Child abuse/ Neglect

Capta Definition of Child Abuse/ Neglect- Any recent act or failure to act on the part of the parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm or creates imminent risk of serious harm. Failure to provide food, clothing, shelter, or emotional support
Emotional Neglect- Isolating a child, not providing affection or emotional support exposing child to domestic violence or substances

Effects of Maltreatment- Intellectual and cognitive—Self esteem—Relationship problems, aggression—Growth delays, impaired brain function

FACTS AND RELEVANT DETAILS

Nebraska Case Law

*Child safety guide for judges and attorneys*
1. Placement is not necessary when caregiver capacaties can be supplied by
someone else
2. Reunification is not based on completing case plan tgoals
3. Should be based on threats and circumstances within the home
4. Parents should know exactly what is required for reunification
(these requirements should be made part of the court order)
5. Decision is environmental more than on action of the parents
6. Impending danger threats do not have to be reduced or eliminated for
children to go home

 

*California Case Law*
1. Must be at risk during jurisdictional hearing to sustain petition
*christopher m. (2014) 228 Cal App 4th*
2. No jurisdiction if guardian could have ensured safety
*J.n. (2010) 181 Cal. App 4th*
3. Must show how minor has or will be harmed
*Mathew S. 1996 41 Cal App 4th*
4. Court lacks jurisdiction to order med treatment prior to adjudication
*San Joaquin county 2010 185 Cal App 4th*
5. S worker report that was good parent rebutted unfitness
*e.h 2003 188 Cal App 4th*
6. Cps is not a super OSHA to correct minor flaws
*Alysha s 1996 51 Cal App 4th *
7. Perception of risk rather than actual evidence does not suffice
*James R2009 176 Cal App 4th*
8. Specific harm must be shown, mental illness of parent not sufficient
* David D. 1994 28 Cal App*
9. Drug use insufficient without link of potention harm
*Rebecca C. 2014 228 Cal App 4th*
10. Cannot require eval before jurisdictional hearing
*Laurie s v Superior court 1994 26 Cal App*
11. Child left with caretakers will not warrant finding of dependency if
receiving good care

 

(Court cannot not rely on unalleged conduct as grounds for jurisdiction
No discretion to ignore jurisdiction
Once chalenged burden is on court to prove it exists
Court has no jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction
Cannot void its own void orders
When judge does not obey law he becomes trespassor guilty of treason and conspiracy against US loses jurisdiction as well as immunity)

 

Bowers V Hardwick 478 US 186, 189 (1986)

Rule 104(a) Admissability of expert testimony

Not sufficient to merely conclude efforts have been made (BL 491 NW 2d 789, 791, Iowa App)

 

Rights—
1. Right to be notified of all court hearings and participate
2. Right to talk to worker and attorney
3. Right to have attorney ask questions
4. Right to present evidence
5. Right to know what court file contains
6. Right to see my child, unless judge determines otherwise
7. Receive a written case plan within 60 days signed by me
8. Right to copy of judges written decisions
9. TPR not required cause placed with relative
10. Right to have appropriate case plan
11. Right to know when child will be returned
12.

 

*US CASE LAW*

1. Natural parent who demonstrated sufficient committment is free to
raise children without undue government interference
*Stanley v Illinois 405 US 645 (1972) *

 

*US Code*

– 18 USC 4
– 28 USC 1331
– 42 uSC 1983
– 42 USC 1988
– 403 US 388 (1971)
– 28 USC 2201-2202
– 28 USC 1691 all orders signed and issued under seal, writ of summons
, subpeona or order not allowed to be signed using /s/

 

Civil Rights Act 1871
delaware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.”

“The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State.”

28-716 Caller immune from liability

# 602 Rules of evidence
May only testify about facts within personal knowledge

Warrant obtained through reckless disregard for the truth Apontes Matos v Toledo Davilla
Conspiracy against rights- warrant based on provable lies

Forced breakup of a natural family for sole best interest in intrusion by state is not allowed Smith v Org. of Foster families 431 US 816, 862-63 (1977)

Right to live as a family Meyer v Neb. 262 US 370 (1923)

Original allegation must be relevant or related to adjudication Neb Rev. Stat. 28-720 NAC 390 4-008.01 Child protection and family safety act

Child Protection and Safety Act 28-710, 727 28-720 Jurisdiction 390 NAC 4-008.01
28-719 Significant Change in Circumstance

Family Policy Act 43-532

DV insufficient for removal Nicholson 203 F Supp 2d 153, 171, 179, 181, 186, 188, 191, 195

NCG #58@109 3 Factors Must be Questioned
#59@109 Removal only if proven clearly parent unable to protect the child even with state assistance

Conspiracy to Rights 1985 Exparte cannot be based on lies and heresy

28-728(3)(d)(viii) Interview of child not recorded as required by Nebraska Law

Rule 60b Extrinsic fraud meant to defraud mother and child relationship through deliberately planned actions and utilization of false documents or records and deprivation of constitutional right to fair trial is ground for relief and judgement should be set aside.

Rule 3 Fraud may be urged as grounds for relief under independent action

 

 

 

Facts

1. Cindi has never been incarcerated for meth.
2. Cindi has never been hospitalized for suicide attempts
3. There was no prenatal exposure to meth involving Kiyah or her older brother
4. Carol never notified Cindi of an investigation
5. It was not possible for Corey to be coming to the family home regularly as he has been in jail since June 25, 2017
6. Bradell and Cindi moved to Victor st in October
7. Though they were aware of my correct address, Sarah B. testified that she never tried to reach me prior to removal
8. Father made the phone call alleging only drug use nothing else.
9. D.V. was investigated by Sarah B. immediately following June 25, 2014 and The result was the case being closed due to Kiyah being safe at Carols. Evidence that the mother took the necessary steps to ensure her childs safety
10. intake #547746 7-2-14 Was opened and investigated for neglect by Richard Coats on Kiyah Miller. It was closed a short time later with Kiyah safe at Grandmas
11. Carol never witnessed any violence yet claims the incident was not the first time that it had happened which was false.
12. Rj did not break out all the windows in the van. He hit the window with his fist and spray painted the van. Corey cut the van in half not RJ and once again Carol nor Kiyah witnessed any of this. Neither did Cindi as she had already left
13. Rj did not threaten to kill himself in a message to Carol. He did not say hed rather go to jail before he lost her.
14. Carol reported I was no longer with RJ and they helped move my stuff 6-25-14. Evidence that I left as I should have done to protect us
15. D