Tuesday, September 24, 2013

There is no Immunity for CPS Under Federal Civil Rights Law.

DO YOU ALL REMEMBER WHEN I POSTED THE RULES THE COUNTY USED TO PUT THE CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE? WHEN I WENT TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WEBSITE THEY CLAIM THE TYPE OF MALTREATMENT USUALLY MEASURED IN HOURS RATHER THAN MINUTES TO BE MALTREATMENT 


ANYWAY THE RULE SAYS MOTHER IS UNWILLING AND PSYCHOLOGISTS SAY UNINTENTIONAL USUALLY CHILDREN HAVE TO BE LEFT ALONE FOR HOURS AND NOT MINUTES FOR A DANGER TO BE PRESENT. THE COUNTY ACTUALLY  WILL BE ACCUSED OF PRESENTING FALSE FACTS TO THE COUNTY LAWYER TO HAVE CHILDREN REMOVED WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFY.

This is what happened at the park. 


The second time poverty was the key role in the mothers decision making process
3 sick kids she had to call the school, the neighbors phone she had to use has 3 small children she did not want to expose her neighbors children to her children's illnesses and because the children are sick the mother did not want to drag the kids outside. 


COUNTY REMOVES CHILDREN UNDER THE FOLLOWING RULES WHICH ACCORDING TO MINNESOTA MALTREATMENT SCREENING THERE WAS NO MALTREATMENT AND THE RULES USED TO HOLD THE CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE DO NOT APPLY EVEN REMOTELY. THE LE SUEUR COUNTY WILL HAVE TO PAY A HEFTY FINE UNDER SUCH SEVERE NEGLIGENCE AND INTENTIONAL HARM AND INTENT TO FILL ORDERS WITH A PROOF OF AN ORDER BEING SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGE BY TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER. I HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDER THEY SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGE TO SEND TO THE JUDICIAL BOARD ALONG WITH THE INTENT TO HIDE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BYE BYE JUDGE BAXTER HOPE FILLING THAT ORDER FOR CHILDREN WAS WORTH YOUR JOB  

SUBD. 6.CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION OR SERVICES.


"Child in need of protection or services" means a child who is in need of protection or services because the child:

3) is without necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, or other required care for the child's physical or mental health or morals because the child's parent, guardian, or custodian is unable or unwilling to provide that care;
(9) is one whose behavior, condition, or environment is such as to be injurious or dangerous to the child or others. An injurious or dangerous environment may include, but is not limited to, the exposure of a child to cri
 minal activity in the child's home;
__________________________________________________________________

15 MINUTES IN A BABY PROOF ROOM OTHER PEOPLE UPSTAIRS IN THE SAME HOUSE
NO IMMINENT DANGER WHEN MALTREATMENT IS MEASURED. 
Parents who are unaware of the developmental and cognitive abilities of children at different ages may have unrealistic expectations and be more likely to UNINTENTIONALLY  neglect their children. For example, a parent might expect that a 4-year old child can be left alone for the evening because of unrealistic expectations of the child's abilities. 

IMMINENT DANGER ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE MALTREATMENT SCREENING IS LEAVING A FOUR YEAR OLD HOME FOR HOURS. MOM WAS ABSENT FOR MINUTES. 

IF THE ROLE OF POVERTY PLAYED ANY ROLE THEN MALTREATMENT SHALL NOT BE FOUND. 
Quite often, the role of poverty
is not understood at the time a report is made, and is established later during the assessment or investigation phase. When it is determined that reports of neglect are based solely on conditions due to poverty, a finding of maltreatment should not be made.

When Sally Schroer illegally entered the home  of Eugenie Harris all she did was stick her head in the door to interview the 4 year old child. According to numerous other cases when a social worker illegally entered a home all they had to do to break the law was put a foot in the door an arm or their head. 

In a 39-page opinion filed on January 7, 1997, Chief Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled that social workers and police officers who enter a family home to investigate child abuse without a warrant or proper evidence of an emergency violate the constitutional rights of the family. The judge relied heavily on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case which ruled that when police officers investigate child abuse, they must obey the general rules of the Fourth Amendment. The social worker in this case contended that she need not follow the same rules imposed upon police officers. The judge expressly rejected that defense and held the social workers to the same constitutional standards.
Though the judge ruled in the Calabrettas' favor on the fundamental question of their Fourth Amendment rights, he is requiring a full trial on the issue of consent. This means that a jury will decide whether Mrs. Calabretta "freely and voluntarily" consented to the entry into her home. Unless the social worker and officer can convince the jury that their entry was not the result of coercion, trickery, or duress, they will be ordered to compensate the Calabretta family for the harm done and possibly for punitive damages.
  • HSLDA represented a family in their suit against a Yolo County police officer and social worker who conducted a warrantless search, including strip search of minor children, during a child abuse investigation. The social worker argued that she was not bound by the Fourth Amendment restrictions against unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, both the social worker and police officer claimed immunity from suits regardless of whether or not they violated a family's constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 26, 1999 that "a social worker and a police officer are not entitled to qualified immunity for investigating a report of a 
  • child crying by making a nonconsensual entry into a 
  • home without a search warrant or special exigency and coercing a parent to aid them in strip-searching her child."[5] This ruling clarified that social workers are government officials and are bound by the Fourth Amendment and may be sued for violations of that amendment and has been cited repeatedly in subsequent court rulings regarding searches in child abuse investigations.
Camdenton R-III School District v. Mr. and Mrs. F


 AS WELL AS THE PERJURY  AND REASONABLE EFFORT. OH SWEET JESUS THANKYOU FOR HANDING OVER SUSAN RYNDA LOWELL FREEMAN SALLY SCHROER AND CARRIE KRENIK AND THE ASSISTING OFFICER THE JUDGE. THE HARDEST PART IS KNOWING THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY HARMING THE CHILDREN WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO BE PATIENT FOR THESE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR TERRORIZING A TRAUMA SURVIVOR AND ABUSING HER CHILDREN AND VIOLATING HER RIGHTS OVER AND OVER  

Section 11

Immunity

Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they are named in their 'official and individual capacity'. Hafer v. Melo, (S.Ct. 1991)
State law cannot provide immunity from suit for Federal civil rights violations. State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no application to suits under § 1983. Wallis v. Spencer, (9th Cir. 1999)
If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, a police officer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity base on good faith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)
Immunity is defeated if the official took the complained of action with malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights, or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. McCord v. Maggio, (5th Cir. 1991)
A defendant in a civil rights case is not entitled to any immunity if he or she gave false information either in support of an application for a search warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor on which the prosecutor based his or her charge against the plaintiff. Young v. Biggers, (5th Cir. 1991)
JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER 
SALLY SCHROER
ROSE VALDEZ
IRENE CHRISTENON

Police officer was not entitled to absolute immunity for her role in procurement of court order placing child in state custody where theRe was evidence officer spoke with the social worker prior to social worker's conversation with the magistrate and there was evidence that described the collaborative worker of the two defendants in creating a "plan of action" to deal with the situation. Officer's acts were investigative and involved more that merely carrying out a judicial order. Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Dept. of Social Services, (10th Cir. 1999)
SALLY SCHROER
OFFICER TRACY HANNA 
Individuals aren't immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct, which is patently violation of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.Grossman v. City of Portland, (9th Cir. (1994)
SALLY SCHROER
TRACEY HANNA

Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity for pleadings filed to obtain pick-up order for temporary custody prior to formal petition being filed. Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where department policy was for social workers to report findings of neglect or abuse to other authorities for further investigation or initiation of court proceedings. Social workers investigating claims of child abuse are entitled only to qualified immunity. Assisting in the use of information known to be false in order to further an investigation is not subject to absolute immunity. Social workers are not entitled to qualified immunity on claims they deceived judicial officers in obtaining a custody order or deliberately or recklessly incorporated known falsehoods into their reports, criminal complaints and applications. Use of information known to be false is not reasonable, and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth are not entitled to qualified immunity. No qualified immunity is available for incorporating allegations into the report or application where official had no reasonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was prepared. Snell v. Tunnel, (10 Cir. 1990)

WOOPS AGAIN SALLY SCHROER 
NOTE THIS 15 YEAR VETERAN IS ABOUT TO COST THE COUNTY A FORTUNE 

Police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity, only qualified immunity, to claim that he caused plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested by presenting judge with an affidavit that failed to establish probable cause. Malley v. Briggs, S.Ct. 1986)
Defendants were not entitled to prosecutorial immunity where complaint was base on failure to investigate, detaining minor child, and an inordinate delay in filing court proceedings, because such actions did not aid in the presentation of a case to the juvenile court. Whisman v. Rinehart, (8th Cir. 1997)
Case worker who intentionally or recklessly withheld potentially exculpatory information from an adjudicated delinquent or from the court itself was not entitled to qualified immunity. Germany v. Vance, (1st Cir. 1989)

WOOPS CARIE KRENIK SALLY SCHROER LOWELL FREEMAN JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER ROSE VALDEZ 
Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment because he should've investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting warrantless search of home during a child abuse investigation where exigent circumstances were not present. Good v. Dauphin County Social Services, (3rd Cir 1989)
TRACY HANNA
SALLY SCHROER
LOWELL FREEMAN
Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity where no court order commanded them to place plaintiff with particular foster caregivers. K.H through Murphy v. Morgan, (7th Cir. 1991)

So far the maltreatment and emotional violence to these children ONLY occured and can be easily defined under the law IS WHEN SALLY SCHROER ILLEGALLY ENTERS THE HOME OF EUGENIE HARRIS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. 


for example Sally Schroer broke many state and federal  laws to abuse the children and the mother when she threatened the mother that she would cancel a visit if she did not strip so she could inspect her body.




Tony Dobmeier stands up in court and writes in the order he placed with the judge describing thE pain the children are in and tells the judge we dont mind we still want to keep the kids even though we are intentionally abusing them AND EMOTIONALLY AND MENTALLY HURTING THEM by doing so. ALSO WE DO NOT CARE IF THEY EXPERIENCE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO MEET OUR NEEDS EVEN IF IT MEANS DESTROYING THEIR ABILITY TO THRIVE IN THE FUTURE. 

SERIOUSLY ALL I AM HEARING IS I AM A SICK AND INHUMANE BEING I AM WILLING TO  BRUTALIZES CHILDREN AT THE EXPENSE OF MEETING MY OWN SICK SELFISH NEEDS. THAT IS WHY I SHOWED UP IN COURT ACTING LIKE I WAS AT A MEAT MARKET BECAUSE I AM A SICK PERSON  


 ected classes."