If you have had DCF/CPS in your life and they have damaged your family, there is no need to stay quiet, unless you would like to that is. Having your story published here will not take away any of the hurt that was caused, but it very well could help another to relate, and share. Feeling alone after what these “people” do, is extremely hard. Not only will you be helping others, but getting it out may just help you.

If you would like your story published, please know you can leave names out, you may put the social workers name if you would like, but you can remain anonymous. To publish your story please go to the “contact us” section, fill out the information and it will come right to us,no one else can see the information but us, so if you would were to have any questions you could leave your email address or phone number and we will contact you.

Sharing…. is helping, your story just may save a family.

Thank you ~ Admin Court

Incoming search terms:

• wfsb whistleblower hotline
• dcf in ct to reinvestigate

New Canaan resident sues state officials.

New Canaan resident Michael Nowacki has sued a myriad of state officials for an alleged failure to uphold the U.S. and state constitution.

In his suit, Nowacki names governors Dannel Malloy and Jodi Rell, several of Malloy’s advisors, seven state legislators, including local senators Scott Frantz and Toni Boucher and representative William Tong, and dozens of judges, lawyers, and other people associated with Connecticut’s legal system.

Click here to download a copy of the complaint. (pdf, 104 pages)

Nowacki, who is representing himself, alleged in his suit that he has been “deprived of his lawful Constitutional rights … as a parent to the love and devotion of his two children in court proceedings” in 2009. He argues that the defendants acted “outside of their authorized judicial authority” and every court operates under mutually-agreed-upon rules of practice, which he says are unconstitutional. Because of this, Nowacki argues that any jurist who supports the rules of practice is violating the constitution, and therefore “there is no court in the state of Connecticut.”

According to the documents, Nowacki filed the suit because a court stripped him of his custody rights after he was divorced. He says that the court’s action was invalid and violated his parental rights.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday, August 8, in U.S. District Court of Connecticut. Judge Stefan Underhill is presiding.

Incoming search terms:

• michael nowacki new canaan
• mike nowacki sues ct
• nowacki new canaan
• b patricia welcome university
• mike of new canaan cbs sues state of ct
• nowacki canaan
• nowacky new canaan ct
• patricia cokley
• suzanne nowacki
• mike nowacki arrested

I came across this pdf while searching the ct.gov site for information they try to bury deep within the confines of their sloppy interwebsite.  I did contact Mr. Norton and ensure that it was ok I post this on the website and if we could all just say thank you as I think he hits the nail right on the head.

Testimony of Paul Norton before Human Services and Select Committee on Children, Ct

Legislature on December 18, 2008. Contact phone- 860-402-4791, pjnorton2004@yahoo.com

 

This is a not only a story of a 15 month ordeal of injustice, it is one citizen’s observation of the operations of Connecticut  DCF and their supportive and legal apparatus. My role as advocate and adviser to my sister, who was found neglectful of her children, witnessed DCF tactical cover-up of investigation and allegation flaws.  DCF action gave my sister, Linda’s children to a jealous, interfering family member, a Foster Parent connected to the local DCF office.

 

The DCF support comes from, at this moment, 6 attorneys, one who is court-appointed to represent my sister. Father’s, child’s, Foster, DCF, Mother’s and Mother’s Guardian at Litem attorneys, all but one paid for by the State of Connecticut.

 

Operationally, the attorney players have propped up the allegations of charges of emotional neglect lodged within Juvenile Matters (JM) of the Judicial Branch, absent any criminal charges of abuse or neglect.

 

The area of DCF involvement is not limited to going into JM Court with false claims of immediate harm to children prompting removal. DCF has sabotaged Linda’s attempts at maintaining contact. Visitation. and reunification in the following: asserting abandonment to children, school, and others; coercing service provider counselors to pressure  Linda to sign children over to DCF; non­ recognition and alienation of community and family support. In addition to carrying the unfounded assertions of mental illness by Foster Parent and children, DCF has engaged in an attempt to criminalize Linda’s contact with her children by colluding with Foster Parent to lodge a Restraining Order Complaint in Family Matters (FA).

 

The attempts by DCF to prove after-the-fact the alleged incidents by proving Linda psychologically unfit, is an operational tactic used to prevent Visitation and Reunification based on Linda’s refusal to sign children over and give up her community support. When Linda complied  with the agreements for Counseling, and other specifics, DCF falsely stated in Permanency  Plan that she has not. Her court-appointed Attorneys refuse to correct the record.

 

The bureaucratic structure that allows and collude with CT DCF in maintaining  false charges criminalizes  the conduct of parents. The complicity of DCF with Foster Parents to remove  Parental Rights outside of legal proceedings  falls outside of stated regulations and law. In Linda’s case, she was met with false charges and accusations echoed by school officials made by the Foster Parent with DCF support. Police intervention was enlisted to remove her from public events.

 

The government  structure that is supportive of Ct DCF’s legal claims of abuse and neglectively impacts parents due-process  rights. They include a citizen’s redress of wrongs, equality under the law, unbiased legal representation, and being able to face your accuser before a tribunal.

 

The bureaucratic structure cuts across both executive and judicial. With the advent of a Ct 2008 Act Concerning the Commission of Child of Child Protection, these players have been empowered with a “multidisciplinary” approach. Attorneys and service providers now determine the worthiness of restoring Parental Rights. Watch-dogs are made criminal if they disclose facts in a JM case. Court-appointed attorney lack the due-diligence and professional conduct of legal representation.

 

1. Chief Child Protection Attorney’s Office meets out contract attorneys to represent indigent parents. This office also oversees and hires the attorneys for children as well. A potential conflict

of interest arises because of the mission of the agency in advocating for children. Another issue is in enforcing Contractual Obligations of the attorneys. An apparent conflict-of-interest exists because the Ct Attorney General’s (AG) Office represents Ct DCF in legal proceeding in JM Court against Parents. Any breach of contract by a parent’s or child’s court-appointed attorney has no

against Parents. Any breach of contract by a parent’s or child’s court-appointed

Ethical over site by Ct AG because they are involved in legal proceedings in JM.

2. Attorney General’s Office represents DCF with AAG attorneys in JM. It would appear the AG

has a conflict in overseeing and prosecuting contractual violations by court-appointed attorneys of parents, who are legal adversaries of their office

 

3. Judicial Department that includes JM and FA with clerks who communicate with government parties and disadvantage other legal players in process and substance in proceedings. In Linda’s case, Judges conspired with Foster Parent and DCF to remove parental rights outside of the jurisdiction of JM Court. In the FA Restraining Order (RO) initiative, DCF and court officials colluded to criminalize Linda’s conduct. then to transfer to JM to insure secrecy in the proceedings. The Juvenile Matters are closed to the public and supportive family members. The attorney players can practice without public scrutiny. Documentation is available! The RO has been removed because of a Grievance Complaint filed against an Attorney, but only after two criminal arrest warrants were issued against Linda. She now faces criminal charges. Her 7th attorney, Public Defender Mark Johnson in Bristol has “guaranteed” that the matter will be dropped on Jan 21, 2009.

 

4. The thousand pound gorilla in the room, Ct DCF is an agency more concerned  with pre­ determined outcomes for the family. Laws of the state, DCF regulations, and professional standards are cast aside to cover-up agency wrong-doing and favor connected Foster Parents and children’s wishes over due-process  Parental Rights. When DCF does not get an agreement from a parent charged in their civil complaint, they attempt post-facto  to prove the individual insane or criminal. One single injustice however, is not out-weighed by the tragic case of child abuse. In Linda’s case, the professional misconduct by the social worker is well documented, but

with no redress possible. The present safeguards are not receptive to widespread  abuse of power demonstrated.  The CT DCF Ombudsman’s Office is uneffectual in oversight and should be disbanded. The administrative appeal process afforded parents, determined by DCF to have been neglectful, should be assessed. A judicial court needs to be provided for individual parents, such as small-claims, to legally address DCF cases absent rudimentary cause and factual proof.

 

In Linda’s case, DCF took false allegations by an interested third party, added a false allegation of immediate harm to remove the children, then placed the children in the same community as the parent. When the parent wanted to maintain contact with the children, DCF went after the parent criminally. Only four visits, all obstructed by DCF, encouraging the teen-aged children to further disruption. Linda’s past domestic abuse was not recognized because she chose to take action

and remove herself and the children and seek help. Her Social Security disability of stress has been ignored in favor of insinuation and mis-diagnosis by DCF service providers. In propping up an interfering family Foster Parent, DCF did not conduct proper Home Assessment  and Study. A teen-age boy lived in the same Foster Home for 6 months. Linda’s attempts to receive information have not been forthcoming. Currently, DCF has a neglect Petition In front of a Child Protection Court. A fair trial is unlikely with her current attorney who has not filed Objections to DCF ceasing Visitation, nor has he fought an Incompetency  for Trial determination made by a prior incompetent cout-appointed Attorney.

 

In addition to the above recommendations above in DCF bureaucratic  paragraph, my observation of the attorney involvement in DCF matters, has led me to believe there is a thriving contractual business by attorneys provided they go along with the operations of DCF. In order to prevent collusion and professional misconduct by these attorneys, it is necessary  to limit the  amount of such work conducted by contract attorneys working for the Chief Child Protection Attorney Office. It would be suggested that a percentage under 40%. In addition, no Attorney who represents children should be able to represent  parents out of the same office.

 

Incoming search terms:

• vicki lambou
• dcf attorney general bridgeport connecticut
• lynn m hebert staff attorney connecticut dcf news

The mission of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) is to eliminate discrimination through civil and human rights law enforcement and to establish equal opportunity and justice for all persons within the state through advocacy and education.

ALERT!

All proceedings at the

Office of Public Hearings

are suspended until further notice.

Please contact 860-418-8770 for further information.

Good job CT we love you!!!

Incoming search terms:

• bethany saypalia
• nicole kasynak her two children
• ketty lopez of danbury ct dcf in danbury ct
• Raymond Nowak sentenced to jail
• saypalia
• alexander pino ct dui
• alexander pino ct
• alexander pino ct state police
• help with chro
• Leanne Marie Nunes

It i clearly stated that “No state shall enter into any treaty,alliance,or confederation;grant letters of marque and reprisal;pass any bill off attainder,ex post facto law, or law impairing the OBLIGATION of contracts, or grant any title of nobility”

The protection against “ex post facto” laws means that the state cannot pass a law after a person has committed an act;, and then prosecute the person for the prior act. You can only be prosecuted under the laws that are in effect at the time of your act. the protection against “bills of attainder” prevents the state from passing a law meant to punish a specific individual without judicial process.

The fourth Amendment ~ yea this is one of our constitutional rights CT DCF CPS loves to abuse, ignore, pretend doesn’t exist, doesn’t care, think they are above the law….. well guess what they are not. These are your rights, the following rights are the ones they seem to enjoy robbing people of.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause,supported by oath or affirmation, and particularydescribing the place to be searched,and the persons or things to be seized”

When CT DCF CPS, whatever the hell they are, well when they enter your home, and get any information, example by asking questions, that is a search the answer you give them is the seizure. That is why it is so omportant NOT to let them in, not to sign a dam thing they ask, no matter how many promises they make. they are like the police, they only ask questions because they DO NOT KNOW, if they did then they would not be there asking questions. If you were to sign a what seems to be a simple paper from ct dcf cps WHATEVER, then you are then captured by them, and can rest assure they will be at you door , calling, making their way in like the rats they are. Something so simple, like signing a piece of paper and not doing so they will take your child and charge you with neglect. and they are hot to trot when the child is young, they get money to take children away and ruin families. and as I said, keep a journal of when you use the bathroom, they will want everything. But mainly just to take your children.

Incoming search terms:

• ct dcf questions
• what is expected in a typical ct dcf home visit?
• what to expect ct dcf visit
• cps above 4th ammendment
• questions asked by dcf visits
• what questions can dcf ask inthe state of connecticut
• what questions will cps ask during home visit
• why doesn\t the 4th ammendment protect paternity

Lawsuit defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio

A federal court has ruled that social workers have to respect the U.S. Constitution regarding privacy and parental rights, and if they don’t they may be held liable.

The ruling comes in an Arizona case in which social workers, accompanied by Maricopa County deputy sheriffs, made unsupported threats to place a family’s children in custody and arrest the parents if they were not allowed to make what ended up being an allegedly illegal search of the family’s home.

U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll ordered that a lawsuit by the family against the social workers and sheriff will be allowed to continue, because the social workers’ concerns were based on “an anonymous tip that the … Loudermilk children were being neglected and that plaintiffs’ home was uninhabitable.”

However, the judge said that under federal law, an anonymous tip, “without more, does not constitute probable cause.”

(Story continues below)

The case is being publicized by the Home School Legal Defense Association because of the involvement of the organization’s members, the family of John and Tiffany Loudermilk.

“Social workers and sheriff’s deputies had come to the home … demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children,” the organization said.

“The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry… An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks during the confrontation,” the HSLDA report said.

Under duress, the family allowed the social workers and deputies inside, who found nothing wrong, the report said.

But as a result of the search, the family sued the social workers and others citing the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights in the search, and violations of their 14th Amendment rights to privacy and family integrity because of the threats.

The judge, acting on motions submitted by the defendants to escape liability, agreed with the family.

“Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children,” the judge said.

“Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.”

Even the assistant attorney general was cited for exerting “coercive pressure” through threats.

“The ruling in this case makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional,” said James Mason, senior counsel for the HSLDA. “We hope that this ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers all over the country.”

“There you have it, [social agencies and workers] cannot threaten parents with court orders or the removal of children because parents assert their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights and refuse to cooperate,” added Thomas Dutkiewicz, of the Connecticut DCF Watch organization.

“Parents do not have to cooperate with DCF whatsoever and DCF employees have to go away when parents deny them access to their home and children,” he said. “DCF workers here in Connecticut are trained and instructed in this unconstitutional practice in order to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure of the home and child. They are to lie and threaten any way they can. All parents who were threatened should file a federal lawsuit against DCF, their workers, their supervisors and the police.”

Now proceeding will be the lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies Joshua Ray, Joseph Sousa, Richard Gagnon and Michael Danner, social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer, and Assistant Attorney General Julie Rhodes.

The judge noted that the social workers misrepresented that they had a court order for an inspection of the home, but refused to provide it. He also noted the deputies were uncooperative, refusing to provide the family their cell telephone number so the HSLDA attorney could talk to them.

The claim against Rhodes stemmed from her advice to the family that the social workers were not bound by the Fourth Amendment in their intent to search the home.

The judge said verbal threats generally are not actionable in a federal civil rights proceeding, but in this case, “courts have held that a threat constitutes an actionable constitutional violation in certain circumstances, including ‘when the threat is so brutal or wantonly cruel as to shock the conscience…’”

( this information was obtained by worldNETdaily.com)

Incoming search terms:

• john and tiffany loudermilk
• rhonda cash arizon cps
• loudermilk arizona case
• tiffany dorr dcf email
• social workers Rhonda Cash and Jenna Cramer
• Rules for DCF workers
• rules children social workers follow
• rhonda cash cps
• cps rules they must follow
• loudermilk v arpaio