Post by Jim on Jun 12, 2009 12:29:37 GMT -5
The following comes directly from my free 60-page handbook. Feel free to forward this to your attorney. If your children(s) were removed because of DV, you probably have a good civil rights violation on your hands. This would include both you and your child's 4th and 14th Amendment rights as well as your 1st Amendment right of association with your child. You may want to start approaching some attorneys who handle civil rights complaints. I as well as other experts in the country will assist you and your attorney at no charge. Thomas Dutkiewicz
Removing Children Because They Witness Domestic Violence Ruled Unconstitutional and the Federal Court Ordered this Abusive Behavior on the part of CPS and the Court to Stop.
In a recent class-action law suit in U.S. District Court and upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Nicholson v. Williams, Case No.: 00-cv-2229. The high court agreed with medical experts from Yale New Haven Hospital who gave irrefutable testimony that witnessing domestic violence (“DV”) by a child is NOT emotional or physical neglect nor is it harm or maltreatment of a child.
To charge parents with emotional or physical neglect is NOT a medical fact, it would be a malicious false charge not based in fact. In this class-action, both the federal court and the experts overruled any opinions that Department of Children and Family (“DCF”), the State of Connecticut or this court may have in this matter. DCF is no longer allowed to have an opinion on a child being present or witnessing DV, res judicata.
The court further opined and ruled that it is unlawful and an unconstitutional practice to remove children from any home which results in punishing the children and the non-offending parent as stated. In a landmark class-action suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein ruled on Nicholson, and upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. The suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of battered mothers solely because the children saw and experienced their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. Judge Weinstein ruled that the practice is unconstitutional and he ordered it stopped. The experts gave testimony that the children were harmed by child protection workers and the juvenile judges by the act of removal.
Are parents guilty of maltreatment or emotional neglect if the child witnesses domestic violence?
Not according to Judge Weinstein’s and medical experts from Yale New Haven
During the trial, several leading national experts testified on the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence, and the impact on children of being removed from the non-offending parent. Views of Experts on Effects of Domestic Violence on Children, and defining witnessing domestic violence by children as maltreatment or emotional neglect is a mistake. A “great concern [regarding] how increased awareness of children’s exposure [to domestic violence] and associated problems is being used. Concerned about the risk adult domestic violence poses for children, some child protection agencies in the United States appear to be defining exposure to domestic violence as a form of child maltreatment…Defining witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake. Doing so ignores the fact that large numbers of children in these studies showed no negative development problems and some showed evidence of strong coping abilities. Automatically defining witnessing as maltreatment may also ignore battered mother’s efforts to develop safe environments for their children and themselves.” Ex. 163 at 866.
Effects of removals on children and the non-offending parent.
Dr. Wolf testified that disruptions in the parent-child relationship will provoke fear and anxiety in a child and diminish his or her sense of stability and self. Tr. 565-67. He described the typical response of a child separated from his parent: “When a young child is separated from a parent unwillingly, he or she shows distress … At first, the child is very anxious and protests vigorously and angrily. Then he falls into a sense of despair, though still hyper vigilant, looking, waiting, and hoping for her return …” A child’s sense of time factors into the extent to which a separation impacts his or her emotional well-being. Thus, for younger children whose sense of time is less keenly developed, short periods of parental absence may seem longer than for older children. Tr 565-65. See also Ex. 141b.
For those children who are in homes where there is domestic violence, disruption of that bond can be even more traumatic than situations where this is no domestic violence. Dr. Stark (Yale New Haven Hospital researcher) asserted that if a child is placed in foster care as a result of domestic violence in the home, then he or she may view such removal as “a traumatic act of punishment … and [think] that something that [he] or she has done or failed to do has caused this separation.” Tr. 1562-63. Dr. Pelcovitz stated that “taking a child whose greatest fear is separation from his or her mother and in the name of ‘protecting’ that child [by] forcing on them, what is in effect, their worst nightmare, … is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound.” Ex. 139 at 5.
Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Dr. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of violence, and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes is double that in the general population. Tr 1596; Ex. 122 at 3-4. Children in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care. Ex. 122 at 6. Foster care placements can disrupt the child’s contact with community, school and siblings. Ex. 122 at 8.
HEARSAY STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE IN FAMILY, JUVENILE AND SUPERIOR COURT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHILDREN.
A.G.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by the Barren Circuit Court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. The court found that a child's statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child. Because the child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite: NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: In re TY.B & In re TI.B
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his children, based on that court's finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony. The Court of Appeals concluded that the father adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)
