consent that comes from official intimidation or harrassemtn is not consent at all. Do not forfeit rights when coerced to comply with requests they prefer to refuse (florida v Bostick s. ct 1991)

15. Removal did not meet exignet circumstance requirements nor were reasonable efferts provided (Warrant clause – Deliberate falsehood or wreckless disreagard for the truth violates the 4 amendment) (Civil right of Children 42 USC 1983)

16. St v Davis 185 Neb 433 176 NW 2d 659 Heresy testimony of prosecution violates rights.

 

I. Spielman v Hildebrand 873 F. 2d (1377) Exparte based on misrepresentation and hearsy does not constitute chance to be heard (Conspiracy against rights)
II. Pierce v Society of Sisters 28 US 510 (1928)
Meyer v Nebraska 262 US 390 (1923) Right to live together as a family
III. Smith V Org of Foster Families- 431 US 816, 862, 863 (1977)
Forced breakup of a natural family solely for best interest intrudes in private realm where state cannot do so
IV. Troxille v Granville Fundamental right to make decisions regarding care and custody, control of children

Once parent has demonstrated sufficient committment and fitness it entitles them to raise children without undue state interference

V. 2000 Nicholson 42 USC 1983 Removal based on witnessing DV not only punish and harmed the children and mothers but infringed upon several constitutional rights; right to familial integrity and right to live free from undue government interference and childs right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Exparte cannot be pased on lies
28-728 (3) (d)(viii) Interview of a child 3-18 who was a witness to a violent crime must be interviewed with video recording

Family policy act– Removal of a child based solely on witnessing DV is unconstitutional

Child protection and safety act 1993
28-719 Required to provide records of case, Required that the caller not be disclosed, Required revocation if significant change in circumstance
Children rarely experince long term affects from witnessing DV
Widely accepted that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the childs best interest