Saturday, December 24, 2016

Thursday, December 22, 2016

California Passing A New Bill To Increase The Seizure of Kids From Parents

ew California Proposed Bill to Increase Government Seizure of Children from Families?

Posted By Admin - Orissa On December 21, 2016 @ 2:56 pm In Headline,News | Comments Disabled



by Paul Fassa
Health Impact News

You may be familiar with the phrase “as California goes, so goes the nation.” California’s legislative innovations are increasingly becoming harbingers of medical tyranny over children and their families.

California Senator Dr. Richard Pan pushed through the mandatory vaccine law SB 277 last year with financial backing from vaccine manufacturers to ban children from public and private schools unless most of the CDC vaccine schedule was completed. Previous allowable vaccination exemptions are no longer allowed, except for medical exemptions. 

However, one prestigious California pediatrician is being threatened with losing his license to practice for issuing a medical exemption to vaccines to one of his patients. (Source) [1] Could this be the State’s method of shutting down doctors who dare to write vaccine exemptions, so that soon not even medical exemptions will be readily available to those who need them?

Other such state bills mandating vaccines and removing exemptions were easily defeated across the U.S. in 2015, due to public outcry. Yet even though the public outcry was probably the loudest in California in opposition to SB 277, it somehow still passed. California became the first state to remove religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines. Two other states, Mississippi and West Virginia, have never had such exemptions, and their yearly health statistics on children are consistently among the worst in the United States. Will the health of California’s children now decline due to mandated increases in vaccination rates?

(See: Study: Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree [2])

Now that same state senator, Dr. Pan, is introducing new legislation, SB 18, that allows the state to assume total ownership of a child’s well being, as defined by state and medical bureaucratic “experts.”

SB 18: Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California

This new bill references a 2009 Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 80.  An ACR is a resolution created by members of the California Assembly, which is actually their state house of representatives. It was originally intended as a bill of rights for foster children.

SB 18 is a very loosely worded open ended draft introduced in the state senate, which permits future additional rules and regulations that are meant to “organize” and “codify” (create more laws) ACR 80 according to “experts” observations and evaluations. (Source) [3]

And who would be the “experts” mentioned in SB 18? They would be mainstream medical professionals who consider the only treatments for cancer are surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

They would be the CDC and other pro-vaccine medical doctors who consider multiple heavy vaccinations as necessary for good health. These are activities that so far most adults can pass on for safer and more effective alternative means. But the government does not want you to have those choices for your own kids.

“Medical Child Abuse” – The New Diagnosis Used for Medical Tyranny and State-sponsored Child Kidnapping

The common claim of “medical child abuse” is used for not acquiescing to medical procedures, some experimental, that most knowledgeable adults shun. Parents and children in some cases have had to go on the lam as fugitives from the law when they decided to discontinue medical practices that were harming their children. (Source) [4]

A whole new pediatric sub-specialty was created in recent years with the advent of the “Child Abuse Specialist [5].” This is a pediatrician that acts more like a law enforcement officer by looking at x-rays and medical records to determine if a child has been abused by their parents or caregivers. They seldom interview the parents or children, or even the family pediatrician who knows the family. Finding abuse is necessary to justify their profession, and courts are increasingly finding that many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. (See: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Opens the Legal Door to Retry All Shaken Baby Syndrome Convictions [6])

The DEA’s “war on drugs” is also used to remove children from homes where parents used marijuana for medical reasons in many states where it is legal.

Experts can also be public education bureaucrats who look down on homeschooling as depriving a child’s optimal education, even though public schools turn out semi-literate kids who are incapable of critical thinking. They will also support efforts to diagnose children with ADHD and drug them with psychotropics.

Increased Role for CPS?

Removing children from existing parents to enforce state bureaucratic perspectives of what’s good for children, according to experts, is left to the Child Protective Services (CPS), which does so by removing children from their families and placing them into private and/or institutional foster homes.

CPS depends on federal funding for each child they remove from a home and place into foster care. So many CPS officials are motivated to lie, distort, and falsify documents to achieve their successes of removing children from parents.

California’s CPS system (Department of Children and Family Services – DCFS) is among the most corrupt and dangerous in the nation. See:

Former LA County Social Worker Reveals Corruption in Child “Protection” Services [7]

LA County DCFS Whistleblower Reveals how Parents are Losing Their Children to a Corrupt System[8]

It’s estimated only around five percent of children taken are from actual cases of parental abuse. Often poverty is considered neglect, while false abuse reports are considered valid even while based on hearsay or speculation without proof. See:

The U.S. Foster Care System: Modern Day Slavery and Child Trafficking [9]

This agency is often favorably collaborated by the local judicial system and its judges, who often are just as corrupt [10] as CPS itself.

Actual biological parents often don’t get their kids back. If they do, it’s usually after major damage is done to the family. The kids are emotionally and mentally damaged from what happened to them as wards of the state, while the parents are emotionally and financially stressed from failed efforts at getting CPS and its family court allies to return their children.

Foster parents get paid by the government along with CPS. States get paid by the federal government for every child they place into the foster care system of their states. This investigative report done several years ago in Kentucky reveals just how this corrupt system works:

Trafficking Foster Children for Sexual Abuse to People in Power

More often than is publicized, CPS actions force children into foster homes where they somehow get lost or disappear. Foster homes and institutions often do not report missing children. And what happens to children missing from CPS placed foster homes or institutions?

Some are prescribed psychotropics if they have behavioral issues or forced into drug trials [11] against their will. Some die as a result.

Some of those children who were initially kidnapped by CPS social workers wind up in the ever increasingly reported child trafficking for sex trades. It has been reported that the illegal money earned from sexual trafficking exceeds the money earned from the flow of illegal drugs. See:

Child Sex Trafficking through Child “Protection” Services Exposed – Kidnapping Children for Sex[12]

Ironically, it appears there’s much more public denial regarding enforced pedophilia among kidnapped children from political figures and government officials than there has been with Catholic priests picking on available parish kids.

The general public disbelief and denial for high ranking government officials’ and high rollers’ pedophilia has been their shield for a few decades.

Former and current victims are often not believed. Perpetrators are protected. The higher their status or position the more they are protected. Pedophile activities among the governing elites are ruthlessly covered up.

There are too many who may be inclined to blow the whistle on high level offenders but dare not because their lively-hoods are affected by these sexual predators, and in some cases it’s not just their lively-hoods that are threatened, but their lives.

Oppose SB 18!

SB 18 and overzealous attempts of state authority to prevail over the fate of all children, using Child Protective Services or family court systems is a potential threat to all families regardless of their innocence. It’s yet another attempt at allowing the state to be in charge of children against their will without parental consent.

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com. [13]

Sources:

http://bolenreport.com/california-state-senator-richard-state-owns-child-pan/ [14]

 [3]

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/bombshell-sacrificing-children-to-the-state-of-california-sb18/ [15]

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=caldocs_assembly [16]

http://medicalkidnap.com/2016/04/15/the-u-s-foster-care-system-modern-day-slavery-and-child-trafficking/ [9]

http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/07/21/child-sex-trafficking-through-child-protection-services-exposed-kidnapping-children-for-sex/ [12]

https://healthimpactnews.com/2016/medical-kidnapping-a-threat-to-every-child-in-america-today/ [17]



http://medicalkidnap.com/2016/12/21/new-california-proposed-bill-to-increase-government-seizure-of-children-from-families/print/

Monday, December 12, 2016

N.J. child welfare worker indicted for extorting sex from mothers he supervised

By S.P. Sullivan | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on December 05, 2016 at 5:47 PM, updated December 05, 2016 at 5:48 PM
lamont_king.jpgLamont King, 40, of Trenton. 
TRENTON -- A former state family services worker has been indicted on charges that he used his position to extort sex from two mothers he supervised during their visitations with their children, authorities said.
Lamont King, of Trenton, was an assistant family services worker in the Division of Child Protection and Permanency at the state Department of Children and Families, where his duties included transporting parents and children to and from court-ordered visits and supervising them.
He faces charges including official misconduct, sexual assault, bribery and records tampering after a State Police investigation found he was pressuring vulnerable women into sex acts by threatening their custody of their children, according to the state Attorney General's Office.
Attorney General Christopher Porrino said Monday that King was "alleged to have ruthlessly exploited a mother's love for her children and his power over that emotionally charged relationship to coerce them into having sex with him."
"It's hard to imagine a more offensive abuse of authority," the attorney general said.
An attorney for King did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the charges.
Worker charged with pressuring sex from mother
He was suspended from his $43,175-a-year-job.
King, 40, was charged in June and suspended from his $43,000-a-year public job after investigators allegedly found he had sex with a mother under his supervision on multiple occasions, kissing and groping the woman in his car and driving her to a Pennsylvania motel for another encounter.
The woman did not report the behavior because she feared speaking out would "negatively affect her visits with her children," according to a statement from Porrino's office.
After he was charged, investigators identified another woman who King allegedly pressured into sex while driving her to visits with her children, who were under foster care.
On one occasion, authorities claim, King told the woman he "had the power to allow the visits to be unsupervised" before unbuttoning his pants and placing her hand on his genitals.
Afterward, he allowed the woman to go to the mall with her children unsupervised, authorities said, again requesting sexual favors after dropping the kids off.
The mother told detectives she was afraid nobody would believe her if she reported King's behavior, and he allegedly went on to request oral sex from the woman on subsequent visits, authorities said.
In March of 2016, authorities claim King drove the woman to a park in his own car and began removing her pants and underwear and touching her inappropriately, but the woman refused his sexual advances. He allegedly never showed at her next scheduled visit, and the woman told her caseworker she didn't want King driving her anymore, the statement said.
"King's alleged abuse of position and authority to garner sexual favors from scared mothers terrified of losing custody of their children is absolutely sickening," Col. Rick Fuentes, the head of the State Police, said in the statement.
King was arrested on a warrant Friday and is being held at the Mercer County Jail on $75,000 bail awaiting a court hearing.
S.P. Sullivan may be reached at ssullivan@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter. Find NJ.com on Facebook.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/nj_child_welfare_worker_indicted_for_extorting_sex.html

Sunday, December 4, 2016

What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA is divided into five titles (or sections) that relate to different areas of public life.

In 2008, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) was signed into law and became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADAAA made a number of significant changes to the definition of “disability.” The changes in the definition of disability in the ADAAA apply to all titles of the ADA, including Title I (employment practices of private employers with 15 or more employees, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor unions, agents of the employer and joint management labor committees); Title II (programs and activities of state and local government entities); and Title III (private entities that are considered places of public accommodation).

More About the ADA

Glossary of ADA TermsADA Acronyms and AbbreviationsRead ADA Publications/Fact SheetsFrequently Asked Questions About the ADA

Title I (Employment)

Equal Employment Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities

This title is designed to help people with disabilities access the same employment opportunities and benefits available to people without disabilities. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable an applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions.  

This portion of the law is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(link is external). Employers with 15 or more employees must comply with this law. The regulations for Title I define disability, establish guidelines for the reasonable accommodation process, address medical examinations and inquiries, and define “direct threat” when there is significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual employee with a disability or others.  

More information and events related to ADA Title I (Employment).

Title II (State and Local Government)

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services  

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs, activities, and services of public entities. It applies to all state and local governments, their departments and agencies, and any other instrumentalities or special purpose districts of state or local governments. It clarifies the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for public transportation systems that receive federal financial assistance, and extends coverage to all public entities that provide public transportation, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance. It establishes detailed standards for the operation of public transit systems, including commuter and intercity rail (e.g., AMTRAK).

This title outlines the administrative processes to be followed, including requirements for self-evaluation and planning; requirements for making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; architectural barriers to be identified; and the need for effective communication with people with hearing, vision and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice.

More information and events related to ADA Title II (State and Local Government).

Title III (Public Accommodations)

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities 

This title prohibits private places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Examples of public accommodations include privately-owned, leased or operated facilities like hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, doctor’s offices, golf courses, private schools, day care centers, health clubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so on.  This title sets the minimum standards for accessibility for alterations and new construction of facilities. It also requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense.  This title directs businesses to make "reasonable modifications" to their usual ways of doing things when serving people with disabilities. It also requires that they take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities.  This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

More information and events related to ADA Title III (Public Accommodations).

Title IV (Telecommunications)

This title requires telephone and Internet companies to provide a nationwide system of interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services that allows individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate over the telephone. This title also requires closed captioning of federally funded public service announcements.  This title is regulated by the Federal Communication Commission. 

More information and events related to ADA Title IV (Telecommunications).

Title V (Miscellaneous Provisions)

The final title contains a variety of provisions relating to the ADA as a whole, including its relationship to other laws, state immunity, its impact on insurance providers and benefits, prohibition against retaliation and coercion, illegal use of drugs, and attorney’s fees.  This title also provides a list of certain conditions that are not to be considered as disabilities.

https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

Friday, December 2, 2016

Tenant Troubles: Can My Landlord Refuse To Allow Me A Service Animal? by Dave Crow

Can a landlord legally refuse to rent to a tenant who owns a dog, if the prospective tenant is disabled and the dog helps his disability?

If not, what if the disability is only psychiatric in nature?

And if not, how would the prospective tenant be able to prove to the landlord that his dog is for his disability?

If your lease prohibits pets (and many of them do) a landlord can in initially refuse to allow a tenant to get a pet. Note that I said initially. If you are disabled and you need a pet to provide service or emotional support, you have the right to ask your landlord to allow a pet in the premises regardless of the language in the lease.

A guide dog for a blind person is a classic service animal. A landlord who refused a request for such an animal is clearly discriminating against the tenant based upon disability.

A request to allow an emotional support animal is a little more tricky, but your rights are still clearly defined under the law.

Asking your landlord to add a pet based upon your disability is called a request for a reasonable accommodation. Your request must be reasonable. For example, you cannot request that the landlord, to accommodate your disability, purchase Malachy, the pekinese best in show winner at this year’s Westminster Kennel Club dog show and add him to your lease. That would be unreasonable.

It might also be unreasonable to get a big, untrained, vicious dog because the landlord could be liable if the dog bit someone in the building.

You must also be prepared to prove to the landlord that you are disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If your disability is psychiatric your are absolutely entitled to request a reasonable accommodation that could include owning a pet. Take a look at this link from the the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

The Bazelon site is the “go to” resource for any questions about the law pertaining to mental disability and your rights under the various laws that prohibit discrimination based upon mental disability.

Usually you can get a letter from your treating doctor describing your disability and that having a pet would mitigate your, say, your anxiety disorder. The Bazelon link above provides a sample doctor’s letter that briefly describes the patient’s mental disability and “prescribes” a pet to provide some alleviation of the symptoms.

If you are planning to request a reasonable accommodation to get a pet, you should also check out PAWS (Pets Are Wonderful Support). Their site provides a step-by-step procedure to request a reasonable accommodation to get a support animal. The PAWS suggestions about a health provider’s letter are simple, accurate descriptions of the legal requirements for such a letter:

In order to prove that a dog is a service or support animal, you may be asked to have documentation from a licensed professional (doctor, nurse practitioner, psychiatrist, other mental-health professional or social worker) stating that the animal is an essential part of treatment for a disability. A doctor’s letter must have two essential components.

1. It must state that you have a disability. The disability does not need to be identified.
2. It must state that it is the professional opinion of the provider that is it essential for you to have a service/support animal.

From my point of view, the biggest mistake a tenant can make is getting a pet first and then attempting to justify the need for the animal later–after the landlord, during his annual, unannounced, illegal inspection, discovers Fluffy hiding in a closet.

If your lease prohibits pets, ask first, in writing. If your landlord accepts your request, get it in writing. If your landlord refuses and you can demonstrate your need based on disability, go through the steps as outlined above.

If you are not disabled and your landlord refuses your request, forget it. I’ve seen too many instances in which long-term tenants are forced to choose between their beloved dog and living in the streets.

Dave Crow is an attorney who specializes in San Francisco landlord tenant law. However, the opinions expressed in these articles are those of the author, do not constitute legal advice, and the information is general in nature. Consult the advice of an attorney for any specific problem. You understand that no attorney-client relationship will exist with Dave Crow or his firm, Crow & Rose unless they have agreed to represent you. You should not respond to this site with any information that you believe is highly confidential.

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.





http://sfappeal.com/2012/05/tenant-troubles-can-my-landlord-refuse-to-allow-me-a-service-animal/

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Have you seen this child? GABRIEL JOHNSON

Have you seen this child? GABRIEL JOHNSON: Missing From: TEMPE, AZ. Missing Date: 12/27/2009. Gabriel's photo is shown age-progressed to 6 years-old. He was last believed to be with his mother. They may have been seen in San Antonio, Texas after leaving Arizona. His mother has since been located, but Gabriel remains missing.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

My family and I need some help. For: Nate Lesher Apex, NC Organizer: Nate Lesher

THE STORY

Hey everyone. We need a little help, if you don't mind. My wife and I have five kids (three of which are my step-children), and we are all packed in our three bedroom rental house. As you can imagine, everything started to become expensive (i.e. we became poorer). So my wife and I made the decision that the long-term solution to our financial problems would be for me to go to college. Let me tell you, it has been a wild ride but we've been giving it our all. Between the child support, the student aid, my military benefits, some help from family, and working when we can, we are still unable to pinch enough pennies to get by. We are up to our eyeballs in bills and debt, we've been to the food pantry, we've been on food stamps... we've been on everything but welfare (which I'm pretty sure we don't qualify for). I would consult the bank but, with our credit, that is just not an option. For those of you who know me, you know that reaching out like this does not suit my character. Those that don't know me... you're missing out! If you still don't feel comfortable giving because you're skeptical, I understand. That's why I encourage you to reach out to me for any clarification atlesher.nate@yahoo.com. Thank you for serving those who have served.



To help please click the link below

https://www.youcaring.com/natelesher-694720

Please help a fellow Army Veteran. For: Cindy and Art Olsen Houston, TX Organizer: Cindy Ann Olsen

THE STORY

My name is Cindy Olsen and I am asking for Help in paying rent. We are $5000.00 behind in our rent. I am an Army Veteran and 20 year nurse. I have spent a large portion of my life helping others. In June 2015, I could not breath, I had palpitations and my pulse was 125. I went to the VA Hospital ER. I was hospitalized. It was discovered that I had fluid on my lungs. They drained 750ml of fluid off my right lung. I was told I could not work and was on oxygen. I have not been able to work. I was Diagnosed with Pulmonary Fibrosis, which I am unable able to get Air into my lungs.  As a result of my illness, We are severely behind in the rent.  I have recently returned to work, part-time.  I went to the Management office today (saturday 11/12/16). I was told that either I come up with at Least $1500.00
or we will be kicked out. 



To help please click the link below

https://www.youcaring.com/cindyandartolsen-681438

Help The Dooley Family get back into their own home For: The Dooley Family Trinity, TX Organizer: Tifani Dooley

THE STORY

Hi, We are the Dooley family. My name is Tifani (26) and there is my husband Jeff (27), together we have 4 kids! Johnathan  (11), Makayla (9), Raelynn (7), and Jackson (5). To make an excruciatingly long story short, my husband is a US Military vet. When he left service in 2014 after serving a tour in Afghanistan, he went back to truck driving. He was buying his own rig and building him a small trucking business but due to technicalities he lost his truck. When he did we lost our house and we had to move in with family. Our financial situation has somewhat stabilized where we can afford to be out on our own again but not the expenses to get out on our own. I am asking today for a lot, I understand, but I need help. I just need moving expenses and a deposit (this amount may not even cover everything). If you can hel Pl it would be greatly appreciated! If not please just share and pray or send positive thoughts. 

Thank you! 
-Tifani




To help please click the link below

https://www.youcaring.com/the-dooley-f
amily-584132

CONLEY SCOTT, KOREAN VET NEEDS YOUR HELP WITH NEW ROOF For: Conley Scott Des Moines, IA Organizer: Sue Dilks

THE STORY

Hi! My name is Sue Dilks, my dad is Conley Scott who is a 83 year old Navy Veteran who served on the USS Boxer during the Korean War as Airman. I am his only family / and sole caregiver.
When my dad discharged from the Navy in 1955 he met my mom and they got married later that year. They had three children ,  

When mom passed away dadand i was totally at a loss it was like a big part was missing but no matter what we do we can’t find the missing piece.  

September 2015, I was involved in a car accident. My car was totaled and I was admitted in the  hospital for several days. I bought another car after accident and the tie rod went out.so i have not been able to build up a lot of financial stability. The repair bill along with the bills from my accident, have caused a very troubling financial setback for me, and I am just trying to get a new roof before it starts leaking and makes my home unfit to live in.I just want. provide a secure home for my daughter & myself.

I am asking for Help with the new roof, I have been trying to catch up with everything, but I could not cover everything at once.Our homeowners insurance has been cancelled and home is ready to be classified as unsafe., and I need to find a way to prevent this from happening.

If you can assist me with this one bill, I will be able to get back on track again, and more importantly, not have my roof leak during summer months. This would take a lot of worry from me and allow me to be get back to my life. I would be so grateful for your help!





To help please go to the link below

https://www.youcaring.com/conley-scott-566360

Veteran Needs Your Help For: Vanessa Silva Denver, CO Organizer: Vanessa Silva

0 SHARES

THE STORY

My name is Vanessa. I am 26yrs old and a disabled veteran. I recently relocated to Denver, CO after a very abusive relationship and unfortunately I have hit a financial brick wall. I thought moving to get away from my abusive partner would be better in terms of getting myself on my feet, and even though I no longer have the burden of someone constantly beating me down, I still have financial obligations that I currently cannot meet. I am on the verge of being homeless and need all the help I can get. I have asked around for help, but most of the organizations in the area don't have funds, so I have been put on a waiting list. have asked the VA for help, but there isn't much they can offer. This is my last resort and I am hopeful to get some results and help from the wider community. Any help is welcome. Thank you!


To help please go to the link below

https://www.youcaring.com/vanessa-silva-571510

Help Support Justice for Deployment For: Justice O'Neal San Diego, CA Organizer: Justice O'Neal

DESCRIPTION

Hello my name is Justice and I'm an Aviation Handler in United States Navy. I am raising money to financially clear my debt so I may be a stress free sailor before I go on deployment. I would love  to see how much help I can receive by any monetary donations; I proudly honor and serve my country to the best of my abilities.

Please support my fundraising and let Justice be served! God Bless






To help please go to the link below

https://www.youcaring.com/justice-o-neal-568839

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Coroner: Autopsy contradicts foster parent’s account of baby’s death

Six-week-old Macey Wilson died last month in a Sacramento foster-care home. Relatives are seeking answers. Submitted by Tracey Rhodd

The results of an autopsy of 1-month-old Macey Wilson contradict her foster parents’ account of the baby’s death in May, the Sacramento County Coroner said.

Before the autopsy was completed, the girl’s foster parents said she was found unresponsive in a toddler car seat at the foster home in the 5200 block of Crystal Hill Way in the Valley Hi area of Sacramento, Coroner Kimberly Gin said.

The baby’s lividity pattern, where her blood settled after death, was on the front of her body, the autopsy found. That pattern indicates she died lying down, Gin said.

“A person that dies while sitting, especially in something like a car seat, shouldn’t have much or any anterior (frontal) lividity,” Gin said.

The inconsistency between what coroners found and what the foster parents said led Gin to ask the Sacramento Police Department to investigate the case, she said.

Sgt. Bryce Heinlein, a department spokesman, said the major crimes unit is investigating the case. He said he could not provide any further details because the case is pending.

Sacramento County Child Protective Services, which placed Macey in foster care, removed foster children from the home “as soon as we learned about Macey’s death, again out of an abundance of caution,” said agency spokeswoman Samantha Mott.

Because the foster home is managed by a third-party agency, the investigation was done by the state’s Community Care Licensing office, not CPS, Mott said. The state would not provide details about its investigation to CPS, she said.

Michael Weston, a spokesman at the state Department of Social Services, said confidentiality laws prevent the agency from commenting about its investigation.

The Coroner’s Office has ruled Macey’s cause of death as inconclusive, saying there were no obvious physical signs to explain it.

The report suggests that the foster parents moved Macey from where she died into the toddler seat, said Tracy Rhodd, the baby’s paternal grandmother.

“Why did they move her?” she said. “They lied about where they found her.”

She said the Coroner’s Office told her that the foster parents had not checked on Macey for 12 hours when they found her dead. She said that’s too long to leave a baby unobserved, and might explain why Macey died.

Sacramento police have said Macey was already dead when they arrived at the foster home.

CPS records provided by Rhodd earlier this year show she was given custody of Macey four days after the girl’s March 21 birth. The records cite problems with Macey’s parents, including the mother’s mental health and homelessness, as reasons for giving the grandmother custody.

CPS completed a safety plan for Macey that said she would be released from the hospital into the custody of Rhodd “until parents are able to address the concerns of the department.”

After Macey had stayed with Rhodd for about a week, a CPS social worker said the child was being placed in foster care while CPS investigated Rhodd’s background, Rhodd said.

While CPS will not comment on that decision because of confidentiality laws, Rhodd believes the agency was concerned about a 2001 Sonoma County case in which Rhodd pleaded no contest to a charge of violating a restraining order.

She disputes the charge but said she didn’t fight it to avoid complicating her divorce proceedings.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article112421367.html

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Dr Ian Hyslop: New child protection laws a regressive move

Dr Ian Hyslop is a lecturer in counselling, human services and social work at the University of Auckland

The Government's proposed reforms to our child protection laws are regressive, myopic and likely to have unfortunate outcomes for children who have been ill-treated in stressed families.

They have been narrowly conceived and signal a return to rescue-based fostercare. This, in my opinion, is a huge step backwards for child protection in New Zealand, particularly for Maori.

Cabinet papers released by Social Development Minister Anne Tolley set out these law changes to support a new "operating model" for statutory social work services within the new Ministry of Vulnerable Children.

But these reforms have involved minimal real consultation with the sector. They are the result of an expert panel review which began in April 2015. I was involved in a practice reference group which provided advice to this panel, nominally.

The outcome, I believe, was largely predetermined.

I worked in state social work for 20 years and witnessed the genesis of the ground-breaking Children, Young Persons and their Families' Act, 1989. This legislation addressed institutional racism (identified in the Puao Te Ata Tu Ministerial Advisory Committee Report of 1988) by making an understanding of Maori values and social structures central to working with Maori children.

The 1989 Act responded to the cultural alienation of Maori children in the care of the state by bringing Maori concepts of whakapapa and whanaungatanga into mainstream statutory social work legislation.

It required that placement of children outside of immediate family be with a member of their whanau, hapu, iwi, or at the very least with someone from the same cultural background. This vision has never been adequately supported or resourced and now, under these proposed reforms, it is abandoned.

http://nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11727000

Sunday, October 16, 2016

State leaders order Child Protective Services overhaul

Fort Worth Star-Telegram2016-10-12 18:25

Gov. Greg Abbott and other state leaders ordered the Department of Family and Protective Services Wednesday to ramp up efforts to protect endangered foster children and curb the backlog of ones waiting for homes.

Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus released a joint letter to department Commissioner Hank Whitman directing him to immediately develop a plan to hire and train more special investigators to take up the backlog of at-risk kids who have not had a face-to-face interaction with Child Protective Services. The lawmakers are also calling on the agency to create a hiring and training schedule to get more caseworkers out into the field and to continue working closely with community organizations. The lawmakers also called recent news of children sleeping in hotels and CPS offices “unacceptable."

The letter comes just eight days after DFPS publicly released numbers showing nearly a thousand at-risk children under CPS care were not checked on once over the course of six months. That report also found that caseworkers did not see 1,800 children within 24-hours of hearing reports of alleged abuse or mistreatment.

“The state’s residential providers must be held to the highest standards while caring for our most vulnerable or no longer operate in our system.” The state leaders wrote in a letter

“We also will not tolerate inferior residential foster care operations,” the state leaders wrote in the letter. “The state’s residential providers must be held to the highest standards while caring for our most vulnerable or no longer operate in our system.”

While Abbott and other state leaders are calling on the agency to move forward on a plan regardless of budget concerns, it's unclear how soon the department will step up its efforts with a looming $40 million budget shortfall and already overworked caseworkers.

State leaders also directed Whitman to “reinforce the culture of accountability” by making sure staffers “rise to the challenge” ahead. The lawmakers gave a nod to the department's financial constraints but stressed "we have a responsibility to find and protect these vulnerable Texans as soon as possible."

Whitman said in an emailed statement that he appreciates lawmakers' "acknowledgement of the many difficult issues we face" but added that "protecting children is our highest priority."

"We have to do better," Whitman said. "All of our energies are focused on making this right and putting the safety and welfare of children first, no matter what."

Hours after the letter was released, Patrick called on the Senate Finance Committee Chair Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, to receive the department's plans. Nelson quickly scheduled an Oct. 26 hearing of her committee to take up the issue.

"We need to better understand what investments are working and what improvements are needed," Nelson said in a statement. "We need an action plan that will keep children safe."

"We need to better understand what investments are working and what improvements are needed. We need an action plan that will keep children safe." Senate Finance Committee Chair Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound

State Rep. Four Price, R-Amarillo, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee for health and human services, said lawmakers will be watching for the agency to make improvements related to caseworker working conditions and retention alongside easing case load burdens. He said "it's premature to speculate" but providing the department with supplemental funding during next year's legislative session is "not out of the realm of possibility."

"I fully believe that the House and the Senate will prioritize the protection of children this upcoming session and if additional funds are absolutely necessary that will be considered by both groups," Price said. "I don't believe for a second either chamber will jeopardize the safety of children at the expense of the budget."

State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, thinks the situation at CPS is too dire to wait until next session. He wrote a letter to Abbott on October 5 asking the governor call a special session as "the scope of the problem has eclipsed the agency's ability to adequately remedy the situation without legislative assistance."

Kate Murphy, senior policy associate for child protection for Texans Care for Children, said in an emailed statement that "caseworker turnover and kids bouncing from one placement to another are challenges the state can overcome." She said while it was good to see state leaders alarmed about the department's challenges, it's also important to look at increasing caseworker pay and foster children access to health services.

"We're glad to see a bipartisan consensus that CPS needs additional funding starting in September of next year," Murphy said. "The Commissioner and state leaders should evaluate whether CPS needs more funding in the next 11 months to boost salaries and hire more caseworkers to start addressing the crisis right away."

Some advocates say workforce education is also going to be critical to fixing the department's problems.

Miriam Nisenbaum, executive director for the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said CPS needs a strong workforce with a variety of backgrounds in areas like behavioral health and social work. Yet a recent decision to scale back the agency's caseworker education requirements has undermined that goal.

The letter from state leaders released Wednesday ordered the department to hire more investigators with law enforcement backgrounds.

“I’m not sure a law enforcement background will give you the too

ls you need to work with the families a lot of the CPS workers end up dealing with,” Nisenbaum said.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/article107876942.html

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Landlord Lien Rights in Arizona

.
Subject: Fwd:
Landlord Lien Rights on Tenant’s Personal Property


Landlord Lien Rights on Tenant’s Personal Property

There are three primary forms of security used for tenant’s payment of rent: a security deposit (in the form of cash or a letter of credit), a personal or corporate guaranty, and landlord lien rights on the tenant’s personal property located within the leased premises.  Most tenants incorrectly negotiate the landlord lien rights provisions in commercial leases.

Standard landlord form leases typically include some or all the following concepts: (1) representations and warranties from the tenant that it owns its personal property free and clear of all liens, (2) the tenant’s personal property is subject to a first position landlord lien that secures the tenant’s lease obligations, (3) the landlord shall have the right to deem any personal property left in the leased premises following termination of the lease as abandoned, (4) the landlord may retain possession of all abandoned personal property and dispose of such property at tenant’s expense, store such property at tenant’s expense, or retain such property without payment to tenant, and (5) the tenant may not remove certain personal property from the leased premises during the term of the lease without the consent of landlord.

If the parties negotiate that the tenant’s personal property will not be used as security, the most common mistake is that the tenant simply requests the deletion of the related provisions.  However, this only makes the lease silent regarding landlord lien rights and the use of personal property as security.  Under A.R.S. 33-362, the landlord has statutory lien rights.  So, if the lease is silent, the landlord still has the rights available under Arizona law.

If it is the intent of the parties that the security not include tenant’s personal property, the lease must include a waiver of the statutory lien rights.  Following is an  example provision: “Landlord waives any and all lien rights with respect to Tenant’s personal property, including statutory landlord lien rights under A.R.S. Section 33-362.”

If the landlord will not give a blanket waiver of its lien rights, the tenant may elect to negotiate that the landlord’s lien will not apply to certain property (for example, computers with confidential or business information).  Most often, the only items valuable to the landlord are items that can be used for future tenants or resold, such as office furniture, appliances and phone systems.

Alternatively, the tenant’s personal property may be subject to an equipment or other lease, or tenant may have obtained financing to purchase the personal property.  In those cases, the terms of the financing agreements or personal property leases may require the landlord to subordinate its landlord lien.  Following is a sample subordination provision: “Landlord agrees to subordinate its landlord lien rights with respect to personal property that is subject to financing and/ or a lease.”

Finally, a landlord willing to grant a waiver of its landlord lien rights should consider how the waiver will impact the treatment of abandoned personal property at the end of the lease.  At worst, the landlord could have asserted its statutory lien and disposed of the property according to the statutory process.  With a waiver, it is uncertain how long the landlord must store the property at tenant’s expense, with a slim chance of recovering the storage costs.  A landlord should consider a lien rights waiver period of ten (10) days following termination of the lease to allow the tenant to remove its personal property from the leased premises.  After the expiration of the waiver period, the statutory lien rights would be reinstated.

Prior to using any language or concepts from this blog entry, consult with an attorney.

Ryan Rosensteel is a real estate and construction attorney licensed in Arizona.  You can contact him at ryan.rosensteel@azbar.org.


https://azleaselaw.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/landlord-lien-rights-on-tenants-personal-property/

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

What Are Squatters Rights in Arizona

Squatter's rights in Arizona are some of the most comprehensive that exist in the United States right now. They are invoked whenever squatters inhabit land or a structure that has been left unused. When enough time goes by, squatters are then allowed to claim that land or structure as their own, against the interests of those who hold the title to the property.

In Arizona, Squatters Can Take Adverse Possession Of An Abandoned Property In As Little As Two Years.

There is a color of title statute that is included with Arizona's adverse possession laws. This means they must have some reason to believe that they have a right to possess the property in some way. There must also be a claim that shows that the squatters have as much or a better claim to sovereignty over the property that is up in question. This means there is a notoriety stipulation within Arizona's adverse possession laws. The community at large must know that the squatter's are living in the residence and be able to assume that they have a legal right to be there. It must also have a hostile intent to it as well. This means that squatters cannot have a property owner's permission to be using the property. This means in general terms that the easiest way to stop an adverse possession claim is to simply give permission for the squatters to be there. Every situation, however, is unique and there are several factors that must be passed on both sides for a claim to become resolved.

Squatters.

Land owners have up to 3 years after they receive a cause of action to challenge the adverse possession claim. This limitation includes the ability to take any peaceable actions to recover real property using the color of title that exists. This means that the land owner believes that their right to claim the property is greater than that of the squatter's claims that have been made. If the property is a city lot, then there is a 5 year deadline for action to be taken instead. The total amount of time may equal 7-10 years for the full adverse possession claim to be resolved.

Certain Improvements May Be Recoverable Costs To Squatters, Including Property Taxes That Were Paid.

Squatters can enhance their claim to sovereignty by paying the property taxes and making cultivation improvements to the land in question. They must also openly occupy the land in order for them to be able to file for an adverse possession claim. What makes Arizona law interesting is that squatting is based on consecutive time spent and can involve multiple parties. Once the adverse possession deadline has passed, the squatter in possession at that time can file a claim no matter how many other squatters occupied the land before they did.

Arizona Law Does Have a Size Requirement In Place.

Squatter's rights in Arizona are limited in the size of the claim. Adverse possession prevents the possession of more than 160 acres of land in all circumstances. Even if squatters have been openly cultivating the land, have lived on it consecutively, or used the land for other reasons, only 160 acres can be filed for at most. Because squatter's cannot openly occupy two different land parcels simultaneously, this limits the ability to claim large portions of land. Squatters could win an adverse possession title on 160 acres that they have cultivated, get the title into their possession, and then adversely occupy an adjoining parcel of land to start the process of squatter's rights over from the very beginning.

Have Quiet Title Rights That They May Present Before The Court.

Property owners who are concerned about adverse possession laws may be able to file what is known as a “quiet title lawsuit” in the state of Arizona. This can be done when there are other parties that may feel they have a legitimate ownership claim to specific property. This lawsuit asks the court to confirm that they are the owners of a specific title over a portion of land. The difference in squatter's rights in Arizona is that the process of claiming adverse possession can begin quite rapidly. The amount of time it takes to resolve a claim may take up to 10 years, putting Arizona in line with most other states in how squatter's rights are treated. Take action when necessary and most adverse possession claims can be nullified before they can become valid.

RELATED

Most Important Landlord Tenant Laws in Texas

When it comes to having a tenant for the first time, it can be pretty daunting because you are going to be the corresponding landlord and a new relationship will emerge, which will need time to grow... More 

The Landlord Tenant Board: What it is and When it is Needed

Many times, there are issues between a landlord and a tenant that need to be resolved but are failed to do so, because both parties have gone too far with their actions, and have retaliated in the... More 

The Landlord Tenant Laws in California

The landlord and tenant laws in California are literally the same as they are in any other state. These laws, rules and regulations are put into practice because they uphold an order, a discipline,... More 

How to Write an Eviction Notice

When it comes to a landlord wanting to evict their tenant, there are specific steps that need to be followed before the process of eviction can start. It is not anymore that the landlord can simply... More 

Understanding the Landlord Tenant Laws in Illinois

People are aware that there are different rulings in each state with reference to the landlord/tenant laws. The state of Illinois also has a set of laws. These rules and regulations are basically... More 

How to Create a Residential Lease Agreement

Where there is a landlord, there will also be a tenant, and it is no surprise that these two parties can only work together once there is some sort of agreement, contract or a binding deal in place.... More 

The Best Sites for Rental and Lease Agreement Templates

Many landlords find it difficult to write and draft a lease agreement. Since every State has its own general template, it can also be difficult to make sure your lease agreement meets all the criteria... More 

The Landlord Tenant Act: What Landlords Need to Know

All landlords know that before they can formally become a landlord there are a lot of things they need to understand. Landlords and tenants cannot act as such without any legal bodies involved. That...More 

What is the Eviction Process for a Landlord

When it comes to evicting a rowdy tenant from your apartment, it can be a little overwhelming, because you know that there is legal recourse and you cannot just boot out your tenant. There is a... More 

5 Landlord Forms that Every Landlord Should Have

When it comes to being a landlord, one should know that it is not for the unprepared individual. This should be clear that being a landlord does not simply mean that you will be taking the rent and... More 

MOST POPULAR



5 Steps To Successfully Owning Your First Rental Property

Investment Property Checklist: What to Look for Before Buying

What Should You Have Put Together Before Applying for a Loan for Your Rental?

Your Guide to Landlord Insurance

Guide to Screening Tenants

FEATURED



Top 7 New Technology Solutions for Realtors

How to Make Money as a Realtor

4 Management Tools You Might Need To Update

Where to Start: The First Steps You Should Take as a New Landlord

Curated Property Management Tips and Advice Straight To Your Inbox.

Tenant Screening

Comprehensive credit & criminal screening.
Get access to bankruptcies, employment history, medical records, past addresses, evictions and more.

View Pricing & Get Started 

Legal Forms

State-specific legal forms.
Lease agreements, rental applications, lease termination, eviction forms and much more.

Browse Our Legal Forms 

Membership Pricing

Our paid membership plans now include free tenant screenings! Greater access to all of our features and the membership pays for itself!

View Pricing & Get Started 

Financing for Rental Property Investors

Want to Buy another property for your portfolio?

Let us show you how

Services

About

Support

LANDLORD BLOG

© Copyright 2016 LandlordStation LLC

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

The state’s highest court just made a major ruling on parental rights

In a groundbreaking equal rights decision Tuesday, the state’s highest court extended parental rights to people in same-sex relationships who never married, and have no biological connection to a child, but can show that they acted as a parent and welcomed the child into a shared home.

The Supreme Judicial Court decision was in the case of a Burlington woman who sought parental rights of two children that were born to her former partner by artificial insemination. She had been there when the children were born – she participated in the insemination procedure for the youngest – and shared parental responsibilities with her former partner until their relationship ended, after 12 years. The children called her mommy.

In a unanimous decision, the court found that state law granting parental rights to fathers of children born out of wedlock should extend to same-sex parents, under gender neutral standards. The court found that a biological connection should not be the only claim to parentage, that a parent

“Nothing in the language of [the state law] expressly limits its applicability to parentage claims based on asserted biological ties,” Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court in the 22-page decision. She added, “The plain language of the provisions, then, may be construed to apply to children born to same-sex couples, even though at least one member of the couple may well lack biological ties to the children.”

sdafA woman can seek parental rights to the child her former same-sex partner conceived through artificial insemination, even though the two women had never married, the state’s highest court ruled Tuesday in a groundbreaking decision.

The unanimous Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of a couple who had been in a long-term relationship. One of them had two children through artificial insemination. The other woman sought parental rights after they broke up, even though the couple had not been married.

The court concluded that a state law that gives an unmarried biological father the right to prove he is the “presumed parent” after a couple breaks up must now be viewed in gender-neutral terms.

“The plain language of the provisions, then, may be construed to apply to children born to same-sex couples, even though at least one member of the couple may well lack biological ties to the children,’’ Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court. “Nothing in the language of [the state law] expressly limits its applicability to parentage claims based on asserted biological ties.’’

Karen Partanen, of Burlington, who had sought the declaration that she is a parent, welcomed the decision.

“My children have two parents...and they should have the right to both of us,” she said in a press briefing Tuesday.

Mary Bonauto of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which assisted Parenten in the case, said the court appropriately looked at state law with a gender neutral view.

“Her children are going to know she is their parent, she is not there by the grace of someone else, she’s not someone who visits in a while,” Bonauto said. “The real beneficiaries here are the children.”

The children are now 4 and 8 years old.

The decision also addressed a gap in state laws that determine parental rights where artificial insemination is used. Current laws treat a child born through artificial insemination to a married couple as automatically the child of both parents.

The law also give same-sex couples the right to adopt a child born through artificial insemination or to legally acknowledge parentage.

But no law directly addressed the issue of whether a person formerly in a same-sex relationship who had not been married had legal standing to claim parentage to their partner’s child, the court said.

“Had Jo and Ja [the couple’s children] been born to a married couple using artificial reproductive technology, they would have had two legal parents to provide them with ‘financial and emotional support,’ ’’ Lenk wrote. “We decline to ‘read into the statute a provision’...that leaves children born to unmarried couples, using the same technology, with only one such parent.’’

The court said in a footnote that its ruling can also apply to two men who use a surrogate to bear the child who is fathered by one of the men. “Properly read as gender-neutral...these provisions may apply not only to a child born to two women, but also to a child born to two men through a surrogacy arrangement,’’ Lenk wrote.

The case involved Partanen and Julie Gallagher who were a couple for 13 years, during which Gallagher gave birth to two children conceived through artificial insemination. After the unmarried couple broke up, Partanen sought to be declared a parent, a role Gallagher argued in court papers should be hers alone.

The SJC ruled that Partanen can return to Probate and Family Court and convince a judge that she is a “presumed parent’’ by demonstrating that “the children were born to her and to Gallagher, were received jointly into their home, and were openly held out as the couple’s children’’ even though Partanen had no biological relationship to the children.

Lenk was appointed to the SJC by former Governor Deval Patrick. She was the first openly gay member of the state’s highest court. She wed her partner following the SJC’s landmark 2003 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the Globe has reported. They have two daughters.

Milton J. Valencia can be reached at milton.valencia@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @miltonvalencia. John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/04/mass-high-court-grants-parental-rights-mother-former-same-sex-partner/rrSnSEv5KTp9PyzIvUjJVN/story.html

Mom’s Drug Use During Pregnancy is Not a Crime Against Her Unborn Baby, Court Rules




n a case with implications on the abortion debate, a Michigan court ruled that a pregnant woman who used drugs just days before giving birth to her son did not abuse her child.

The Associated Press reports a Michigan appeals court threw out a conviction against mother Melissa Lee Jones on Thursday, ruling that the state child abuse law does not apply to babies in the womb.

Jones told a court that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, the last time being five days before giving birth to her son, the Courthouse News Service reports. Jones’s son weighed less than 4 pounds when he was born full-term in Sturgis, St. Joseph County, Michigan in 2015; and he tested positive for the drug, according to the report.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals said the state law against child abuse only applies to children who are born. According to the AP:

The appeals court wrote in its decision: “Defendant argues that the first-degree child abuse statute was improperly applied to her because a fetus is not included within the statutory definition of ‘child,’ and she therefore could not have caused harm to a ‘child’ as required by the statute simply by using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. We agree.”

The judges continued, “Because a fetus is not a ‘child’ for purposes of the first-degree child abuse statute, defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree child abuse based solely on the fact that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, and the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Jones reportedly abandoned her son at the hospital after he tested positive for the drug and hospital staff called child protective services; however, that incident was not part of the case against her, according to the report.

The implications of the case are interesting. State and federal laws conflict in regard to rights and protections for babies in the womb, especially in cases of abuse and violence.

Legally, unborn babies up to 20 weeks of pregnancy or later are not protected from the violence of abortion in all 50 states because of Roe v. Wade.

However, many states do protect unborn babies in other circumstances. Currently, 37 states have laws that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee. A federal law also protects babies in the womb who are victims of federal and military crimes. All of these laws include exceptions for abortion.

In regard to drug abuse during pregnancy, the Courthouse News Service reports: “Tennessee is the only state with a law specifically criminalizing the use of drugs while pregnant. State high courts in Alabama and South Carolina have interpreted existing child-abuse laws to allow prosecution of drug-using pregnant mothers.”

Abortion activists fight against laws recognizing unborn babies as victims of violence and abuse because such laws affirm that unborn babies are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected. Abortion activists recently succeeded in defeating a Colorado bill that would have protected unborn babies in certain circumstances after the state witnessed a horrific case when a 7-months pregnant woman was attacked and her unborn baby girl was cut out of her womb. As a result, authorities could not charge the attacker with the baby’s death. At seven months of pregnancy, the baby girl was viable outside the womb and may have survived if she had received medical care.



View the original article

In a case with implications on the abortion debate, a Michigan court ruled that a pregnant woman who used drugs just days before giving birth to her son did not abuse her child.

The Associated Press reports a Michigan appeals court threw out a conviction against mother Melissa Lee Jones on Thursday, ruling that the state child abuse law does not apply to babies in the womb.

Jones told a court that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, the last time being five days before giving birth to her son, the Courthouse News Service reports. Jones’s son weighed less than 4 pounds when he was born full-term in Sturgis, St. Joseph County, Michigan in 2015; and he tested positive for the drug, according to the report.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals said the state law against child abuse only applies to children who are born. According to the AP:

The appeals court wrote in its decision: “Defendant argues that the first-degree child abuse statute was improperly applied to her because a fetus is not included within the statutory definition of ‘child,’ and she therefore could not have caused harm to a ‘child’ as required by the statute simply by using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. We agree.”

The judges continued, “Because a fetus is not a ‘child’ for purposes of the first-degree child abuse statute, defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree child abuse based solely on the fact that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, and the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Jones reportedly abandoned her son at the hospital after he tested positive for the drug and hospital staff called child protective services; however, that incident was not part of the case against her, according to the report.

The implications of the case are interesting. State and federal laws conflict in regard to rights and protections for babies in the womb, especially in cases of abuse and violence.

Legally, unborn babies up to 20 weeks of pregnancy or later are not protected from the violence of abortion in all 50 states because of Roe v. Wade.

However, many states do protect unborn babies in other circumstances. Currently, 37 states have laws that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee. A federal law also protects babies in the womb who are victims of federal and military crimes. All of these laws include exceptions for abortion.

In regard to drug abuse during pregnancy, the Courthouse News Service reports: “Tennessee is the only state with a law specifically criminalizing the use of drugs while pregnant. State high courts in Alabama and South Carolina have interpreted existing child-abuse laws to allow prosecution of drug-using pregnant mothers.”

Abortion activists fight against laws recognizing unborn babies as victims of violence and abuse because such laws affirm that unborn babies are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected. Abortion activists recently succeeded in defeating a Colorado bill that would have protected unborn babies in certain circumstances after the state witnessed a horrific case when a 7-months pregnant woman was attacked and her unborn baby girl was cut out of her womb. As a result, authorities could not charge the attacker with the baby’s death. At seven months of pregnancy, the baby girl was viable outside the womb and may have survived if she had received medical care.



View the original article
In a case with implications on the abortion debate, a Michigan court ruled that a pregnant woman who used drugs just days before giving birth to her son did not abuse her child.

The Associated Press reports a Michigan appeals court threw out a conviction against mother Melissa Lee Jones on Thursday, ruling that the state child abuse law does not apply to babies in the womb.

Jones told a court that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, the last time being five days before giving birth to her son, the Courthouse News Service reports. Jones’s son weighed less than 4 pounds when he was born full-term in Sturgis, St. Joseph County, Michigan in 2015; and he tested positive for the drug, according to the report.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals said the state law against child abuse only applies to children who are born. According to the AP:

The appeals court wrote in its decision: “Defendant argues that the first-degree child abuse statute was improperly applied to her because a fetus is not included within the statutory definition of ‘child,’ and she therefore could not have caused harm to a ‘child’ as required by the statute simply by using methamphetamine during her pregnancy. We agree.”

The judges continued, “Because a fetus is not a ‘child’ for purposes of the first-degree child abuse statute, defendant cannot be guilty of first-degree child abuse based solely on the fact that she used methamphetamine while she was pregnant, and the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Jones reportedly abandoned her son at the hospital after he tested positive for the drug and hospital staff called child protective services; however, that incident was not part of the case against her, according to the report.

The implications of the case are interesting. State and federal laws conflict in regard to rights and protections for babies in the womb, especially in cases of abuse and violence.

Legally, unborn babies up to 20 weeks of pregnancy or later are not protected from the violence of abortion in all 50 states because of Roe v. Wade.

However, many states do protect unborn babies in other circumstances. Currently, 37 states have laws that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee. A federal law also protects babies in the womb who are victims of federal and military crimes. All of these laws include exceptions for abortion.

In regard to drug abuse during pregnancy, the Courthouse News Service reports: “Tennessee is the only state with a law specifically criminalizing the use of drugs while pregnant. State high courts in Alabama and South Carolina have interpreted existing child-abuse laws to allow prosecution of drug-using pregnant mothers.”

Abortion activists fight against laws recognizing unborn babies as victims of violence and abuse because such laws affirm that unborn babies are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected. Abortion activists recently succeeded in defeating a Colorado bill that would have protected unborn babies in certain circumstances after the state witnessed a horrific case when a 7-months pregnant woman was attacked and her unborn baby girl was cut out of her womb. As a result, authorities could not charge the attacker with the baby’s death. At seven months of pregnancy, the baby girl was viable outside the womb and may have survived if she had received medical care.



View the original article


http://www.lifenews.com/2016/10/03/moms-drug-use-during-pregnancy-is-not-a-crime-against-her-unborn-baby-court-rules/

Monday, October 3, 2016

Involuntary Commitment for Addiction

Involuntary Commitment for Addiction

Helplessness and Addiction

Watching a loved one self destruct is one of the hardest things that any human has to face. This is what happens when one individual falls into the hell of addiction – they will usually take their family with them. Those people around the addict may feel completely powerless to resolve the situation. The addict denies they have a problem and refuse to consider any suggestions that they get help. The family then have to choice of watching this person slowly kill themselves or they can try to disengage. They may even consider the possibility of having this loved one committed to treatment against their will. This drastic step will appear appealing when there appears to be no other option to save the addict.

Involuntary Commitment Defined

To say that an individual has been subject to involuntary commitment means that they have been court ordered into treatment for a mental health problem. Before the individual is committed they may be first put into a psychiatric institution for assessment – this can last for as long as 72 hours. Involuntary commitment is usually only used as a last resort for addicts when they appear to be putting their own life in imminent danger or they are a risk to other people.

Autonomy and Involuntary Commitment

Autonomy is an ethical principle that most humans feel strongly about – particularly in western countries. It can be defined as a state of being self governed. In practice it means that the individual is given the right to manage their own affairs according to their own motives and affairs. Autonomy is particularly important in regards to any type of medical procedure. It is now expected that the individual needs to give their informed consent before commencing any type of medical treatment. Even taking a person’s blood pressure measurement could be considered assault if the person has not given their permission – in practice consent is often implied.

The importance of the individual’s autonomy runs counter to the idea of involuntary commitment. In previous centuries there was far less concern about the individual’s personal autonomy and anyone could be committed to an asylum on the say so o their family or a medical professional. In modern times interfering with a person’s autonomy is a step that is not taken lightly. This is why taking away a person’s autonomy only occurs if it is felt that the individual is incapable of making rational decisions, and they are a real danger to themselves or other people. The goal of involuntary commitment is to protect the individual and society. As soon as they are well enough to make rational choices their personal autonomy will be restored.

Involuntary Commitment for Addiction

It was once quite common for those trapped in addiction to be committed involuntarily for treatment. Relatives could alert the family physician about what was happening, and this professional would arrange for the commitment to hospital. This happens far less these days because of a number of factors. Since the 1960s there has been a growing concern for civil liberties. It became obvious that people were being committed to psychiatric units far too easily – sometimes just on the say so of a relative. The fear of infringing on civil liberties means that that the professionals these days are far less willing to get involved with this type of action. A legal case involving Addington v. Texas led to changes in the interpretation of the law. The burden of proof now needs to be far higher before it is reasonable to interfere with the individual’s autonomy. Another reason for why enforced addiction treatment is rare is a lack of funding. There are just not enough financial resources available to manage all the requests for involuntary commitment.

Reasons for Committing an Individual for Addiction Treatment

There are a number of reasons for why involuntary commitment might seem like a good idea:

* Family members have tried every other option, and they feel powerless to help their loved one who is in decline. They may seek involuntary commitment because they feel there is no other option.
* The extent of the substance abuse means that the individual is putting their own life in danger.
* The addict is a danger to themselves or other people when they are intoxicated. Some people can get completely out of control when they are under the influence.
* The substance abuse is exacerbating another mental health problem, and this is putting that person (or those around them) in danger.

US Laws for Involuntary Commitment

The laws for involuntary commitment vary between states in the US. In 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization or treatment violates the individual’s civil liberties. This violation can only be justified in extreme conditions – usually because a person has become a danger to themselves or other people. It is considered unconstitutional to keep a person in hospital against their will if they are not an imminent threat to themselves or others. Different states will interrupt laws concerning involuntary commitment differently, but the individual will usually continue to have certain rights even after they have been hospitalized against their will. For example, in Florida the person who has been committed will have the right to contact people outside and to have their case reviewed every six months.

Alternatives to Involuntary Commitment

It can be terribly frustrating to watch a loved one slowly kill themselves with alcohol or drugs. It may not be possible to have that person committed, but there are still things that can be done including:

* An addiction therapist is trained to help addicts develop the motivation to quit. This professional can help the individual see beyond their denial into the reality of their situation.
* The substance abuser is likely to have times when they are more open to the idea of addiction help. This can be at times after they have behaved particularly badly or when they are feeling ill because of the substance abuse.
* The most common reason for why people are able to walk away from addiction is that they have hit rock bottom. It is not necessary for the individual to lose everything before they reach this point.
* It is common for relatives to try to protect the individual from the worst consequences of their behavior. This might not be such a good idea because it may be enabling the addict and preventing them from hitting rock bottom.
* The addict may resist any direct suggestions that they get help for their addiction. It can be a better idea to leave recovery literature lying around the home.
* Groups such as Al-anon and Alateen can help family members cope with the behavior of the addict. They will also be able to get advice and support in dealing with the situation.

http://alcoholrehab.com/addiction-articles/involuntary-commitment-for-addiction/

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Five Years Since Family Lost Contact With Missing Teen


Copyright 2016 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - It's not the kind of anniversary any family wants to celebrate.

"It's just another day that we don't know anything," said mom Monica Button, "every day I wake up and I think about my son."

Her son Nieko Lisi was 18 when he went on a road trip from their home in New York to Franklin, Tennessee, where he went to 11th grade.

Police say his cell phone last pinged off a tower near Flintlock Drive and he hasn't been seen since. Friday it had been five years to the day since his family lost contact.

"I wonder where he is," Button said from New York over FaceTime, "whether he's okay, if he's not. If it's raining, is he cold, is he wet, is he eating and then I jump to the other conclusion that what if he's gone?"

His mom has been in agony, comforted only by the fact that New York State police renewed their search efforts this summer. Investigators traveled to Franklin and partnered with local police.

Their time in Middle Tennessee brought a major breakthrough. Just a day after they held a press asking the public for help, tips led to the truck Nieko was driving five years ago. It was stripped down and locked in someone's garage.

The truck and other items are in a lab getting tested for DNA evidence. And now all eyes are on the neighborhood he was last seen.

"I do believe that those people know something on that street," Button said.

Desperate for answers, she's preparing herself for the worst.

"I have friends who have lost their child and I've always said 'I want to be there, I don't want to be in their shoes,' but the agony of not knowing may be worse than that," Button said.

She's just hoping that a year from now, there won't be another
anniversary like this one.




http://www.newschannel5.com/news/five-years-since-family-lost-contact-with-missing-teen

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Diaper change as molestation? Experts doubt Arizona charges

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS | September 23, 2016 @1:56 am

[image_1
FILE - In this May 19, 2016 file photo, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery speaks during a news conference in Phoenix. Statements from the Arizona Supreme Court in equating diaper-changing to child molestation have left parents nervous that one day they will need an attorney more than a nanny. In Sept. 2016, Montgomery said prosecutors can distinguish between a possible molestation case and an adult providing care. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)


PHOENIX (AP) — Statements from the Arizona Supreme Court equating diaper-changing to child molestation and the provocative social media headlines that followed have left parents nervous that one day they will need an attorney more than a nanny.

A recent court opinion on a Tucson man’s appeal of child molestation and child sex abuse convictions criticized the law as too vague. Two dissenting justices wrote that the criminal statute says any kind of deliberate sexual contact is considered child molestation and does not require proof of sexual intent.

That means parents literally commit a felony every time they bathe a toddler or change a diaper, the dissenting justices said.

Law experts, however, say it’s doubtful any prosecutor would go after a parent, baby-sitter or doctor for a standard child-caring task. But that hasn’t stopped anxiety-breeding headlines that bath time could lead to jail time.

Here are key things to know about Arizona’s child molestation law and the reaction to it:

_

PARENTS CRITICIZE LAW

For many parents, the law as written would criminalize the assistance they count on from baby-sitters and day care providers.

Arizona criminal statute defines child molestation, a felony, as an act by an individual who “intentionally or knowingly” engages in or causes someone to engage in any sexual contact with a child under 15. It does not mention whether the contact is sexually motivated.

Tabitha Schmaltz, an accountant and mother of four from the Phoenix suburb of Gilbert, sends her youngest child to day care and considers the staff an extension of herself. They are expected to be the parent, feeding and diapering her 1-year-old son.

“If I have to choose between my sitter abiding by the legislation and neglecting my child out of fear, or ignoring legislation and caring for my child in a way I know he’s not being neglected, I would happily let my sitter violate this legislation,” Schmaltz said Thursday.

Nikole Fletcher, a Phoenix mother pregnant with her second child, said that when she first put her 4½-year-old son in day care, she chose a facility that would assist with things like potty training.

“This law, the way that it’s worded, is calling those day-to-day situations that you kind of chuckle about as a parent, they’re calling them into a very serious light,” Fletcher said.

_

PROSECUTION FOR CAREGIVING?

The Arizona Supreme Court acknowledged that in crafting the law, the Legislature likely was not setting out to criminalize bathing or diaper-changing. But that did not stop an outcry across social media about parents or baby-sitters possibly facing arrest in an innocent situation.

That led Phoenix’s top prosecutor, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, to try to ease people’s concerns in a statement earlier this week.

“It is incredibly insulting to believe any prosecutor reviewing a case for charging would not be able to tell the difference between an adult taking proper care of a child and the molestation of a child victim,” Montgomery said.

___

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

Paul Bender, a longtime professor at Arizona State University’s College of Law, said the law’s wording should be clearer.

“I doubt very much whether there are going to be many unjust prosecutions under that interpretation, but it could happen,” Bender said. “Because people are nervous about it, it’s a problem.”

He said the law is also problematic because it puts the burden of proving any sexual contact was innocent on the defendant.

“If you’re going to accuse someone of a bad thing — of a criminal act — you should have to prove all the things that are necessary to make it a criminal act,” Bender said.

Fletcher, the parent, said protecting children should always take precedence, but the law opens up the possibility of an erroneous judgment that could ruin someone’s livelihood.

“Who is making the decision of who gets labeled or pulled in or decided against? We all think it should be sexual predators who are actually committing sexual molestation,” Fletcher said.

http://ktar.com/story/1286457/diaper-change-as-molestation-experts-doubt-arizona-charges/