Occupy Public Land 3054 N. Edith Blvd. Tucson, Ariz. 85716 John Thomas Cooper, Jr. Executive Organizer Secretarial Working Group E-Mail: southwestrecords@gmail Phone: (520) 272-9070 December 22, 2014 Charles Flanagan, Director Arizona Department of Child Safety In Re: Matter of Child Abuse Investigation of the Cooper Family DCS Case No. 816258 Dear Mr. Flanagan: On December 18, 2014, DCS officials visited my home in connection with a complaint received by DCS concerning myself and members of my family who are currently staying in my home—specifically my daughter Chrysyna Cooper and her mother, Marista Knaack. According to Keith Whitmire, the DCS investigator assigned to this case, DCS received a complaint that I had a disagreement with doctors at the University of Arizona Medical Center (UMC) and therefore UMC was concerned about the child. Hospital staff complained that I was verbally “combative” and “suspicious of testing.” No allegation was made that anything I had done was a danger to my child. According to Mr. Whitmire, DCS has taken action against my family “because of my attitude,” and not on the basis of any evidence of abuse or neglect of my child. Furthermore, it appears that the Government conspired with individuals at UMC to clandescently drug test Ms. Knaack and my daughter and to forward the results to DCS, violating HIPAA and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. I have evidence which suggests that Jody Rubin, a DCS Supervisor, was in contact with UMC and directed the Hospital to conduct the search and disclosure to Government without a warrant or patient/parental consent. Upon arrival to the DCS office located at 800 West Wetmore in Tucson to discuss the issue, Mr. Whitmire informed me that the actions noted above were “standard procedure” within DCS and that DCS takes no action against individuals who make false reports to the agency, and actively obstructs justice by failing to provide the information necessary to prosecute individuals who make false reports to the victims of said crimes. However, as I stated to Mr. Whitmire during our meeting, all governmental institutions—including DCS—must comply with the dictates of the federal constitution. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (“is the role of the political branches to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.”). Below, I will clearly demonstrate with legal citation that DCS officials violated the Constitution of the United States and Arizona law in the course of this investigation of my family for child abuse on the basis of “my attitude.” I. Procedural Due Process The Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause guarantees parents the right to a process that is fundamentally fair before having their children removed from their custody. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). The Supreme Court has described the purpose of the Due Process Clause as one to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986). Procedural due process accomplishes this end [b]y requiring the government to follow appropriate procedures when its agents decide to `deprive any person of life, liberty, or property . . . Id. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that as “[t]here is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests,” Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602; “there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304. Accordingly, the state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Here, the parents were deprived of fundamentally fair procedures when state actors intentionally sought to have hospital staff clandescently drug test a mother and her child and submit the results to the Government without a warrant, and allowed an investigation to commence without evidence or even an allegation that the child was in any form of danger, in direct violation of the procedures provided for by the state. Furthermore, the right violated here—the right to have fundamentally fair procedures before the state can remove a child from its parents—was a clearly established right: If a right to fundamentally fair procedures means anything, it means the right to a process not purposely influenced with fraudulent or baseless evidence by a state actor. Under the facts in the instant case, the parents were subjected to patently unfair procedures through Jody Rubin as a state actor; and, consequently, the government arbitrarily, and unconstitutionally, denied them control of their childs medical treatment as a matter of procedure.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 13:54:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015