Allegheny County OCYF

Allegheny County OCYF CPS OCYF colluded with a woman who harbored my daughter as a runaway and continues to contribute to her delinquency to deprive m

18th of Mar, 2011 by User775401

First I would like to thank the variouus CYF watch groups that I have received my data from. I will come back and edit this to give credit where credit is due. Every state has variances of Child Protective Services in one form or another. Some are called DCF, DHS, DSS, DCYS, DCFS, HRS, CYF, CYS, CYF and FIA, collectively known as “CPS” for the purposes of this paper. Many individuals come to the wrong conclusion that the parents must have been abusive or neglectful for CPS to investigate, this is just a myth. The fact of the matter is that over 80% of the calls phoned into CPS are false and bogus. CPS routinely will take what you say out of context and actually lie in their reports in order to have a successful prosecution of their case. They have an end game in mind and they will misrepresent the facts and circumstances surrounding what may or may not have happened. CPS takes on the persona of the feeling of exaggerated power over parents and that they are totally immune. Further, that they can do basically do anything they want including engaging in deception, misrepresentation of the facts and lying to the judge. Just type “CPS CORRUPTION” into any web browser and see how many hits you get. Many focused members of Congress and significant others have taken a stand against CPS CORRUPTION. Read more at
CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington (NCCAN). Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS. *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse: CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse: CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect: CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect: CPS 14, Parents 12
Fatalities: CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents, no judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. By kidnapping children from parents who were not found unfit, neglectful or abusive, they defraud the federal government and steal taxpayer’s money while tearing families apart. It is the Allegheny
County OCYF, not the OIG, who exercises a "capricious," "oppressive" and "unlawful" use of government power. The OIG should initiate a grand jury investigation into the pattern and practice of the Allegheny County OCYF and the “A Second Chance” Agency colluding together in a contractual joint venture and with others to deprive fit parents of their behaviorally challenged children for the misappropriation of Title IV-E funding. A freedom of information request might provide a very interesting news story. Read more:
Federal agency wants Pennsylvania to repay $220 million - Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_719858.html#ixzz1FGqzwgXU
http://www.wtae.com/news/25995225/detail.html In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L. 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the fraud being committed in the name of child "protection", and stated: "What has been demonstrated here is that you have a system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other way. You have a system that is not only out of control, it's illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in is state sponsored child abuse." For the purpose of this report, we will refer to the woman who lured my child away and commited custodial interference as the "functional drunk". My child has severe behavioral challenges involving substance abuse, aggression and risk taking behaviors that had spun out of control because she had stopped taking her medication and was drinking at the "functional drunk's" house. Mistakenly thinking Allegheny County OCYF had my child's best interest at heart, I filed a petition for dependency on my daughter because she is a CHILD IN NEED OF SUPERVISION. Little did I know they were more interested in Title IV-E funding. Through a well-crafted parent-child conflict tale and false documents, CYF convinced the court to remove custody from me as a fit parent and allow the "functional drunk" to persist in endangering the welfare of my child by contributing to her delinquency and by routinely failing to set limits, thereby permitting my child to engage in dangerous behaviors. CYF perpetuates this injury by advocating my child’s continued placement with this "functional drunk" knowing full well this "functional drunk" is supporting my child’s alcohol and drug habit and letting her run rampant. With regard to a custody challenge by a third party, our Pennsylvania courts have expressed a strong preference for the rights of biological parents. In Charles v. Stehlik, 560 Pa. 334, 744 A.2d 1255 (2000), our Supreme Court articulated this view, stating: It is axiomatic that in custody disputes, “the fundamental issue is the best interest of the child.” In a custody contest between two biological parents, “the burden of proof is shared equally by the contestants. . . .” Yet, where the custody dispute is between a biological parent and a third party, the burden of proof is not evenly balanced. In such instances, “the parents have a ‘prima facie right to custody,’ which will be forfeited only if ‘convincing reasons’ appear that the child’s best interest will be served by an award to the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the [biological] parents’ side.” Id. at 339, 744 A.2d at 1258 (2000) (citations and quotations omitted); see also T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that biological parents have a prima facie right to custody over third persons) aff’d, 567 Pa. 222, 786 A.2d
913 (2001). None of this matters to the Allegheny family court because in Pennsylvania, the child rules the court room. Although the "functional drunk" has won my child’s affection by giving her unbridled freedom, and
is ready, willing and able to provide party quarters and alcohol for my child and her friends given a foster parent check, the "functional drunk" does not and will not provide proper guidance or supervision for my child’s emotional or mental health or her physical and psychological well-being. Since placement, my child was also stipulated to appear before a magistrate for disorderly conduct charges due to in school fighting which CYF failed to provide to the court. Act 98 of 2008 amended § 6333 of the Juvenile Act requires that parents receive copies of their children's subpoenas, of which the agency also neglected to provide in addition to multiple requests for family case records my lawyer never received (Rule 1340 Mandatory Disclosure). Section 6341(e) of the Juvenile Act requires the court to receive reports and other evidence bearing on the disposition (In re McDonough, 287 Pa. Super. 326, 430 A.2d 308 (1981)). Not only did CYF fail to attempt reasonable efforts to maintain or reunify the family, the agency aggravated this child’s psychological and alcohol addiction by advocating continued placement counter to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of this child with this "functional drunk". Many courts have said services aimed at reunification must ‘go beyond mere matters of form’ and include real, genuine assistance (In re children of L.V., 2005 WL 705225 (Minn. App. 2005). The “clear necessity” standard for removing children from the home is only satisfied when the record demonstrates that every reasonable effort has been made to keep the family together. Under the “reasonable efforts” requirement, the agency may even be required to provide services that generally fall outside of its province (In Interest of Feidler, 392 Pa. Super. 524, 573 A.2d 587 (1990). Regardless of age, a youth should be placed "in a family environment whenever possible, separating the child from the parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health or in the interests of public safety." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b). The possible harm to the child standard should be considered in every case. In Interest of Clouse, 244 Pa. Super. 396, 368 A.2d 780 (1976). While some states give children at a specific age the right to petition the court directly for a change of custody, the basis for the preference must be examined. Without this investigation, as was this case, all a child needs to do is find a willing participant to permit her to act in a decadent manner in exchange for a foster parent check. If any part of a decision is based on a child's preference, the court must find that the preference is in my child's best interest. First however, the agency has an immediate obligation to offer a family with an older youth services to prevent placement and maintain family stability. Placement comparisons, which are evidence of the best interest of my child, should only be conferred upon substantial evidence related to current parental unfitness (In re Welfare of AB). CYF chose to dismiss my child’s previous mental health records and have the CYF contracted psychologist blindly evaluate my child. Instead of consulting with his colleagues or the past year and a half of mental health records, the psychologist bonded with my child, ignoring objectivity and accepting, uncritically, everything my child told him while disregarding this child’s long deceitful behavioral history. Case plans must record child’s medical problems (including known physical, mental or emotional disabilities), and the names and addresses of my child’s health care providers which the agency has also failed to do (42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(B); 55 Pa. Code §§ 3130.67, 3700.39). Section 6341(e) of the Juvenile Act requires the court to receive reports and other evidence bearing on the disposition (In re McDonough, 287 Pa. Super. 326, 430 A.2d 308 (1981)). According to the juvenile law center, as a means of implementing the federal law, Pennsylvania law requires every county children and youth agency to provide counseling as one of the four prevention or reunification services (55 Pa. Code § 3130.35). I have requested and been denied family counseling and visitation by the case worker several times. It is undisputed that I am willing to participate in therapy with my child, but it was my child who was refusing to cooperate so they placed her in control. When family visitation was denied, my access to my child also ended. Without access to my child or assistance to improve the problems that contributed to her placement, there remains little hope for reunification. The "functional drunk" should be charged, at the very least, with the crime of endangering the welfare of my child. First, she endangered the welfare of my child by violating a duty of care. Second, she endangered the welfare of my child knowingly. Third, she was aware that it was certain that this conduct will cause a particular result. And, fourth, my child was under the age of 18 years at the time of her endangering, contributing and furnishing. The "functional drunk" willfully and knowingly endangered the welfare of my child by violating a duty of care, protection, or support by contributing to the delinquency of my child through providing alcohol and nicotine, and willfully permitting and enabling this child to engage in dangerous and illegal activities over the course of the several months and that this child has been without proper care and control necessary for her physical, mental, or emotional health or morals with this "functional drunk". The negligence, incompetence, negative reasonable efforts and legal malfeasance the agency carried out on our family; in addition to using a damaging custodial replacement plainly shows CYF’s reckless indifference for my child’s safety and well being. The agency’s inclination to view our family as the potential cause of my child’s problem rather than looking at the family as a partner has tremendous negative impact on the overall effort of family preservation and reunification. Of course it all boils down to the misappropriation of Title IV-E funding between the “A Second Chance” Agency, the Allegheny County OCYF and the "functional drunk" in their contractual joint financial venture. A neighbor told me she encountered the same situation years earlier proving this is a pattern and practice of the Allegheny County OCYF to interfere custodial with behaviorally challenged children and fit parents to misappropriate Title IV-E funding. Forewarning, never ask the Allegheny County OCYF for help with your behaviorally challenged child. Their only out to catch a quick Title IV-E buck, legal or otherwise.

Track this Report 0 Comment | Post a Comment