HOW CPS/DCFS AND JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURTS SCREW YOU!!! social workers, attorneys and Judges repeatedly commit the following acts and omissions that breached the oath of office to implement the law: No advisement of the right to a contested hearing on the petition within the statutory 15 day time limit in cases where the children are detained. No finding the parents were advised of the right to a contested hearing on the petition within the statutory 15 day time limit in cases where the children are detained. No waiver by parents of the right to a contested hearing on the petition within the statutory 15 day time limit in cases where the children are detained. No advisement of the legal effect of the statutory hearsay exception under WIC 355 if the social worker does not testify at the jurisdiction hearing. No findings as to the legal reasons to justify the failure to commence the contested jurisdiction hearing within the statutory 15 day time limit in cases where the children are detained. Detains children based on a “history” of one thing or the other with no dates in violation of long standing law that risk must be current, a vague “history” is not current. Detains children based on a positive drug screen, in itself, in violation of the Child Abuse Reporting Act, Penal Code Section 11165.13, that states a positive drug screen, in itself, is not sufficient to report child abuse or neglect, ergo, is not sufficient to exert dependency jurisdiction by any stretch of the imagination; is unreliable 76 % of the time according to the Legislative Digest Records, Penal Code Section 11165.13, is not accepted in the community as reliable; and without a doubt, inadmissible “junk science” less reliable than lie detectors tests that cannot support jurisdiction as a matter of law. Detains newborn infants merely because their parents have an open dependency case with no evidence of current abuse or neglect of the newborn and no facts upon which to make an inference of future risk of harm. Sustains dependency petitions based inadmissible vague “prior history” with no dates and inadmissible junk science, e.g., “positive drug screens”, as opposed to admissible confirmed tests, no cross examination of the social worker, and no personal waiver by the parents of their statutory and constitutional rights to cross the examine the social worker in violation of WIC 355 and Judges Benchguide section 101.2 (16) and (17). Sustains WIC 300 (b) petitions alleging substance abuse with no evidence of substance abuse as defined in numerous controlling decisions dealing with cases from Juvenile courts and no evidence of nexus to parenting in direct violation of controlling authority in Destiny S. 210 Cal. App. 4th, 999, Drake M. 211 Cal. App. 4th 754, Alexis E. 171 Cal. App. 4th 453, Jennifer A. 117 Cal. App.4th 1322. Orders monitored visits in every case consisting of one or two hours each week for months and even years, in violation of established statutory law that children must be allowed as frequent contact with parents consistent with the child’s welfare. Orders children released home to their parents, finding no risk of harm, but continues jurisdiction in violation of WIC 300 (b) that authorizes jurisdiction only as long as the risk of harm continues - there is no probation period, no wait and see. There is no statutory basis for 300 (b) jurisdiction over children who are released to their parents. This is an extraordinary financial burden on the taxpayers that the Legislature does not intend. An open case requires judges, court rooms, attorneys, social workers, clerks, among others, when the children are safe at home, which is only authorized if the children are at substantial risk of serious physical harm at home.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 03:47:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015