Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services

IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY

MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES

COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
and inquisitive services.

The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan
onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION
of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the
last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS
and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US
DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk
of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed
this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if
it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has
been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign
of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer
blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement
about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be
important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.

On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge
what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment
regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be
a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This
flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the
Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says “opportunity
to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation
in the FORMATION of the Service Plan”. This is a Federal
regulation and it’s in the Iowa caseworker manual too.

Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon
further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid
INPUT. The words “fishing expedition” come to mind.

Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years
that Greg has been with us. Domestic Violence counselor pushed for
disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist. After
Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me
saying "You know that Greg pushed Child's head under water." (Actually
it was head under SHOWER SPRAY! twisted by DHS.) It was clear after
only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role
of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about
nonexistant domestic abuse.

Psychological Evaluation
Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a
Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry
list of 4 points. The list was:

needs to be the victim
domestic violence
controlling
anger management issues

It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for
anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised
some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was
small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME
didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get
more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months,
and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including
misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported"
presented as de-facto evidence. We STILL have not gotten the huge
number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect
statements stricken from the records. The time will come for this.
The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of
input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective
concerns were added. There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with
this.

Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using
such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the
impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation. Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could
not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts
of the Psychological Evaluation. Greg asked about how the
hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT
could be evaluated outside of the family setting. Not many answers
were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being "railroaded"
by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation. Several large issues in The
Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14)

Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury
Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape
interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the
hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse. The only justification
for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's
past. This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's
Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of
extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt.

My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about
the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even
perjurous information. The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court
Judge with no explanation.

The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an
internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed. The bump
was reported as being from a swing set accident. We never owned a
swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it
really ever existed. We have concerns that Child may have been
brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the
grandparents' swing set. The grandmother was never authorized to
intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are
written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs.
This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take
her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky. Great and reliable
witness eh? A mental case? (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer
written all over it!)

The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer
Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for
her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer. If she did, she would know
more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their
testimony is. This is where "head pushed under water" began rather
than "head pushed under shower spray".

Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I
"would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get
rid of Greg to satisfy DHS.

She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather. Hyperbole
like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her
report. This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other
members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child
Protective caseworkers. This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a
bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage.

Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other
side of the one way glass.

I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present
at questioning that took place there. My first idiot attorney said
he would not be allowed, which I know was not true. I went there
specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the
invasive sex abuse physical. Instead I was fending off an "ambush
interview" by a hostile group during that time.

Employment
The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment. There has been no
explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to us
jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies
at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing.
Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias against stay at home men.
Mercy Hospital recently taught a class for stay at home Parents, MALE
or FEMALE. It is gradually becoming main stream. Greg studied
Computer Science and Electronics Technology and worked quite
ambitiously before becoming a "Soccer Dad". Greg brought more EARNED
SAVINGS into our family when he moved in, than Rob paid in child
support in the year 2000. Greg owes no CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly DHS
targeted the WRONG MAN. Shouldn't they have ordered the deadbeat
bio-dad to WORK?? Do these idiots at DHS ever READ the Bill of
Rights?

Vocational Rehab
Some version of the Services Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the
services required of Greg.
Greg doesn’t qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab. Not
disabled. Great one DHS!

Parenting Classes
The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has
had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to
afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through
threat of TPR. Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20
cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg
trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not
respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do
anything. Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching
practicality or to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the
"rescue fantasy" of the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would
be glad to TEACH a community ed parenting class, if you would accept
this. Even childless caseworkers could learn something.

DHS has ordered that the mother(Suzy Q. Mother) and future
stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parents have looked for a
parenting program that does not push the non-spanking political
agenda. Iowa law DOES allow spanking, yet caseworkers attempt to push
for absolutely NO spanking whatsoever. This seems to violate our
beliefs as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
among several others. The contracted Visit Supervisor (licensed)
Social Worker, Deb Heitland said that Suzy Q. Mother did NOT need
Parent Education classes based on many supervised visits. Later she
used Parent Education as retaliation for a complaint about a rash and
hygienic neglect of Child in kinship care. A doctor confirmed for Deb
that the rash was from urea not washed off Child’s skin. The
sick way that Parent Education was used as retaliation for a
LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT still needs to be addressed. I never got any
paperwork regarding any investigation of this NEGLECT, even though
medical treatment was involved. Isn’t Deb a mandatory reporter?

All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty
God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person
shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship
against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any
religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of
conscience be permitted. Yet DHS regularly contracts with "Lutheran
Social Services" and the DHS regularly steamrollers over any "rights
of concience" that parents have.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.

Furthermore, DHS has failed to obtain the parent's and the child's
active involvement with the FORMATION of the services plan as required
by US DHHS and Federal regulations and (therefore) Iowa regulations.

It is the understanding of the parents that DHS is attempting to make
the parents compromise their beliefs pertaining to the upbringing of
children or risk losing parental rights to the child. The parents
vehemently object to this invasive and illegal requirement they are
being burdened with.

PLEASE CLARIFY
1A. Do you order imposed parent education?

1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?

1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?

1D. For these parents, wouldn’t it be better to to teach parents
how to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?

1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?

1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold custody
of the child from the parents?

2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?

2B. Do you consider such an examination to be appropriate for parents
who know their families constitutional rights are being trampled and
are thus rightiously indignant?

2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?

2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly
and indignant?

2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
psychological evaluation would not bias the results?

2F. Don’t you think that this INPUT should be carefully
scrutinized by the intended victim and any objections brought to the
court?

2G. How would a legal non-party do that?

2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg’s constitutional rights?

2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?

2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?

2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
provision of the service plan?

3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?

3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social History
reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse
found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST
presented by a Child Protection case?

3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that
caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?

3D. Does this court consider the Federally mandated right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN to be an
insignifigance?

3E. Is Iowa DHS under any Federal or State consent decree regarding
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN?

4A. Does this court intend to allow DHS to repeatedly hint that they
wish to drive Greg and Suzy Q. Mother apart?

4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg’s non-party status, at the expense of our family
bond?

4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law?

The parents have attempted to cooperate with the caseworker in
facilitating the success of a services plan, even though we have known
since very early on that we were deprived of our right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION in the FORMATION of the services plan. The caseworkers
have not been helpful.

There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three
years, but DHS chooses to believe a mislead comment from a 7 year old.
Even worse, DHS has chosen to MINIMIZE the only actual family
violence, a violent attempted kidnapping by the obsessive
grandparents.

No injuries to the child were alleged. Child did not require any
medical treatment; nothing, not so much as an analgesic to relieve any
alleged pain. Not a scratch. The same cannot be said for this last
year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.

The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents. The
first, best interests of the child is to be with her family and is
supported by US DHHS policy: 6-001.01. “Family preservation will
be the first consideration”…

The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.

The parents have attempted to comply with the treatment plan despite
the deliberate and obstructionist actions of the caseworkers.
Reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the family as required by
the law in the absence of any evidence that the child was in danger
from the parents. Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
disbursed.

The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism
or delay.

REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN

1. DHS will pay for three months of storage locker rental, at a cost
of roughly $80 per month. $240 can be sent to A-1 Rental of
Hiawatha. These funds were available under the "Family Preservation"
service that we participated in within the first few weeks, but this
assistance was withheld. How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars has
DHS wasted on this case overall?

2. DHS will present written LEGAL standards for inspection of our
home.
These standards will have NO subjective "attitude" and will conform to
US DHHS standards regarding "respect for individuality". We have
asked for standards on "clutter" from the beginning. Our requests
have been repeatedly ignored. If there are NO LEGAL STANDARDS, then
we ask for this requirement to be voided.

3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.

4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.

5. Counseling for Suzy Q. Mother, Greg, Child, Ralph and Shirley will
be arranged to address
-Attempted kidnapping by grandparents involving assault on Greg
-Undermining of parental authority by grandparents that has taken
place.
-Effects of incipient Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia on delusional
second guessing
-Violence upon Greg, a father figure, in front of Child
-Ongoing fears of another attempted kidnapping by emotionally ill
grandmother

6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and
more.

7. Greg will volunteer to TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in the
community.

8. Shirley Obsessor will get evaluated for Vascular Dementia and
Alzheimers by a Cardio Vascular Specialist and a Psychiatrist, with an
eye toward medication upgrade and monitoring.

9.DHS will put an END to the grandmothers intrusion into the child's
school affairs. The grandparents will cease unauthorized intrusions
and will return ALL school papers that have been intercepted and
commandeered, as well as all of the school photographs, similarly
commandeered in violation of the mothers guardianship rights even in
this Kinship Caretaker situation. Grandparents will stop signing
school permission slips and medical or medicaid paperwork. The
grandmother apparently sees Parent-Teacher conferences as some sort of
pageant, rather than a responsibility related to working on the
child's education.

10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
toward unsupervised visits and reunification.

11.All services are to be paid for by Judas Swartzendruber of DHS,
personally.
Judas went out of his way to direct that Greg would pay for his
services earlier. Thus, this would be appropriate and just..

254; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 439.
COUNSELMAN v. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547 This court has ordered the
parents to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and participate in
counseling - and to provide the department with all information
obtained during those evaluations and sessions by ordering them to
sign all releases. The court, has, in effect, compelled the parents to
disclose personal thoughts and feelings to a therapist, possibly not
of their choosing, to be evaluated subjectively, which evaluation has
no guarantee of accuracy since psychology is an art, not a science,
and to have all of these subjective, personal and private disclosures
presented as evidence against her in the upcoming adjudication hearing
violating not only their right against self-incrimination, but their
right to privacy, and their right to the confidentiality of the
patient-therapist relationship. The state cannot at this time
demonstrate an overriding interest that would permit their and their
children's rights to be so trampled in order to facilitate the state's
fishing expedition against them as a parent. The Court has held
repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use
of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the
privilege, Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson v.
United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States,
supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973);
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v.
McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v.
Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Miranda v. Arizona, ante, at 460,
the Court said of the interests protected by the privilege: "All these
policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional
foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government -
state or federal - must accord to the dignity and integrity of its
citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require
the government `to shoulder the entire load' . . . to respect the
inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of
criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an
individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent
labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it
from his own mouth." . . Moreover, since it enables the State to rely
on evidence forced from the accused, the compulsion violates at least
one meaning of the requirement that the State procure the evidence
against an accused "by its own independent labors." If such
compulsion is used to obtain their cooperation with the therapist,
then any evidence discovered during those evaluations and therapeutic
sessions must be excluded for the purposes of adjudication, or for any
other aspect of this case. "It is extortion of information from the
accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United
States, supra, at 328. We adhere to the view that the Fifth Amendment
protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure
of] private information." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233
n. 7 (1975). Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that the
protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege
against compelled self-incrimination. "It is the invasion of [a
person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty
and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence"
that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630. The
privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human
personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave
where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378
U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of individual
feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract
self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966);
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment in
its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of
privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his
detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See
also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967).

The law also recognizes that some relationships are the opposite of
adversarial, instead constituting relationships of trust. These
relationships depend for their very existence and efficacy on the
assurance that information so communicated will NEVER be used against
either of the parties to the communication. Foremost among these
privileges is that between attorney and client. Similar recognition is
given to the relationship of priest-penitent, husband-wife (in Utah),
doctor-patient, and therapist-patient. Privileged interpersonal
communications are an essential aspect of the privilege against
self-incrimination. Without the existence of these privileges,
marriage, medicine, counseling, and indeed, the legal profession
itself would be crippled virtually out of existence. No meaningful
communication could be given out of fear that something, anything, one
says might be used against him or her in a court of law. One cannot
simultaneously hold a position of trust and privilege with an accused
and at the same time be a prosecution witness. The right against
self-incrimination, including the protection of privileged
communications, is a right personal to all accused persons. In
contrast, the state does not possess rights. It possesses only
delegated powers. Thus, whereas the protection of privacy must be
assumed for individuals as a matter of right, governmental functions
must be assumed to be public as a matter of obligation.
Indeed, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966), held: "Some
tests seemingly directed to obtain 'physical evidence,' for example,
lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during
interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which
are essentially testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing
in which an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on
the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to
evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations
call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege 'is as
broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.'..." "And any
compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the
production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime,
or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free
government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is
abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of
despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political
liberty and personal freedom." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at
631-632.

It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence that a witness shall
not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give
testimony which will tend to criminate him or [142 U.S. 547, 564]
subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car.
& P. 213; Cates v. Hardacre, 3 Taunt. 424: Maloney v. Bartley, 3 Camp.
210; 1 Starkie, Ev. 71, 191; Case of Sir John Friend, 13 How. St. Tr.
16; Case of Earl of Macclesfield, 16 How. St. Tr. 767; 1 Greenl. Ev.
451; 1 Burr's Tr. 244; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) 463; Southard v.
Rexford, 6 Cow.

________________________
Suzy Q. Mother
1234 Our Home Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
upon all parties to the above cause, to each of the
attorneys of record herein, at their respective addresses disclosed on
the pleadings on April 9th, 2002.
By:
_X_ U.S. Mail
Signature:_________________________________

Copy to:

DHSISGOOD FORME, Bio Dad’s PD
222 SE 222 Avenue
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Jamie Trpkosh, Caseworker
Iowa Department of Inhumane Services
411 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

What Child, GAL
PO Box 12345
Cedar Rapids, IA 52407

Prosecute On Gossip
Assistant County Attorney, Juvenile Division
Basement of Linn County Courthouse
Third Avenue Bridge
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Hey Greg,

If it is still possible have an attny cut this down to the heart of
the matter.

I know you want to get EVERYTHING in. I was the same way when I sent
in my request for an Administrative Review.

My paperwork started at 22 pages if I remember right, got cut down to
only a few. And I won!

Keep it brief and to the point.

All the best as usual, Dan

Greg, I can't say I've ever written a motion, and I'm certainly not a
lawyer, but my first instinct would be to remove all the really
negative DHS references, such as "great one, DHS!" and any place you
call them idiots, etc. That may be true, can't argue there, but the
court must surely frown on such derogatory language. It can't possibly
help you and may well cause the judge to simply consider your whole
document pointless to read.

It also seems quite long, probably some judicious editing would be
valuable as I'm fairly certain most judges are more likely to read
something shorter. I do quite a bit of editing in my work and if you'd
like, I could do that for you - this weekend, if that's soon enough
and you have all the input by then. Let me know. Unless you get some
more professional help in the meantime, of course!

Marilynn

However, it seems as if you HAD NO INPUT into the service plan.

You are supposed to have such input (as you wrote)

Also, you have found that DHS has been NO HELP in getting back child support.

I wrote that (that money) might help in hiring a housekeeper (clutter). Also
rental of the storage facility.

The way it formatted on the screen, it needed some paragraphing. And there
were some typos.

You also cited some excellent caselaw.

I would suggest someone proofread it. All in all, it explained your situation
quite well.

Why isn't there more communication between those branches of gvt which are
supposed to ENFORCE child support obligations and CPS?

I am sorry for what happened to the post, especially since I took a lot of time
with each P.

http://www.CPSWatch.com (Missouri based organization calling for reform)

Also--there is an active Missouri VOCAL group headed by Rev. Allen( Smith??)

I put it on here in the hope that the
more universally applicable
parts of it might be used by others.

Can we build something like this up to
be more generally useable by others?

General givens:
-Most families get conned into stipulating.
-Most families have service plans IMPOSED
on them and don't get ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
in FORMATION of services plan, as required.
-Most families have services that are NOT
appropriate imposed on them.
-Many people don't realize that these Psych Evals
are commonly tainted with similar thick stacks
of garbage input.
-CPS lies and makes innocent people feel guilty.
-CPS commonly tries to drive couples apart.

If we could create a document and eventually
caselaw to back it up, to remedy those
problems, wouldn't it help stop this terrible
abuse of families by Child Protection?