Tuesday, August 13, 2013


How does it feel to know tax dollars are being used to fund the employment of people who are perjuring themselves in a court of law. A mother has had a childless couple place orders with the child protection case worker and a second order was placed with the judge to keep her children.


Juries and judges often base their verdicts, sentences, or other important decisions on sworntestimony and signed documents. Statements given under oath and certain legal documents are presumed to be truthful, or at least made in good faith. But how do we know for sure that witnesses and other parties involved in a legal matter are telling the truth? We can’t always be certain, but those who are caught knowingly misleading a court face serious criminal charges ofperjury.
To “perjure” yourself is to knowingly make false or misleading statements under oath or to sign a legal document you know to be false or misleading. This crime is taken very seriously because the foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. After all, just one sworn statement has the power to tip the scales of justice and dramatically alter someone’s life.
Perjury is considered a crime against justice, since lying under oath compromises the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials. Other crimes against justice include Criminal Contempt of CourtProbation Violation, and tampering with evidence.

The names of people who are willing to commit a felony by lying in court, and under oath  for the purpose of convincing a judge to take 3 children away from their mother. That is what this county does with your tax money and what they are willing to do to take children from a  low income family and supply them to childless couples with a stable income.

These lies could cost you your child.................

Child protection worker
Sally Schroer

Sally Schroer blows your mind! Her contempt for the mother surfaces in court.Sally makes undermining statements with an antagonistic tone about a mother who has a difficult time going to in patient treatment for a month .Mom knows that it will reduce the amount of time she sees her children as it is. Sally agreed to let her go to the treatment center that would allow the children to eventually join mom. She and the children would work on parenting skills and healthy relationship building. According to  AB's chronology report she called the treatment center on April 10th to see if GH and her three children were ever scheduled to come to the center and it was confirmed that GH did have reservation to come and her three children were to join her.

   AB's notes also show a documented phone call between AB and Sally Schroer's supervisor at 11 AM on April 11, 2013 that this kind of treatment center is always encouraged and that there has never been a reason why Le Sueur County would not send the children.

Sally Schroer's order for a termination of parental rights that GH was a no show for the treatment center that her children could eventually join her. (This is perjury folks) 

Schroer omitted information to mislead. It is documented in her chronology report;  I told GH that I will not support sending her children. I told her I heard they would not have room. Schroer says GH does not seem surprised. GH is not surprised because Sally Schroer has been boasting about her pre -doptive plan for awhile.
 In another chronology report Sally Schroer writes  that GH really shot herself in the foot because she will not be sending the children even if she does get to go to the treatment center where her children can join her.

When Sally Schroer is asked while she is on the stand if GH has made any improvement since AB has been involved? Schroer responds with not that I know of. The problem with that is it is documented in GH and AB's notes that DR's have been reporting that Sally has been calling to check up on GH along with AB and GH's notes sending written statements out to Sally covering the progress she had been making Since Sally refused services and made numerous statements she was done helping GH.

She was asked if she was aware that GH was in treatment. Schroer struggles to answer. Treatment was actually delayed according to AB's notes because Schroer told the mother not to go to treatment but to to get a job instead. It was GH's lawyer who told GH that is not what the judge wants because he told Sally and the lawyer that he wants her in some type of treatment.  Schroer did not do the paperwork causing a delay on the day the mother started treatment. She was sent home because of it.

When AB questions Sally Schroer Ab is confused why she denied the mother services that would have applied to correcting the conditions of why she removed the children. Every parenting expert and therapist who testified agreed that the mother was low to zero risk to ever abuse her children. She did need education on safety for example as a result of the mother coming from dysfuction children are often left home alone way to young. Parents grow up not understanding that so a parenting class will educate them on how it should have been done when they were little and how to do it for their children. 15 minutes alone for a 6, 4 and 1 year old is not appropriate.


State and federal penalties for perjury include fines and/or prison terms upon conviction. Federal law (18 USC § 1621), for example, states that anyone found guilty of the crime will be fined or imprisoned for up to five years. Most state laws have similar provisions, but judges typically have discretion to use leniency (including probation in lieu of a prison sentence) where appropriate.
And if you are convicted, you may even lose your livelihood. If you work in a profession where truthfulness is valued, such as the legal profession, law enforcement, and some public service jobs, you could lose your professional license.
Perjury is considered a very serious crime against the integrity of the justice system. If you have been charged with the crime or have additional questions, consider speaking with a criminal defense attorney.

Guardian Ad Litem 
Rose Valdez

According to state and federal laws it is in the best interest of the child to be with family, the judge asked Rose Valdez if it was all right to have the children placed with family? Rose Valdez said I don't think so her relationship with her son is on and off....

That was the second time Rose Valdez Lied in Court on May 22, 2013
Rose Valdez does not have that information. Rose should be acting in the best interest of the children and conducting her investigation independently. So in order for this women to do that she would need to speak to the family to see if it was in the best interest and understand what all the relationships are. She instead made something up and lied to the judge. Rather than be honest, conduct an interview after court and let him know what she determined after. Her negligence to do her job have resulted in causing three children an increased amount of emotional harm.

Rose Valdez Lied in court April 10, 2013
Rose Valdez also lied in court about the mothers treatment giving information she got from the county never speaking to the mother about her side. This would mean she is not conducting herself independently and is putting the lives of a family in danger because she is not doing her job.

Child protection Supervisor 
Irene Christensen 

All visits have been tape recorded since Irene lied to her supervisor about terrorizing threat she gave the mother to terminate her rights permanently if she continues to play with her daughter that way. Irene also lied implicating AB and CB attempting to sabotage a visit that collided with the children. The reason she tried to make it appear as though they showed up to see the kids was because  the judge ordered that the children be isolated from all family even those who do not pose a safety risk. Irene documents AB and CB being warned for showing up when it was court ordered in violation of Minnesota rules that the children be isolated from people who do not pose a safety risk. Even though it the judges order violates Minnesota Rules and state guide lines The grandmother has no choice to follow the judges orders.

The grandmothers documentation has signatures of everyone in the room including fountain centers staff stating that AB's account was accurate as to what took place in the office at Fountain centers.

I have listened to all the visitation tapes. In every single tape the baby is screaming experiencing separation anxiety at the end of a visit. It actually happens any time the mother is getting out of the car and the baby does not understand her mommy will be right back. This information also does not show up in Irene Christensons reporting. Its heart breaking to know Someone like Irene would actually lie on the stand under oath in the face of a judge knowing the baby is experiencing such extreme pain. UNDER MINNESOTA LAW THIS IS DEFINED AS EMOTIONAL HARM OF A CHILD. WITH THE OBVIOUS PERJURY.

If tax payer dollars are funding legal baby brokers using the name  child protection services we need to take care to put a stop to this! If you live in Le Center and are living in a low income bracket your children are at risk of being put up on an auction block for childless couples who have a stable income.