FOSTER/ADOPTIVE PARENTS SUCKING TAXPAYERS DRY WITH STOLEN CHILDREN

Under Title XX of the Social Security Act adoptive parents are entitled to post adoption services “that may be helpful in keeping the family intact,” including “daycare, specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other child welfare services”. [Wow! Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!] This constitutes ORGANIZED CRIME!
The adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption home study, and “reasonable costs of food and lodging for the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the adoption process.” 

The subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be accomplished under the “innovative incentives to remove barriers to adoption” section. The subsidy regulations read that “adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of the child without regard to the income of the family.” What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are. 
http://familyrights.azproject.org/tag/walter-mondale/Image

Article Credit: Text copied from post by Parent’s Custody on Facebook and originally on Arizona Family Rights Project blog. Thank you both for this information.

Ex-Social Worker SPEAKS OUT Confirms What We’ve Been Crying Out About!

Child-Protection Worker Accused Of Falsifying Reports

Child-Protection Worker Accused Of Falsifying Reports

Oh my goodness! I don’t believe it! A child protective services worker would NEVER DO THAT!!!! 

 

ACTUALLY, IT IS A VERY VERY COMMON PRACTICE!

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 :

A GUIDE TO CIVIL RIGHTS LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983: AN OVERVIEW OF SUPREME COURT AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT

http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

Click for link:

1983

 Here’s another good reference:

19832

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:

familiesagainst

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

 https://www.facebook.com/groups/familesagainstgovernmentabuse/doc/520574891330039/

CPS in the News by Baby LK – Weekly Reports on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/user/Patism66?feature=watch