Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Le Sueur County Child Protection Workers

Court is 8/8/2013 at 11AM in the lesueur County Court House come watch your tax dollars at work. 


The mother is 27 years old, she has been diagnosed with complex post traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) which is not the same as PTSD.

 PTSD is a psychological injury from a one time event commonly diagnosed in soldiers coming back from war. 


GH has been diagnosed with developmental trauma disorder or also known as complex post traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD)

  • Survivors who have been abused repeatedly are sometimes mistaken as having a "weak character" or are unjustly blamed for the symptoms they experience as a result of victimization.

 It is found among individuals who have been exposed to prolonged traumatic circumstances, especially during childhood, such as childhood sexual abuse,neglect, physical abuse emotional violence. Let's begin with definitions of trauma in DSM-IV and DSM-5. The DSM-IV describes a traumatic event in diagnostic criterion A of PTSD. Such an event has to involve actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self and others. DSM-IV not only limits the noxious factor to an extremely stressful event objectively, but it also takes subjective but explicitly traumatic quality of the response into account. Thus, the person's response has to involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror to meet this criterion. This approach has been consistent with the notion that a noxious event becomes traumatic not only due to its objective but also due to its subjective components (Fischer & Riedesser, 1999).


The way Child protection services works or at least in the county of Le Sueur is by creating a situation of control similar to, well actually identical to using the same kind of control a domestic violent partner would use to control you. 

Unfortunately this also triggers symptoms . That would mean in order to help her a worker could not be ignorant to her condition. They would need to be able to grasp the fact that degrading her as a human being and threatening permanent separation would cause her to have a physical AND emotional reaction. The workers BOTH WORKERS essentially become her abuser  replacing her parents role of trapping and abusing with no way to escape. The mother refuses to quit fighting regardless of her abusers.  

Undermining 
threatening to takeaway or harm children 
Isolating - calling family members and giving them false information. reporting false information to a judge sending out letters to people who do believe you and blocking them. distancing relationships with your family and friends.
Not allowing you to work 
devalue you as a person

The only way a childhood trauma survivor can succeed is with less stress. I do know from these notes by a family member this was brought to their attention. The county corrected the problem with attempts to block the person trying to get the child protection agency to cease all abusive conduct. Letters from even the assistant county attorney and signed by the head of child protection  went out in the mail restricting all communication to letter form and all county workers were ordered to hang up on the family member if she were to call. 

I recently just read some of the emails and notes about the concerns AB had. How does a responsible head of child protection join in on this with the worker? .  I will later post a document by the head of child protection in response to this mothers family members concerns and her offer to help so it is easier for mom to get through treatment for Marijuana.


I did send copies of these emails to the Minnesota State board and notes that AB has documented. Including a non responsive call to Sue Rynda  asking her for the complaint procedure policy with a follow up letter restricting the person to even be able to make phone calls to a place of business that is funded with 

our  tax dollars








GH is absolutely being blamed by Le Sueur County child protection workers for the symptoms she has that result from repeated prolonged physical and sexual abuse in captivity with no means of escape as a child. These symptoms will cost her the only thing in this world that matters. Her children are going to be adopted out by the county because the tasks that needed to be completed over lapped with her treatment program.  For example her teeth were rotting and causing her pain. Taking care of her health was on the list of things to do. She had a tooth extraction which played a roll in why she was kicked out of treatment. She had to start seeing a mental health practitioner which takes time to get in. The appointment could not be cancelled and she started treatment shortly after that. The judge refused the six month extension despite the fact she qualified for one he ordered a TPR it was those court dates that affected her attendance in treatment and the initial process of dealing with the other tasks. 

After doing some homework on Complex post traumatic stress disorder and what happens physically and mentally to someone who is afflicted with this disorder, I cant believe she has lasted this long dealing with the trauma of a forced separation from her children. This just in part of the reason she was removed from Fountain centers out patient was due to her attendance as a result of court and Dr and Dentist appointment also on her list of things to do. 

All requests for  a new worker have been denied even with the submitted supporting evidence that the worker had never started the reunification process. She had only started what she refers to in her chronology report as a pre-adoptive plan.

Unfortunately it has been recorded that at the six month time line a family member had come forward and was not considered. That being said The county is at fault for each day these children linger in foster care as of April 10, 2013 until todays date and any damages these children suffer








 letter of notice to AB because AB asked Schroer's supervisor if he was not able to replace Schroer then could she act as a go between so GH can get through treatment with out having a melt down. Every time the worker comes in to contact with her she has a panic attack. AB was unaware that Schroer was trying to cause the abuse survivor to panic because she typically self sabotaged when she triggered her.  

Gaudette writes please inform Ms. Bracken that no she will not do what she wants to do. Gaudette told every worker to not have contact with AB which is against human service policy and GH's civil rights. Human services encourages positive family support and civil rights claims any service that is offered to others and is denied to someone else is discrimination.Further more all communication should go through the mail so there is a three day delay. Sue Rynda head of child protection also signed the letter and approved the discrimination and isolation of GH.



  




with out a threat to her children when there is an option. The kids should have been moved at the six month time line when a family member became available. This did not happen. Not for safety reasons but because the foster people want to adopt the children. 


I have spoken to three lawyers who predict a sure win in federal court. This mother will get her babies back and people will lose jobs. There will be a federal suit.


Judicail investigation 

civil rights investigation 
state investigation

We made several phone calls speaking with several different county Child protection employees who have advised us to report this to state board ans assured us that as long as we go up the chain to hold people accountable and fight it out in court the kids will be coming home. They apologized that their is no way to stop the emotional torment and abuse the county is putting the children through but they said it will be a sure win once you leave the county court. 


GAL Guardian Ad Litem independent lied in court giving a reason why the kids could not come home based on information she did not have. This is a felony act and never in the best interest of the children if she has to lie under oath.  Please beware Rose Valdez works with social services and lies in court rooms not acting independently. 


Schroer violated parental right repeatedly in contempt of the law discriminated in refusing and providing unnecessary services and did nothing to help the mom who has a disability. Schroer may have helped mom when she asked for it when she went homeless  in the middle of winter. She did tell the mom when she asked for help "I am done helping you" Its a shame had the unstable foster people who are willing to traumatize three children and an abuse survivor had not been using the foster system as an adoption agency this mom may have gotten help. 





Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Out of Home Placement and XVI-4351

Eliminate Need for Removal and Reunite Family

Reasonable Efforts” are the exercise of due diligence by the responsible local social services agency to use appropriate and available services, including culturally appropriate services, to
meet the needs of the child and the child’s family in order to prevent removal of the child from the child’s family. When removal has occurred, services are implemented by the local social services agency to eliminate the need for removal and reunite the family at the earliest possible time, consistent with the best interest, safety, and protection of the child. The local social services agency has the burden of demonstrating that it has made reasonable efforts or that provision of further services for the purpose of reunification is futile and therefore unreasonable under the circumstances.

March 2013
Mother is in need of parenting classes and treatment for using marijuana. The parenting classes are to teach her about how old the children must be to leave them alone for any amount of time. The marijuana use has NOTHING to do with the removal of her children she was not high when the children were taken. She did not have marijuana or drug paraphernalia in the house when the children were taken. She did test positive for THC and admitted to using it when the children were with family.

Either way it seems testing positive for THC did not impair her ability to keep her children safe.

 The children were clean in a clean home with plenty of food and clean clothes. They were taken because GH allowed the 4 and 6 year old to play 15 minutes alone in the park while she ran to the gas station. on a second situation she left all three of the children for 15 minutes to go over to the neighbors house to call her boys in sick to school. 

THAT IS WHY THEY WERE REMOVED FROM THE HOME 

According to every psychologist and parenting assessment person who testified; GH was not at risk of ever abusing her children and that there was no question in their mind that she loved her children.  This was the result of GH not having a good role model when she was little. GH did not understand that it was wrong based on the way she was raised. To correct the situation the mother would need parenting classes. 

According to Schroer's notes she would not support those services and refused to allow the children to participate.  



For the record big or small Sally Schroer was found in the apartment emptying drawers. The immunity a social worker has in in civil suits does not apply to constitutional law. Schroer would have needed a warrant to open any drawers in that house. She will be charged with illegal search and seizure. 

A second incident was when the threatened the mother to strip down to look for bruises. Schroer told the mother she would lose visitation to the children if she did not comply.  According to the law any time a threat is given and a person is compliant as a result of that threat it is an automatic non consensual and unconstitutional search. Minnesota DHS cites the following for visitation " it is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to use visitation to punish a parent or get them to comply to a demand".,


http://www.wellcomemanorfamilyservices.com/



Schroer writes in her notes:


 EVEN IF SHE DOES GET TO GO TO WELCOME MANOR I AM NOT SENDING HER KIDS. SHE REALLY SHOT HER SELF IN THE FOOT THAT TIME.

2nd Entry:

I TOLD GENIE I WILL NOT BE SENDING HER KIDS SHE DID NOT SEEM SURPRISED

Note Schroer has been telling the parents of these children she has found a permanent home for all three of the children since the 2nd week of October. The children were removed in the last week of September. They are in the reunification process for 6 months her main objective is to preserve the family according to state and federal guidelines for child protection services.

Sally Schroer writes in the Termination of parental rights written two weeks prior to the end of Moms 6 month reunification period and also submitted to the court under oath;
Mom was a no show for welcome manor where her kids could have joined her. 

AB called Sally Schroer and asked her why she refused to send the children to welcome manor when her case plan  called for sobriety and parenting classes, the program also offered education on healthy relationships. GH the mom grew up in an extremely abusive home. GH was not abusing her children the house was clean they had plenty of food and clean clothes  but AB says as an abused child myself I know that we tend to be in unhealthy relationships before we learn about healthy ones. This program was perfect for her. 


Schroer documents the conversation- 

I never told her that her children could not join her. AB asks did GH understand that you were going to allow her children to join her? Sally Schroer responds how can I know what GH understands or did not understand. You will have to ask GH

Just some input here as a child protection worker myself this conduct is reckless...This worker boast through out about her plans to have these children adopted to the Foster people. Her documentation and the services she offers and refuses to offer are to serve that purpose. The mother is denied services she needs while the worker has the foster parents doing the play therapy with the children that the mother should have been doing. The court notes say the children have shown no improvement with displacement disorder after 8 months of therapy with foster people.


 I make sure when I am working with a parent that we discuss things over and over until I am sure that the parent understands what I am saying. I can also address any questions or concerns the parent may have. ALL SERVICES OFFERED ARE FOR THE PARENT TO REGAIN CUSTODY. NO SERVICES ARE OFFERED TO THE FOSTER PEOPLE TO MAKE ADOPTION EASIER.. If the children have been removed from the home; the parents are under an extreme amounts of stress and I need to do what I can to help them stay calm. I can only imagine what kind of hell this worker put this poor mother through when her documentation supports services being offered for permanent removal of these children. It is clear early on that this worker will not return these children.


The notes below say that the county ALWAYS sends the children to the mother when this treatment is available. The notes I have say AB confirmed with welcome manor that beds for the three children were reserved. Schroer tells mom in her notes she heard they may not have room so the kids so they will not be joining you.

At 6 months the children could have been returned to the family but the Foster people submitted a letter in court to the judge telling him they want to make the arrangement permanent. I read this letter, it is one of the most disturbing things a human being could do. IT made me feel sick. Dear Judge we have been taking care of these kids learning how to cope with the trauma they still experience as a result of the separation from their mother. we would like to make this arrangement permanent at the expense of these three children and any torment the mother will go through because we put ourselves first.  She may have been physically and sexually abused in captivity with no way to escape, when she was a child but she did make bad decisions resulting from that abuse. Its just that we were never able to have children so there for we justify taking the only people "family" she lives and breathes for away from her.

Ok that may not have been what is said exactly but that point comes across.





 After that the judge refuses to allow all family to have any involvement with the children with out cause behind that decision and in violation of state procedures which say unless their is a safety risk all family must be involved. One person was a safety risk because the fact that the county was breaking so many laws and no one was stopping them to harm children and broker them out to a higher income family who as it seems has great connections to county social workers, county attorneys defending the county and who have a great relationship with the judge who is also ignoring state and federal laws, making decisions with out grounds, the GAL actually lied in court giving a judge fabricated information to keep the children from being returned. She sits with the social workers her job is to review things independently yet gave perjured information to keep the children from being returned. This women is suppose to acting in the best interest of the children and working independently but yet lies in court to prevent them from getting sent home.

A request for a 6 month extension was never ruled on but according to Minnesota rules there must be three existing categories and according to the head of Minnesota state child protection mom qualified for an easy extension.

She has not refused to complete tasks
she has not abandon her children
she is still working on things

The judge does not rule and said lets set the date for the termination of parental rights.
Termination of parental rights are to be ordered with clear concise evidence and nothing less according to the judges rule book. The judge says we are ordering the trial because their are allot of accusations flying around. The hearing will air things out? Well the accusations the judge is claiming that are flying around must be the county and one sided because according to my notes everyone behind the mother has no clue what he is talking about.  So that leaves me wondering what the clear concise evidence is that lead to the termination of parental rights.

Next hearing mom has completed treatment and was sent to the halfway house. The judge does not understand that because meth users with criminal records do not do halfway houses their first time out of treatment.

According to Lisa Barden treatment center counselor Schroer was trying to get GH sent to a halfway house over 6 hours away from her children, for another 6 months for testing positive before she graduated from inpatient treatment for Marijuana use. Which also had nothing to do with why the children were removed.

Remember the judge could not understand why she was in a halfway house to begin with? So it does seem Schroer was attempting to provide services that any other person would NOT receive under the same conditions. My source says she was the only person in every drug treatment facility that did not have a parole officer and was not addicted to a physically addictive drug for example meth. Marijuana is not physically addictive and has no physical withdraw when it is not used. The program would continue to sever the bond with the children and work in favor of the foster people who has asked the worker, the lawyers, and the judge to make the adoption possible.

The family member who has been trying to get the kids is a mother of four her children are adults. She has no personal desire to destroy a family to get her own needs met at the expense of the children's well being, like the unstable foster care people are doing.


our right to fair treatmentWhile it is true that the Department of Human Services, county agencies and other service providers are all committed to providing equal access to programs and services for eligible Minnesotans, it is important that all clients and applicants know and understand their civil rights. This means that clients and applicants should know they have a right to fair and equal treatment from service providers and that they can file a complaint if they feel they have not been treated fairly. Our role in preventing discriminationDHS works with county agencies and other providers. Together, we help eligible individuals and families meet basic human needs. To make services possible, DHS receives funding from federal agencies.DHS is committed to providing equal access to all programs for eligible Minnesotans. Also, as a recipient of federal funding, we must treat applicants and clients fairly. To prevent discrimination, DHS has a civil rights plan. The plan includes an equal opportunity policy and a procedure for handling complaints. The plan also identifies a contact person who you can call to speak to about civil rights matters.The role of county human services agencies and other providersCounty agencies and other providers also receive federal funds. They must follow federal civil rights requirements. Some of these requirements include an equal opportunity policy and a procedure for handling complaints. As recipients of federal funds, they must treat all applicants and clients fairly.




What is Illegal Discrimination?

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Statutes, Chapter 363A), the state's comprehensive civil rights law, declares that certain types of differential treatment are unfair, discriminatory practices and against the law. The Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, education, credit services and business.
Not every act that is unfair or unreasonable is illegal. To be considered unlawful under the Human Rights Act, the discrimination must have happened because of one of the following reasons: race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, age, family status (housing only), and Human Rights Commission activity (employment only). These personal characteristics are also called "protected classes."
Does that mean that only some people — and not others — are protected by the Human Rights Act?
No: the Human Rights Act protects everyone in Minnesota, because everyone has a race, sex, and many of the other characteristics that are covered.
In April The Foster people who have shown up at every court hearing to watch this young mom fight for her children receive preferential care by human services. They sit in a room with the county workers while they are discussing the mothers case. The mother is absent from the proceedings in this room she sits out in the hall and is told to come in after the county and the foster people are seated for the big show. How would you feel walking in to the judge saying they just finished having off the record communications that the mother was not invited to be apart of. 
JUDGES CANNONS

MINNESOTA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
State of Minnesota County Le Sueur
Judicial District 1
Court file number 40-JV-12-121 CHIPS
Case Type: 40-JV-13-48 TPR
Trial Date May 22, 2013 July 1, 2013
Type of hearing-Pre Trial TPR Chips Review TPR
Eugenie Harris
Judge M. Michael Baxter


ABA MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
(2011 EDITION)

The Model Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 7, 1990 and amended on August 6, 1997, August 10, 1999, August 12, 2003, February 12, 2007 and August 10, 2010.
©2010 by the American Bar Association. All rights reserved.

PREAMBLE, SCOPE AND TERMINOLOGY

APPLICATION

CANON 1
A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

______________________________________________

Rule 1.1
Compliance with the Law
Judge ignores Minnesota law on TPR and denies a family member consideration to take the children. Judge disagrees with Minnesota and federal law and its definition of family

The TPR was ordered based on accusations flying around and airing things out when Minnesota law requires clear concise evidence.

Rule 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

Rule 1.3
Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office
CANON 2
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

______________________________________________

Rule 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.

Rule 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A)    A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

(B)     A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.

(C)    (C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.


[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the
Fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.

[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited
to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and Lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or Prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or Biased.

When AB tried to explain why she was unable to take the kids in the beginning; the judge yelled I DONT CARE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU.

[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
Rule 2.4
External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
At the end of court on May 22, 2013 the judge only spoke and listened to Megan Gaudette who has been blocking anyone trying to help the mom. The judge allowed her to make so many groundless decisions I knew they were connected. I did some research to learn she was his former employee


COMMENT


[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.

Not this judge he does not agree with state and federal laws so he ignored them.The judge could be helping his lawyer friends, Brent and Megan arrange an adoption for the unstable foster people. He knows they want to adopt them they submitted a letter in court April 10, 2013 informing the judge of their intentions. In this hearing he told the mother no phone calls with family no visitation with family. Which violates Minnesota state guidelines. He appears to be actively setting the stage for Schroer's pre-adoptive plan the children were told May 22, 2013 by the foster people they were going to try and keep them. The four year old wants to run away.