What Is “Probable Cause” For CPS to Take Your Child?

In Juvenile Dependency Court in California, they do not use the term, “probable cause”. Governed by the Welfare & Institutions Codes, these laws are on puppet strings, CPS and their court cohorts pull on whichever one they want to control you with at the time. It is all about “the welfare of the child”, “the child’s best interests”, “safety”, “risk” and “reasonable efforts”.  They use these terms whenever it fits them as they are so flexible and difficult to argue.  Who is going to argue with a social worker who says, “I saw a risk so I removed the child. We offered services to the family but they refused to cooperate. The house was filthy and it appeared that the parent was under the influence of drugs and I smelled alcohol.” So, the Judge, believing the social worker because he is paid to, says, “Well that sounds reasonable. The parent is claiming that there were only a few dishes in the sink and that a bottle of rubbing alcohol was spilled by the dog’s tail as she was cleaning earrings and that she had just woken up from a nap with the baby so it appeared that she was drowsy and she was not on drugs. Let’s make her take a hair follicle test just to be sure. I’ll set the next hearing thirty days from now. We’ll see you back here then.”  The lawyers for the parents make no objections, no motions to dismiss, no demurrers, no arguments (such as “reasonable” or “probable” cause to remove children), just “denials” and “submissions”.

The parent submits to the hair follicle test (because she’s not guilty). CPS fakes it and makes it positive for opiates to justify their actions and to qualify for funding. Then it just goes on and on from there.

That is the way Child Protective Services operates not only in Riverside County but every county in the country.

Q & A: How To File A Lawsuit Against CPS

Parents can sue CPS for violating their 14th Amendment Rights. Children 18 and older can sue for violating their 4th and 14th Amendment Rights and for denial of familial association. This is called a “1983” Complaint. There is a book you can buy that explains that law and how to file a complaint under that law.

Links :



Click for link:


 Here’s another good reference:


In California, Attorney Shawn McMillan has filed suit against CPS (along with Sondra Sutherland, Donnie Cox, and  Robert Powell) and has generously shared his documents with his Facebook group. You can join the group and have access.  He has also provided lectures and answered questions during a workshop. This workshop was recorded on video. You can also ask questions on the group Facebook page he set up. You can find all of this here:


Here is the link to the Index of his uploaded files:


Q & A: Searching For My Son’s Adopted Last Name?

SOMEONE IS SEARCHING FOR MY SON USING HIS ADOPTED NAME. There are only a few people who could be doing this. Let me save you some time. We have never and would never use our son’s adopted last name on this site or any site. We have not disclosed his new last name to anyone. The only people who are aware of that information, on our end, are those who have seen our RESTRAINING ORDER documents and that would be our immediate family only.

I don’t understand, if this person who is searching the internet for my son’s adopted last name is paying attention to this site then they must realize by now that our version of the events that transpired which we have tried to explain to them are TRUE. They must realize that CPS really is stealing children using falsified evidence and also realize that if it would happen to them the way it did us, they just may have done the same thing as us and rescued this precious child from the dangers of foster care.  They should realize that CPS is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

To us, Donnelly is priceless. To CPS, Donnelly was worth thousands in Adoption Incentive Funds.  My attorney, Marla Mahoney, told me that no matter what I did, there was NOTHING I could do to prevent my rights from being terminated because Donnelly was “so adorable and so adoptable”. Social worker, Antoine Coley told me numerous times that “the decision goes much, much higher” than him.

We love Donnelly more than life itself as we do all of our children. I bet the adoptive parents feel the same way. How would they feel if CPS just came in and took him for no good reason and then fabricated evidence to trick the judge into substantiating the allegations? I bet they couldn’t even imagine.

If they called CPS when they received my letter, our story and videos of our family, to complain about not keeping their information private (their names were in the court file, in the INDEX of the records provided by the appellate court attorney) then I’m sure that the first thing CPS said was that they better file and get a restraining order or else they would remove Donnelly from them. So that’s what they did. But, during the last hearing, the adoptive mom should have heard the judge deny my sister-in-law’s request for placement spewing bullshit that my sister-in-law couldn’t “protect” Donnelly from us even if she filed a Restraining Order. The Judge determined that a Restraining Order wouldn’t do any good as it was his bias opinion that we have no respect for the law. So how and why would CPS require the adoptive parents to file a Restraining Order? See what I’m talking about?

I can’t wait until Donnelly is old enough to search for his own name. Then he will know the truth and he will know that no one even asked him if he wants to see his us or Sissy Kayla, Sissy Alex, his brothers, Stephen, Billy,  and Christopher or to see Pop Pop (who most likely will have passed by the time he’s Googling his own name) and his Aunt Cindy.  We are NOT dangerous and I know that they know that.

We love you Donnelly. xxoo