Family Court Therapist Janelle Burrill Charged with Misconduct by Attorney General’s Office
By Peter Jamison
The California Board of Behavioral Science and California Attorney General’s office have filed formal accusations of misconduct against a Sacramento family-court therapist.
The therapist, Janelle Burrill, is a clinical social worker who works with children and parents as ordered by family courts in Sacramento and elsewhere. Burrill has been the subject of multiple complaints by families unhappy with her work.
Documents filed against her by the Behavioral Sciences board and the office of Attorney General Kamala Harris allege that Burrill "committed acts that fall sufficiently below the standard of conduct of the profession as to constitute acts of gross negligence."
The documents assert that Burrill lied to both the American Board of Examiners for Clinical Social Workers and to a Placer County judge, claiming in both cases that no formal complaints had been filed against her by clients when she knew otherwise. If the accusations are upheld, her social-worker license could be suspended or revoked.
Burrill has been a lightning rod for criticism in Sacramento, and is only one of numerous family-court officials who have come under scrutiny for faulty and potentially dangerous practices in child-custody proceedings. Last month, SF Weekly published a story detailing multiple instances in which family courts had delivered children into the custody of parents with convictions for child molestation or spousal battery.
Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence, a family-court reform group, said Burrill should be removed from cases in which parents or children have concerns while the case against her proceeds.
"It seems prudent for the Courts to remove her from any case in which she is involved, at the request of either parent or child, to ensure the safety and well-being of the families and children they serve," Russell said in a statement. "And major policy reforms are needed to ensure a more timely resolution of these complaints."
Ricardo Villalobos - Therapist, White Collar Child Abuser, Abuse and Trauma enabler for little children,Child Abuse Fabricator, big time liar.
1908 T Street, NW, Suite A
Washington , DC , 20009
Phone: 2022972825
email:Therapist@ricardovillalobos.info
Woodburn Mental Health Clinic, Annandale, Virginia
Kolmac Clinic, Silver Spring, Maryland
Whitman-Walker Clinic, Arlington, Virginia
The Women's Center, Vienna, Virginia
Argus House for Adolescent Boys, Arlington, Virginia
Will County Dept. of Mental Health, Addictions Counseling Center, Joliet, Illinois
Meet Mr.Ricardo Villalobos: http://www.ricardovillalobos.info/
in 2006, Ricardo Villalobos concocted a bizzare child sexual abuse story designed to further his career at the expense of two innocent children by filing a bogus CPS complaint that he knew was false claiming that the two little girls needed his theraphy for abuse inflicted upon them by their father. The mother of the two children was being manipulated into seeking Mr. Villalobos's therapy through her attorney ( later Convicted in a Federal Court for 3 counts of felony acts and jailed for a year) thought that that the child's father was a International Espionage agent who was wanted by the United States and the Soviet Union for multiple accounts of National Security crimes.
+Several people have questioned Mr. Ricardo Villalobos and his credibility as to his intentions as a therapist.
+In 2008, Judge Charles Maxfield of the Fairfax Circuit Court issued an court order preventing Ricardo Villalobos from having any further contact with two young children he was providing therapy on a bi-weekly basis for over a year while claiming that the children were depressed and confused due to sexual and physical abuse by their father that he had diagnosed.
+In 2007 Judge Leslie Alden of Fairfax Circuit found Ricardo Villalobos's expert testimony lacking any credibility.
+Mr. Villalobos came to court to testify as a expert witness on child abuse - when asked if he had brought his credentials/resume/curricum vita with him. His answer was No, I did not think it was needed in court. (During his testimony, it was learned that, he had never testified as a expert witness before and hence did not know he should have brought his resume with him to court.
+Ricardo Villalobos was conspiring with a convicted felon Lawyer Robert Machen ( Who spent a year in a federal prison) and CPS worker Shannon Traore aka Shannon Tyler...( who was later fired from Fairfax County Child Protective Services).
see:Fairfax County CPS SocialWorker accused of Fabricating Child Abuse allegations.
On December 3, 2010, detectives from the Harford County Child Advocacy Center charged a Whiteford psychologist Dr. David Schrumpf with several counts of sexual abuse of a minor and sexual offenses. The investigation began when the CAC received reports of abuse from two children who were receiving therapy from him.
The alleged abuse occurred over several months during 2010 in his office in Fallston. Schrumpf, 55, is being held at the Harford County Detention Center with no bail.
Anyone from the public with further information concerning this investigation is asked to contact Trooper Michelle Workman at the Harford County Child Advocacy Center at 410-638-3294 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 410-638-3294
Continue reading on Examiner.com Harford psychologist charged with sexual child abuse - Baltimore buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/buzz-in-baltimore/harford-psychologist-charged-with-sexual-child-abuse#ixzz1OyZ4Ke2i
Mental Health Therapist charged with child sexual Abuse
A former mental health center therapist has been charged with drug and sex activities involving teenage boys under her care..see link above
Psychologist charged with assault, child abuse at a Silver Spring Clinic in Washington
BSO Case Number: BS10-12-4847
PIO Number: 10-12-19
Date: 12/22/10
Time: 11 a.m. Jurisdiction: Pembroke Pines
Place of Occurrence: 8770 NW 7 Ct., Pembroke Pines
A Broward County speech pathologist isn’t saying much after Broward Sheriff’s Office detectives took him into custody for possession of child pornography.
Following over a dozen tips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited children alerting of a computer user who was uploading and sharing pornographic images of children, BSO detectives with the South Florida Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force conducted an investigation and obtained a warrant to search a home in the city of Pembroke Pines.
When detectives arrived at the home at 8770 NW 7 Ct. on Dec. 22, they came in contact with their target, 66-year-old Warren Day, who at the time was on his computer viewing a child pornography website.
A preliminary evaluation of Day’s computer revealed hundreds of pornographic images of children between 1 and 12 years of age engaging in sexual acts with adults, other children and in sexually explicit positions.
Day refused to answer questions without the presence of his lawyer, but stated “I am a piece of (vulgar term for excrement)” in the presence of BSO detectives.
Day was arrested and charged with 50 counts of child pornography. More charges could be filed pending a full forensic analysis of Day’s computer and two other media devices found inside his home. He was arrested in 1982 in Dade County for committing a sexual act against a child and served two years probation. Due to the date of his offense, he was not required to register as a sexual offender.
For the past seven months Day has worked as a speech pathologist at the Hollywood Rehab Center working with seniors, but throughout his 30 year career he has come in contact with children from kindergarten to high school. He was previously employed by the Dade County School System.
Detectives have identified at least one victim and fear there could be others. If you know anyone who’s been a victim of Warren Day you’re asked to contact BSO Detective Jennifer Montgomery at 954-888-5239 or Broward Crime Stoppers, anonymously, at 954-493-TIPS (8477).
INVESTIGATORS: Det. Montgomery, ICAC
THIS REPORT BY: Keyla Concepción/PIO 12/23/2010 0810
Therapist Charged with Producing Child Pornography
Beth Phillips, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced today that a respiratory therapist who sometimes worked in the pediatric unit at Kansas University Medical Center has been charged in federal court with producing child pornography and attempting to distribute child pornography over the Internet.
Michael D. Toal, 55, of Kansas City, Mo., was charged in a criminal complaint filed on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010, in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City. Toal had his initial court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays this afternoon and remains in federal custody pending a detention hearing on Monday, March 1, 2010.
The federal criminal complaint alleges that Toal used a minor to produce child pornography on Aug. 2, 2009. According to an affidavit filed in support of the complaint, Toal told FBI agents that he sexually abused an 8-year-old child who was in his care at his house. While the victim was asleep, the affidavit says, Toal took sexually explicit photographs of the child with his digital camera and then loaded them onto his computer.
The federal complaint also charges Toal with attempting to distribute child pornography over the Internet on Aug. 10, 2009. According to the affidavit, an agent at the FBI’s Denver, Col., division conducted an investigation using peer-to-peer file-sharing software and downloaded images of child pornography that were available to be shared from Toal’s computer, which was using a similar software program.
Law enforcement officers interviewed Toal at his home earlier this month and seized his computer, which as later investigation revealed, contained a large quantity of child pornography, the affidavit says.
The government filed a motion today to keep Toal in federal custody without bond, alleging that he is a danger to the community. According to the motion for detention, Toal told agents that he inappropriately touched at least one child patient while working as a respiratory therapist. Toal has increased his access to children who are vulnerable, the motion says, by becoming a volunteer with Jackson County’s CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) program for abused and neglected children who are in the care and custody of the state.
The motion for detention also alleges that, because Toal faces a lengthy prison sentence if convicted, he is a flight risk. Under federal statutes, a conviction for producing child pornography carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in federal prison without parole, up to a sentence of 30 years in federal prison without parole.
Phillips cautioned that the charges contained in this complaint are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Katharine Fincham. It was investigated by task force officers with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Project Safe Childhood
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.
please contact me. I live in Tacoma, wa. I have written letters prior to finding this site and have been planning to attend any meeting i can. this site is a godsend. lexxilexxi[@]yahoo.com is my email and my phone is 253 227 8277. we need to band together. I have a mental evaluation tomorrow and im freaking out because i can be perfect and the cps can still find something terrible to say.
Comment by alexis — November 22, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
Hi everyone i want to remind you that cps abuse is very underdocumented and the site NCAAN (national center on child abuse and neglect) has actual numbers. perpetrators of maltreatment is a list that compares parents vs cps per 100,000 children.
Physicel 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
Comment by alexis hayward — November 22, 2010 @ 7:23 pm
I am currentlly in case with the CPS and I would like with your help to get my grandchildren back.
Comment by Maira — November 23, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
Maira, there’s a grandparent’s area in our message board: http://forum.fightcps.com
Comment by Linda Martin — November 24, 2010 @ 7:59 am
who do i talk to on the website you gave me
Comment by Maira — November 24, 2010 @ 11:42 am
alexis,
I hope and pray that your mental eval worked out… I believe that an eval is what cps will use against you.. in our case mom was considered defensive against false allegations evals are subjective in my opinion and only make things worse.. sorry but when we get in the system plan on 18-24months
Comment by Frenchy — November 24, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
only god knows ; yet I am certain that kids are falsley removed based on politics/cash/politics/cash courts that hide behide “best interest of the child” Stop with the cookie cutter system IN Fl a head in the bed nets you 1,000.00 FL loves to remove, and adopt great cash flow
Comment by Frenchy — November 24, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
Maira – you talk to everyone there… it is a message board. Post in the ‘newcomers’ section and someone will answer.
Comment by Linda Martin — November 25, 2010 @ 10:13 am
CPS waived their 11th amendment rights by accepting, and agreeing to the terms and conditions of obtaining federal funds.
“Congress, however, with the passage of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-7, specifically abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-7(a)(1) (“A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit for a violation of … title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d et seq.]“). Congress waived the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d occurring after October 21, 1986, the effective date of the legislation. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-7(b).”
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Family Preservation and Family Support Services grants focus on strengthening families, preventing abuse, and protecting children. These grants help state child welfare agencies and Indian tribes operate preventive family preservation services and community-based family support services for families at risk or in crisis. Community-based Family Resource and Support Grants fund statewide networks of local child abuse and neglect prevention and family resource programs. The Child Welfare Services program provides grants to states and Indian tribes under title IV-B of the Social Security Act. Services are available to children and their families without regard to income. Publicly funded Child Welfare Services are directed toward the goal of keeping families together. Under the regulation, states are assessed for compliance with federal requirements for child protective services, foster care, adoption and family preservation and support services under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Those services cover the investigations of families where children are at-risk, placements and supervision of children in foster care, development of child permanency plans for court hearings, reunification with birth families, when safe, and adoption. State Child Welfare Reform
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
Plaintiff seeks redress for violation of [A]ll of his, and is family’s constitutional rights, but not limited to “PRIVACY AND THE RIGITH TO BE LEFT ALONE” {emphasis added}. “PRIVACY AND THE RIGITH TO BE LEFT ALONE BY CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS” {emphasis added}. For Violations of certain protections guaranteed to him, family, and [A]ll person, but not limited to [A]ll persons of color, [A]ll persons of color that are Male Parents, by Declaration of Independence, Magna Carter, and the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal law 42 U.S.C. 1983 Plaintiff seeks redress for violation Rights to substantive due process, due process, and equal protections at law, by state actors who were acting under color of state law, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 et seq 5 U.S.C. § 552a (a)(1) (g)(1)(C)(D)(5). UCCJEA, PKPA, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, and 14th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution in violation of Cleary stabled law. That a reasonable person should have known to be illegal, and unconstitutional invasions of privacy, unlawful disclosures of private and confidently information of the Plaintff and Plaintiff family. Breach of confidence, in breach of the Plaintff and plaintiff family good faith by fraud, deceit, lies, trickery, shamming, withholding evidence, and intentionally misleading the Plaintiffs that was justifiable relied upon by the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff family in good faith.
I. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 pertains to a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. The plaintiff asserts a legitimate claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) or (3), and pleads to show racial, and or gender class biased action
II. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
We therefore reverse the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on that claim. Finally, we hold
that Camreta’s decision to exclude Sarah from her daughters’
medical examinations at the KIDS Center violated the
Greenes’ clearly established familial rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. We therefore reverse the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on that claim as well.
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
Article 31.
shall be released in accordance with the provisions of the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
Disclosure of Juvenile Information.
Disclosure of information about juveniles.
(a) The Department, after consultation with the Conference of Chief District Court Judges, shall adopt rules designating certain local agencies that are authorized to share information concerning juveniles in accordance with the provisions of this section. Agencies so designated shall share with one another, upon request and to the extent permitted by federal law and regulations, information that is in their possession that is relevant to any assessment of a report of child abuse, neglect, or dependency or the provision or arrangement of protective services in a child abuse, neglect, or dependency case by a local department of social services pursuant to the authority granted under Chapter 7B of the General Statutes or to any case in which a petition is filed alleging that a juvenile is abused, neglected, dependent, undisciplined, or delinquent and shall continue to do so until the protective services case is closed by the local department of social services, or if a petition is filed when the juvenile is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court. Agencies that may be designated as “agencies authorized to share information” include local mental health facilities, local health departments, local departments of social services, local law enforcement agencies, local school administrative units, the district’s district attorney’s office, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Guardian ad Litem Services of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 7B?3000(e1), the Division of Community Corrections of the Department of Correction. Any information shared among agencies pursuant to this section shall remain confidential, shall be withheld from public inspection, and shall be used only for the protection of the juvenile and others or to improve the educational opportunities of the juvenile, and shall be released in accordance with the provisions of the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act as set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall preclude any other necessary sharing of information among agencies. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require the disclosure or release of any information in the possession of a district attorney.
(b) Disclosure of information concerning any juvenile under investigation or alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the court that would reveal the identity of that juvenile is prohibited except that publication of pictures of runaways is permitted with the permission of the parents and except as provided in
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
20 U.S.C. § 1232g
20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A)
20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1)
20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1)(I)
20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1) (J)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Mr. Davis filed a Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence on February 26, 2009. (Rpp. 6-7) A hearing was held on that same day before Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith who denied the motion without prejudice because it had not been filed with an affidavit. (2/26/09, Tpp. 8, 10)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
Motion in Limine
Mr. Davis filed a Motion in Limine on September 8, 2009 in which he sought to suppress certain documents. (Rp. 26) Specifically, Mr. Davis sought the suppression of (1) the Certification of Report of Birth of J.D. , (2) the Consular report of Birth Abroad of J.D., (3) “[a]ny and all applications or other documents regarding Medicaid/NC Health Choice as they relate to [J.D.],” and (4) “[a]ny other documents that relate to [J.D.] that were either in the possession of the Wake County School System and were turned over to law enforcement and/or the Wake County District Attorney’s Office.” (Rpp. 26-27)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
A month after receiving the report, Ms. Doyle met with Mr. Davis’ daughter, J.D., on the first day of school, August 27, 2007, at Kingswood Elementary in Cary. (Tpp. 4-5) While at Kingswood Elementary on the first day of school, Ms. Doyle looked through J.D.’s school records and met with the guidance counselor and principal. (Tpp. 6, 13)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
On a later date, Ms. Doyle returned to Kingswood Elementary and provided the school with a copy of a North Carolina statute which, according to Ms. Doyle, allowed CPS to have access to school records. (Tpp. 5, 13) Ms. Doyle requested and was given copies of J.D.’s school records. (Tp. 7)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
Mr. Davis’ motion in limine, the court noted “[w]hile it does step to the edge there is no question that disclosure of information, the investigator for the Department certainly had the authority to view, based upon the statute, the records that were provided – educational records that were provided, and according to both the local order and 3100 authorized to share those records with law enforcement.” (Tp. 26)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Danielle Doyle, an investigator with Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report regarding Mr. Davis’ family in July of 2007. (Tpp. 40-41, 43) Ms. Doyle stated that she attempted to reach the family for several weeks and was not successful. (Tp. 43) According to Ms. Doyle, the following attempts were made: (1) made a home visit and left a duplicate note; (2) drove past the house several times but did not see any cars in the driveway; (3) on one occasion, there was a car leaving the driveway when Ms. Doyle pulled in but no contact was made; and (4) stopped at defendant’s home the morning of the first day of school but no one was home. (Tp. 43) On the first day of school, August 27, 2007, Ms. Doyle made contact with Mr. Davis’ daughter, J.D., at Kingswood Elementary in Cary. (Tpp. 44-45, 59) While at the school that day, Ms. Doyle looked through J.D.’s school file and made notes. (Tp. 47) Ms. Doyle obtained a copy of the school file two weeks later. (Tp. 47)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
After collecting the information from the school, Ms. Doyle passed it along to Detective Michelle Savage with the Cary Police Department. (Tp. 54) Detective Savage is a detective in the domestic violence unit and she referred cases to Child Protective Services when there was a child present or involved during a domestic incident. (Tp. 63)
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
A report was filed with Children’s Protective Services (CPS) in July of 2007, which prompted an assessment of Mr. Davis’ family. The investigator assigned to assess the Davis family was twice given access to the school records of Mr. Davis’ daughter, J.D. In a pre-trial motion in limine, Mr. Davis sought to suppress the documents the CPS investigator illegally obtained from his daughter’s elementary school. Although the trial court acknowledged that this case “step[ped] to the edge,” it denied the defendant’s motion and documents from J.D.’s school file were admitted at trial.
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-302(a) provides:
When a report of abuse, neglect, or dependency is received, the director of the department of social services shall make a prompt and thorough assessment, using either a family assessment response or an investigative assessment response, in order to ascertain the facts of the case, the extent of the abuse or neglect, and the risk of harm to the juvenile, in order to determine whether protective services should be provided or the complaint filed as a petition.
In conducting the assessment, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-302(e) instructs:
The director or the director’s representative may make a written demand for any information or reports, whether or not confidential, that may in the director’s opinion be relevant to the assessment or provision of protective services. Upon the director’s or the director’s representative’s request and unless protected by the attorney-client privilege, any public or private agency or individual shall provide access to and copies of this confidential information and these records to the extent permitted by federal law and regulations.
(emphasis added).
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, is a federal law that prohibits the release of education records of students without the written consent of their parents. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1). FERPA defines “education records” as “those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). Although FERPA provides for exceptions, such as for emergencies and subpoenas, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1)(I) &(J), see e.g., Loud Records LLC v. Minervini, 621 F. Supp. 2d 672 (W.D. Wis. 2009)(rejecting argument of a FERPA violation when information was released pursuant to a subpoena), CPS’ request for J.D.’s education records did not fall under either of those two exceptions.
In the instant case, Danielle Doyle, an investigator with Child Protection Services in Wake County (Tp. 16), failed to heed to the limitations placed on her investigation by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-302(e). Ms. Doyle was conducting a family assessment following a report received from Detective Michelle Savage of the Cary Police Department in July of 2007. Ms. Doyle claimed she attempted to contact Mrs. Davis but was not successful. On the first day of school, Ms. Doyle surfaced at the school of Mr. Davis’ daughter, Kingswood Elementary, and spoke to Mr. Davis’ daughter, J.D. On this occasion, personnel at Kingswood granted Ms. Doyle access to J.D.’s education records. Ms. Doyle did not have a subpoena, there was no testimony of an emergency, and J.D.’s parents were never notified that J.D.’s education records had been released to Ms. Doyle. Two weeks later, Ms. Doyle returned to Kingswood Elementary, presented school personnel with a “memorandum with General Statutes” and obtained copies of J.D.’s education records. The “memorandum with General Statutes” Ms. Doyle used to get copies of J.D.’s education records was not a subpoena and, therefore, did not meet the exception noted in FERPA. The release of J.D.’s education records was in violation of FERPA and, therefore, of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-302.
In denying the defendant’s motion in limine to suppress documents Ms. Doyle had seized, the trial court cited N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3100. (Tpp. 24-26) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3100 provides:
The Department, after consultation with the Conference of Chief District Court Judges, shall adopt rules designating certain local agencies that are authorized to share information concerning juveniles in accordance with the provisions of this section. Agencies so designated shall share with one another, upon request and to the extent permitted by federal law and regulations, information that is in their possession that is relevant to any assessment of a report of child abuse, neglect, or dependency….
(emphasis added).
Again, this state statute is limited by applicable federal law and regulations, as evidenced by the “to the extent permitted by federal law and regulations” language that appears in the statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3100 includes “local school administrative units” among the “agencies authorized to share information” but local schools are subject to FERPA.
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3100, the Chief District Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial District, which includes Wake County, issued a Standing Order. (Rp. 23) The Standing Order lists agencies that are authorized to share information “for the limited purpose of providing protection of the juvenile and others or to improve the educational opportunities of the juvenile.” Among the agencies included are all of the “constituent components” of Wake County Human Services, which include Children’s Protective Services and the Wake County Public Schools. The Standing Order, however, concludes that “[a]ll information shall be released in accordance with the Provisions of the Family Education and Privacy Rights Act as set forth in 20 U.S.C. [§] 1232g.” (Rp. 23) Once again, the broad authority to share is trumped by the federal law that prohibits the release of education records unless parental consent is obtained, an emergency exists, or a subpoena has been issued. Ms. Doyle did not testify that an emergency existed when she accessed the education records. In fact, Ms. Doyle testified that she looked at J.D.’s file on the first day of school and returned two weeks later for copies. Such a lapse in time strongly suggests that an emergency did not exist. Ms. Doyle also did not testify that she had a subpoena for J.D.’s education records. And Mr. Davis was purposely not notified. Without parental consent, an emergency, or a subpoena, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1), (b)(1)(I) and (J), Kingswood Elementary should not have released J.D.’s education records to Danielle Doyle while Ms. Doyle was simply conducting an assessment of the Davis family.
Furthermore, the Standing Order in effect at the time Ms. Doyle accessed the school records of Mr. Davis’ daughter allowed the sharing to take place once a petition had been filed. (Rp. 23) The first time Ms. Doyle looked through J.D.’s file, August 27, 2007, she was simply beginning her assessment of the Davis family. The second time, two weeks later, Ms. Doyle accessed the school records and copied them, the assessment was still ongoing and a petition had not been filed. In fact, a petition for custody of Mr. Davis’ daughter was not filed until October 2, 2007. Therefore, the sharing of information was premature according to the Standing Order in effect at the time.
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amends. VI and XIV; see N.C. Const. Art. I, §§ 19 and 23. The right to representation by counsel has been interpreted as the right to “effective assistance of counsel.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654, 80 L.Ed.2d 657, 664 (1984).
In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-92, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), the United States Supreme Court announced a two-prong test to determine whether counsel was ineffective:
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.
See also State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 562-63, 324 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1985) (“expressly adopt[ing] the test set out in Strickland v. Washington as a uniform standard to be applied to measure ineffective assistance of counsel under the North Carolina Constitution”).
Comment by Scott Davis — November 26, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
I am a board member of an advocacy agency for disabled kids. Our agency (a local chapter of a national organization) would like to become active in putting CPS “on notice” in our state that we are watching them and whatever other action will be helpful to our families. One of our families had their children taken in June and they still are not reunited. Can I get some direction here on what to do next? We feel comfortable going to the media, writing letters, making freedom of info requests, talking to our legislators, etc. Can I get some guidance to know how to be most effective for our families?
Comment by Susan — November 27, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
Hi Susan, thank you for caring about the families that are being torn apart! If the children are receiving SSI for disabilities they are an extra income source for CPS agencies, and are targets. One of the best things you could do is to arrange for expert witnesses to testify in favor of the parents’ case. Testimony by expert witnesses is especially helpful but most parents are unable to afford to pay experts, or simply don’t realize how much they are needed. For those who can’t testify in court… a legal declaration or letter in favor of returning the children to the parents might help.
Comment by Linda Martin — November 28, 2010 @ 10:04 am
We have done that for our current family and got very high profile expert witnesses involved in addition to the ones recommended by their attorneys.The State looked like idiots in court — they had clearly met their match. The kids have been in foster care for 7 months none-the-less. What can we do proactively to keep this from happening in our state again and again? I see lots of great ideas on your website for individuals to explore when their own kids have been taken, how about some ideas for large, connected organizations that would like to take this on as a project? I’d like to get other organizations to join in the battle as well.
Comment by Susan — November 28, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Afterthought… in our state, disabled kids get Medicaid to cover therapies, so the SSI payments are just a portion of the $ saved when the kids are taken into care. The kids I originally wrote about received almost no therapies or medical treatment while in care (just psych meds and vaccines being pushed on them).
Comment by Susan — November 28, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Seek counsel from your members. Surely one or two of your members must be attorneys or find attorneys with disabled children who are looking to do pro bono work. Almost all law firms require that their members dedicate some hours to pro bono work.
Your greatest defense would be to have a legal defense arm like the Home Schoolers.
Comment by Maggiec — November 29, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
Social services has stole my kids for the second time. They claim that they are at risk of being abused because their dad is a sex offender. Their father and I are no longer together, I left him the first time they started on my family. They have people who want to adopt my kids all lined up since the first case. They have made it impossible for our family to get them because they have my children and i isolated in VA while our family is in MI. Please someone help us! They have never been able to find physical evidence of any type of abuse or neglect because their is none but they do what they want.
Comment by Brandy — November 30, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Susan, there’s a lot of double-dipping going on. For example, they may be getting federal funding plus requiring parents to pay child support, plus get social security payments. Nobody seems to be over-seeing all this to make sure excess funds aren’t being requested. CPS is the no-oversight agency that seems to be able to get away with almost anything.
Comment by Linda Martin — November 30, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Finally!!! A website that truly advocates for the parents!!! This is definitely refreshing that there are many other parents like myself (unfortunately in these horrid situations) that refuse to stand for what CPS/ACS is doing!!! Everyone keep fighting for your children!!! Never give up!!! No matter what!!!!
Comment by JC — December 1, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Also a note to the wise, a parent advocate at a foster care agency in NYC had gotten whiff of info from Albany, NY in 2007 stating that the foster care agencies should try to keep as many children in foster care as they can.. she advised me & others to keep fighting for your children!!!
Comment by JC — December 1, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
Friend called wanting to know what her friend could do about his baby’s mother going to CPS and filing false allegations that he has been shooting heroin in his neck and then illegally accessed his facebook page and writing that he is a drug addict.
CPS went to his other child’s school and asked his son questions then went to my friends and started questioning him.
Comment by LAURA MCMAHAN — December 13, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Laura, he should take a look at this site and find out how to respond to CPS agents before they get the best of him.
Comment by Linda Martin — December 14, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
CPS took my daughter’s children today and gave them to a father who has no driver’s license, no job and no means to support them. My daughter has not been accused nor charged with ANYTHING!. She has followed all the guidelines CPS required in her case where her current husband is falsely accused of indecency with a child. He has had NO contact. But CPS took her children anyway stating that she was told not to talk to the children about the incident. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. No one told her anything of the sort. Now she has no way to hire an attorney and her ex-husband has three very devastated children. What can we do to get these children back?
Comment by Virginia — December 15, 2010 @ 1:22 am
Virginia, you can get feedback on your case at http://forum.fightcps.com … your daughter needs to know NOW that if she signs any papers at juvenile court she’ll be giving up her right to a trial which is the ONLY place the caseworker will ever have to PROVE her allegations. She needs a lawyer as soon as possible… preferably a private lawyer from out of town that will fight tooth and nail to help her.
Comment by Linda Martin — December 15, 2010 @ 10:35 am
I think the only thing that will stop these people is fire, gas bottles, and mata cocktails for them all!
Comment by richard — January 11, 2011 @ 8:07 pm
‘Russian people are smarter than us that is how they solved there socialist problems!
Comment by richard — January 11, 2011 @ 8:08 pm
I feel like I ve been railroaded, by CPS. My child was taken away from,me by CPS ,May of 2010 stating that I burned, my stepson with a iron, but he told them,that I didn t do it even, his older brother said tha, I didn,t do it. It was investigated by a detective ,he even told, me it wasn,t intentionally, But he never showed up in court to testify on my behalf.CPS never subpeanaed him,or my lawyer. They went on my past history , that happen 15 yrs ago.n They even tried to use it against me stated that I abused, sexual abused, my stepdaughter, but it was ruled out. I was forced to sign my rights over by my, lawyer, which he influnced, my sister, but i appealed my case b cause my lawyer , told me ,he would do everything for me to keep, my son but at court or mediation he did just the opposite. what should i do?
Comment by summie j t — February 1, 2011 @ 3:52 pm
CPS has got involved in my life over an accident. They took,my son, I signed,my rights do to deress. I appealed my case what and go back to court in a month what shall I do?
Comment by summie j t — February 1, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
Summie, ask for a trial if you haven’t already signed papers in court. Make them prove their case… and you will have to prepare to try to prove your innocence.
Comment by Linda Martin — February 3, 2011 @ 2:17 pm
I suffer from a chronic pain cond, that resulted in substance abuse to deal w/pain. I sought treatment, was hospitalized for 2 mos. CPS was called because of a blood test. I had done NOTHING wrong. They took my kid and I’ve not neglected nor abused nor broken a law. I’ve never been in trouble and my son is my HEART. I am so heartbroken…what can I do?
Comment by Heartbroken Kay — February 22, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
CPS HAS BEEN DESTROYED THEY ARE NO MORE FINISHED ……………………….ALLAH BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE GOLDENCHILD
Comment by lerenzo palmer — February 23, 2011 @ 1:29 pm
all i can say is wow my first experience with cps and i am at a loss i did not realisze how much control they have over our families–god help us all
Comment by bonbon — March 22, 2011 @ 4:49 am
I went to an organization with my husband and 11 month old son seeking services. While my sister was changing his diaper, the social worker noticed a burn on his hand. They detained us for a considerable amount of time and later it was found that they called CPS. Due to some surgeries I’ve recently had, I am being accused of being a drug addict, they want all of my hospital records, pharmacy reports, etc…. We were there seeking help for housing, CPS has decided for us that we are living in a car with our son, please comment.
Comment by Veronica — March 27, 2011 @ 6:47 am
For parents Suffering from CPS injustice in the state of Arizona. There are 2 resources that Truly help me in my case. The State Umbudsman’s office and the Family Advocacy Agency. I cannot post their numbers here but google them and you will find it. The case worker took my children away with out notifying me and I have not been able to see or talk to them for 3 weeks. I did not know what had happend or why but these 2 agencies got through and I finally recieved a call from the case worker. They are there to help!!
Comment by Bethanny — April 12, 2011 @ 2:33 pm