SILICON VALLEY PUBLISHER LAUNCHES NEW PUBLICATION COVERING FAMILY COURT, CIVIL COURT, AND CPS CONTROVERSY

SILICON VALLEY PUBLISHER LAUNCHES NEW PUBLICATION COVERING FAMILY COURT, CIVIL COURT, AND CPS CONTROVERSY

In San Francisco on Sunday October 1 – in the shadow of the California Supreme Court, Judicial Council and Commission on Judicial Performance – the launch party for Ex Parte was held. Pictures are included with this post.

Ex Parte is a new print and online source for legal news and opinion from Silicon Valley publisher Susan J. Bassi. Court watchdog and CJP reform advocate Joe Sweeney will lead the editorial staff.

The publication and website will specialize in investigative reporting on California family, civil and probate courts, and Child Protective Services (CPS).

At the San Francisco kick-off event, court and CPS victims, reporters, editors, attorneys, academics, and funders from throughout the state all met for the first time together, face-to-face. The Ex Parte concept germinated and was developed through social media.

The publisher, editors, and reporters at the start-up news organization assert that they will report on the Judicial Branch controversies and human interest stories often overlooked or ignored by existing legal publications, and the mainstream media.

Among other subjects, Ex Parte reporters will be assigned to investigate civil rights and federal law violations – including racketeering, honest services fraud, and misuse of federal funds – by state court judges, court administrators and employees, lawyers, and state and local CPS workers, according to the publisher.

For more information, visit the Ex Parte website at https://www.expartepress.com.

Advertisements

False Accusations

Woman stripped of son’s custody wins $3 million from LA County – Daily News

LOS ANGELES — A woman stripped of the custody of her son amid allegedly false accusations of neglect by children’s social workers who worked for Los Angeles County was denied punitive damages today, but will still receive more then $3 million in compensatory damages.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury deliberated for about an hour before deciding against assessing punitive damages against social workers Kimberly Rogers and Susan Pender in a lawsuit filed by Rafaelina Duval.

The same panel on Thursday awarded Duval $2.94 million, plus another $165,000 after finding in a separate verdict that she was the victim of discrimination.

Duval alleged that her child, identified in her court papers only as R.D., was taken from her without a warrant in 2010, even though no emergency existed. The jury also found that social workers Pender and Rogers acted with malice toward Duval, triggering the second phase to determine whether either of them should have to pay punitive damages.

The jury found that the county Department of Children and Family Services had “an official custom and/or practice of seizing children from their parents without a warrant” and failed “to enact an official policy or procedure when it should have done so.”

Asked after the verdicts whether she was pleased with the outcome of the case, Duval replied, “Yes and no. Yes, because they have been held accountable, but no, because I still don’t have custody of my child.”

Duval, 41, said she will continue to fight to bring her son home and to advocate for changes in the DCFS so the same thing does not happen to others in her situation.

Attorney Shawn McMillan, on behalf of Duval, told jurors that his client begged the social workers not to take her child, but her plea “fell on deaf ears.”

“Don’t give them more mercy than they gave her,” McMillan said in urging that punitive damages be assessed.

Continue Reading: http://www.dailynews.com/2016/11/07/woman-stripped-of-sons-custody-wins-3-million-from-la-county/


Related Articles: 

California Attorney Shawn McMillan on Why He Fights CPS: “They’re Stealing Kids”

LOIS HENRY: County coughs up $1.4 million to wronged parent

When CPS Knocks At Your Door

CSS-Offical-New-Logo2

When CPS knocks at your door, videotape everything! When CPS knocks at your door, call all of your friends and family to come witness.

CPS is becoming a term which is synonymous child-sex-trafficking, abduction and organized criminal activity. Former Georgia State Senator, Nancy Schaefer, was exposing much of this when she was “suicided”.

The CPS game is the dirtiest game in town. The organization represents the war on families being perpetrated by the globalist desire to attack our culture through the destruction of our families.

Many of the details of this rogue organization, which terrorizes thousands of families in all 50 states, is contained in the following video.

Please donate to offset the costs of The Common Sense Show

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND DON’T FORGET TO “LIKE” US

One More Way for Government to Get the Kids

New Ontario Law Allows Gov’t To Steal Kids From Parents Who Oppose “Gender Identity”

By Rachel Blevins

Ontario has just set a startling precedent with the passage of a new law that could lead to the government seizing children from parents who oppose the “Gender Identity” agenda.

Bill 89, the 2017 Children, Youth and Family Services Act, passed by a vote of 63-23 on June 1. The new law will have jurisdiction over child protective services, and adoption and foster care services.

One of the most notable parts of the bill is that when it comes to the state’s process for deciding which home a child should live in, it takes out the consideration of “the religious faith in which the child is being raised,” and replaces it with the child’s “gender identity” or “gender expression.”

Differences include: the current Act includes the child’s cultural background in this list while the new Act Chil the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage; the current Act includes the religious faith in which the child is being raised while the new Act includes the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition, warned that the new law does not just affect parents who are facing the risk of having their children seized by the state, it also affects parents who are looking to adopt.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history,” Fonseca said. “Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

Another troubling aspect in the new Ontario law can be found in what the government determines to be the “least disruptive course of action.” With Bill 89, it argues for the use of “prevention services, early intervention services and community support services.”

The least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services, should be considered.

In a press release on the new law, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services described the legislation as helping “children and youth across the province thrive and reach their full potential by strengthening and modernizing child, youth and family services.” It noted that the law will put “a greater focus on early intervention, to help prevent children and families from reaching crisis situations at home.”

John Sikkema, a lawyer with the Association for Reformed Political Action in Canada, criticized the bill’s clause, and said that it could do more harm than good to a child when applied.

“You can imagine a situation where, say, a child’s teacher suspects that a child is gender questioning or something and they’re not being supported in that,” Sikkema said, noting that the teacher would then “actually have a duty to report certain things to a Children’s Aid Society who would look into it further.”

As The Free Thought Project has reported on multiple occasions, the United States has its own share of problems with Child Protective Services seizing children from families whose beliefs don’t align with the state.

However, the idea of basing a child’s safety in a home off of his/her “gender identity” sets a troubling precedent in the province of Ontario, and takes legal government invasion in the home to a new level.

Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.

The State Really Does Own Your Children

Watch Lawmakers Claim The State Owns Your Children

By Annabelle Bamforth

Legislators in Texas have been working toward passing a host of laws to reform the state’s Child Protective Services agency. New legislation has been crafted to improve the agency which has seen multiple dilemmas resulting in detrimental safety problems for children in the state. There have been several bills introduced this year aimed at improving the agency. One bill, in particular, House Bill 39, seeks in part to require medical exams to be performed more quickly on children who have been newly placed into the foster care system.

HB 39, introduced by Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston), would mandate that the state’s Department of Family Protective Services schedule a medical examination for children who have been in temporary state custody for longer than three business days. Children in rural locations would be required to receive a medical exam within seven business days.

While the bill was originally centered around hastening medical exams for new foster children, questions arose regarding whether vaccines would be included as part of these medical exams. Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington), the vice chairman of the Texas Freedom Caucus, introduced an amendment to HB 39 to make vaccinations exempt from the required medical treatments. The bill saw a turbulent debate upon Zedler’s amendment as the discussion turned to childhood vaccines and who should be responsible for crucial medical decisions when custody is obscured.

“You get that child back five, eight, 10 days later, and they’ve now had that surgery or they’ve had these vaccinations,” Zedler said according to Dallas Morning News. “That’s an issue of liberty.”

Wu was vocal about his belief that the law allows the state to assume authority in such situations. “Let me make very clear: the moment a child is removed from their home – the moment the child is removed – by law, the child is now a child of the state of Texas,” said Wu. “We have the responsibility to make sure that child is safe and is given proper medical care. That is the law.”

“When we put into the law that we are limiting the ability of our agency that is tasked with taking care of a child that is in their custody and they are legally responsible for, we are setting a dangerous precedent,” Wu continued. “This is the same thing I told you when we argued over my bills and this is the same thing I will tell you again when we argue over this bill.”

Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford) questioned Wu’s choice of wording: “Mr. Wu, you used the word ‘belongs to the state of Texas.’ Do you want to rethink that wording?” he asked. Stickland then interrupted Wu’s response and went on to ask “True or false: that CPS has taken children and found that they were wrong in doing so? And returned the child? Has that happened, Representative Wu?”  Wu acknowledged that it has occurred “on rare occasions.”

Stickland challenged not only Wu but also Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place), who sought to add an additional amendment in response to the amendment of Zedler’s, which would allow “cancer-preventing” vaccines to be administered, particularly the HPV vaccine.

Davis noted statistics related to cervical cancer deaths and low HPV vaccination rates in Texas and said that “the HPV vaccine will eliminate cervical cancer.” Stickland asked Davis if she believed that parents had the right to choose medical procedures for their children. Davis responded that she believed “children that have been taken from their parents and are in protective custody undergoing a medical examination should be given a vaccine that prevents them from developing cancer.”

You can’t handle the truth about vaccines (Ad)

Stickland asked Davis if she understood that they were discussing the issue of children in temporary custody with no parental rights terminated during the medical exams. “Agreed, but cancer is not temporary,” Davis answered.

Stickland repeated his question of whether she thinks parents have the right to choose medical procedures for their children, and Davis said that “we have to find a balance because there is absolutely in my opinion zero science behind the fact that any vaccines are systematically harming children.”

Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) also challenged Davis’ amendment and said that it appeared that her amendment would transfer decision-making authority from families to a physician. Leach asked Davis if her amendment “goes against the wishes” of a child or the parents.

Leach added that he was not interested in deciding which vaccines are “good or bad” or who needs to be vaccinated, but was focusing on the question of who would have the authority to make vaccination decisions under her amendment. “Who at the core at the very basic level, who should make this decision?” Leach asked Davis.

Davis’s amendment was tabled in a 74-64 vote; Zedler’s amendment to prohibit vaccines during medical exams was passed in a 74-58 vote, with another amendment attached by Wu to allow for tetanus shots to be administered in emergencies.

Zedler later said to The Texas Tribune that the majority of parents that he’s communicated with are not overall opposed to vaccines but are troubled by the scheduling. He also said that  “the only one that might possibly be [an emergency] is a tetanus shot.”

In the video below, Wu makes the ominous claim that parents — who’ve not been found guilty of any wrongdoing — no longer have care over their children and that those children now belong to the state. When the state begins to claim they own our children, something is very wrong.


New Hampshire-based writer Annabelle Bamforth is focused on breaking the left/right paradigm through new media and local politics. Annabelle is the editor-in-chief of Emmy-winning journalist Ben Swann’s Truth In Media Project and a producer for Mr. Swann’s Truth In Media episodes. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.