Tuesday, September 10, 2013

FINDING OF FACT JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER BABY BROKER


SOMEONE WAS SO BRAZEN THEY ACTUALLY SUCCESSFULLY PLACED AN ORDER FOR CHILDREN....

MELISA AND ANTHONY (TONY) DOBMEIER ARE NOT THE FIRST MENTALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PLACED ORDERS FOR CHILDREN THAT DID NOT NEED A HOME!!!

      I INITIALLY WONDERED WHO WROTE THE FINDING OF FACTS BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN SO THAT THE STATEMENTS IT CONTAINS MEET THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF PERJURY.

MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009 192A.585
192A.585 PERJURY.
ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS CODE WHO  DELIBERATELY, AND WILLFULLY GIVES FALSE, MISLEADING OR INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH OR IN BREACH OF A PROMISE DURING THE COURSE OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, MATERIAL TO ISSUE OR MATTER OF INQUIRY SHALL BE PUNISHED AS A COURT-MARTIAL MAY DIRECT.

THE FINDING OF FACTS IS WRITTEN IN ENTIRETY WITH STATEMENTS THAT HAVE RELEVANT DETAILS ABSENT TO MISREPRESENT. The document also contains INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. This indicates the signer has created the document with the intent to harm the mother; by means of permanent separation of her three minor children. The judge ruled out family based on perjured facts. The family member  would have allowed mother to be apart of her children's life with supervision and with the possibility to regain custody off a time line. Once mother went through treatment for CPTSD.  Baxter elected to rip away the trauma survivors only blood family members and gift them to his personal friend's childless family members. Tony and Melisa Dobmeier.

THE PERJURED STATEMENTS TO HARM THE MOTHER CAME FROM

Honorable? JUDGE M. MICHAEL BAXTER
Le Sueur County
Le Sueur County Courthouse
Phone: (507) 357-2251

Appointed/Elected:appointed Nov. 10, 2008, by Governor Tim Pawlenty.  Elected 2010.  Term expires Jan. 2017.

Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. We have what is known as an adversarial system of justice - legal cases are contests between opposing sides, which ensures that evidence and legal arguments will be fully and forcefully presented. The judge, however, remains above the fray, providing an independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts. Many criminal cases - and almost all civil ones - are heard by a judge sitting without a jury. The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth. Then the judge applies the law to these facts to determine whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of probabilities or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty.
 

http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/role_of_judge-en.asp?l=5 

This particular judge does not seem to be to disturbed about reading an order that describes the emotional pain of three children who have been illegally separated from their mother. The order was placed by Tony and Melisa Dobmeier on April 10, 2013 with the Honorable Judge M Michael Baxter; requesting to keep the three children of Eugenie Harris permanently.

Then again this judge seemed very content to ignore state and federal search and seizure laws which say a crying child is not probable cause nor does it meet the definition of exigent circumstances for a warrantless search. A police officer or social worker sticking any part of their body for example head, arm, or foot in the doorway of a private residence requires consent, a physical warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.   Any interview of a minor child on private property requires consent, a physical warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances.  

STATE OF MINNESOTA
LE SUEUR COUNTY
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST DISTRICT
COURT FILE NUMBER 40-JV-13-48
NOTICE OF FILING OF ORDER
FINDING OF FACT
(1) EUGENIE LYN HARRIS MOTHER OF MINOR CHILDREN

(2) CB IS FATHER OF MINOR CHILDREN
(3) JP FATHER OF MINOR CHILDREN

(4) ON MAY 9 2012 LE SUEUR CLAIMS FAMILY ASSESSMENT WAS STARTED IN FARIBAULT COUNTY NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO INCLUDE THAT FARIBAULT COUNTY STARTED A CLAIM. EVEN IF IT WAS STARTED HUMAN SERVICES HAS TO INVESTIGATE HEARSAY REPORTS WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. UNLESS THERE IS ACTUAL PROOF THE PARENTS DID SOMETHING TO START A CLAIM IT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. MAY ONLY USE CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE.

(5) FARIBAULT & MARTIN COUNTY BELIEVES FAMILY IS IN NEED OF SERVICES.  (NOT RELEVANT)

SEPT 9, 2012
(6) MOTHER LEAVES 2 BOYS PLAY IN PARK FOR 15 MINUTES AND IS TALKED TO ABOUT  IT. SHE IS INFORMED THEY ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO PLAY ALONE OR BE UN ATTENDED IN THE PARK. (TRUE AND COMPLETE STATEMENT)

(7) SPEAKS WITH VICTOR ATHERTON AND MOTHER EXPLAINS SHE THOUGHT THE CHILDREN WERE OLD ENOUGH (TRUE AND COMPLETE STATEMENT)

SEPT 18, 2012
(8) DRUG SCREEN COMPLETED AND PARENTS TEST POSITIVE FOR THC. (PARENTS ADMIT THEY WOULD FIND THC) (TRUE AND COMPLETE STATEMENT)

SEPT 21, 2012
(9) SCHROER GOES TO MOTHERS RESIDENCE TO DROP OFF DIAPERS SHE HEARS BABY CRYING.  THIS IS HEAR SAY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO IT. SCHROER IS PROVABLY LESS THEN CREDIBLE AND DEMONSTRATES SHE IS WILLING TO MANIPULATE FACTS REPEATEDLY TO HARM THE MOTHER.

I INTERVIEWED THE  NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE WITH MOTHER WHICH IS DIVIDED INTO APARTMENTS. THEY CLAIM THEY DID NOT HEAR A BABY CRYING. ONLY SCHROER DOES? POLICE OFFICER DOES NOT FIND A CRYING BABY. IF THE BABY IS CRYING OR IF THE BABY IS NOT CRYING IT STILL DOES NOT GIVE SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO ILLEGALLY ENTER A PRIVATE RESIDENCE AND ILLEGALLY EXTRACT AN INTERVIEW FROM A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT.CRYING BABY IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE

THERE ARE OTHERS IN THE HOME UPSTAIRS THE 1 YEAR OLD WAS NAPPING IN HER HIGH CHAIR  SAFE AND SECURE ACCORDING TO SALLY SCHROER'S TESTIMONY AND CONFIRMED BY THE NEIGHBORS I INTERVIEWED. THEY ALL SAID IF THE BABY WAS CRYING FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME SOMEONE WOULD HAVE GONE DOWN TO SEE IF THEY NEEDED HELP.


(10) SCHROER CALLS THE POLICE, OFFICER TRACY HANNA WHO ARRIVED IN UNDER 60 SECONDS. I THOUGHT IT WAS STRANGE THAT THE POLICE ARE THERE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THE SOCIAL WORKER WAS?

 IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ANITA BRACKEN AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION SALLY  FIRST CALLS LOWELL FREEMAN TO GET PERMISSION TO CALL POLICE. OTHER WITNESSES SAY  SALLY DID NOT GET PERMISSION SHE JUST LEFT A MESSAGE FOR LOWELL FREEMAN SAYING SHE TOOK THE KIDS. LOWELL FREEMAN ALSO SAYS HE GETS MESSAGE FROM SALLY SCHROER.  THAT MEANS IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY IN TO THE HOME. OFFICER ENTERS HOME WITHOUT A COURT ORDER TO FIND THE THREE CHILDREN. NO ONE IS CRYING AS SALLY SCHROER SUGGESTED.

(11) MOTHER CLAIMS SHE HAS BABY MONITOR BUT CANNOT PRODUCE IT. SALLY SCHROER AND OFFICER TRACEY HANNA DO NOT HAVE A WARRANT TO BE IN HER HOME NOR DO THEY PRODUCE IT. SALLY SCHROER AND OFFICER TRACEY HANNA DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER THE RESIDENCE OR EXTRACT AN INTERVIEW FROM A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. NOR CAN THEY PRODUCE IT,

IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE STORIES AND DETAILS CONFLICT, BY ALL THREE PEOPLE..

 OFFICER CLAIMS WHEN MOM RETURNS HE  IS IN APARTMENT AND SCHROER IS OUTSIDE. IN A SECOND STATEMENT SCHROER IS INSIDE WHILE OFFICER IS OUTSIDE WHEN MOTHER RETURNS. ACCORDING TO MOTHER SHE WAS ABSENT FOR 15 MINUTES AND DETAINED BY THE OFFICER FOR 5 MINUETS OUTSIDE. WHEN MOM DOES GET DOWN STAIRS SHE FINDS SALLY SCHROER DIGGING THROUGH HER CHILDREN'S  DRESSER DRAWERS TAKING OUT CLOTHING FOR THE THREE CHILDREN AND PACKING THEIR BAGS.

SALLY SCHROER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER THE HOME, NOT EVEN TO STICK HER HEAD IN AND TALK TO THE FOUR YEAR OLD. SHE DOES NOT HAVE WARRANT. SHE IS BREAKING MORE LAWS BY OPENING UP DRESSERS AND TAKING THINGS OUT OF THEM

THIS VIOLATES FEDERAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS ANY INFORMATION GAINED FROM THIS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.

(12) OFFICER HANNA HAS ALSO ENTERED THE RENTERS HOME WITH OUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITH OUT A WARRANT. THE OFFICER  TESTIFIES TO WALKING THROUGH THE MOTHERS HOME.  HE IS ASKED TO LEAVE BY THE RENTER AND TOLD HE DOES NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO SIZE CHILDREN WHO WERE NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER.
OFFICER TRACY HANNA PLACES UNINJURED CHILDREN WHO WERE NOT IN IMMINENT  DANGER  WHICH IS DEFINED AS PROBABLE DEATH OR BODILY DISFIGUREMENT IN THE CAR AND PLACES THEM IN FOSTER CARE..

IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CPS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND INTERVIEW A CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR PROBABLE CAUSE.
          The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and child protective services investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.  The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that this practice, i.e. the “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.
          The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)  A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 

260.012 DUTY TO ENSURE PLACEMENT PREVENTION AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION; REASONABLE EFFORTS.


A REASONABLE EFFORT MUST BE MADE TO PROVE THAT SERVICES WERE OFFERED TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS BEFORE THE CHILD CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME....
THE COUNTY MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF SERVICES THEY OFFERED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF CHILDREN WHO WERE NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER.

THE COUNTY CLAIMS THEY MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT. JUDGE M. MICHAEL BAXTER ALSO AGREES THAT A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THE MOTHER IS SATISFACTORY SERVICES TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN.

AT THIS POINT THE ILLEGAL GRAB AND THE REASON THEY GRAB THE CHILDREN NO LONGER EXISTS BECAUSE THEY BROKE FEDERAL LAWS TO DO IT.

ALL THEY HAVE IS 15 MINUTES AT THE PARK.........

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING IS RUNNING ON AUTO PILOT AFTER THEY LEARN SOMETHING.  A BRIEF CONVERSATION WILL NOT CUT IT FOR THIS MOM. MOTHER LEARNS DIFFERENTLY THEN THE STANDARD PERSON WHO WAS NEVER TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY THROUGH OUT HER CHILDHOOD. SHE REQUIRES HANDS ON LEARNING AS MENTIONED IN HER FOUNTAIN CENTERS ASSESSMENT. SHE REQUIRES SUPPORT SERVICES.  MOTHER HAS Parenting and Problem-solving Skills
Parents need to have the cognitive resources to care adequately for a child. Studies have found links between child neglect and parents' poor problem-solving skills, poor parenting skills, and inadequate knowledge of childhood development.156 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. 

The examples listed IN CAUSES OF MALTREATMENT USE THE EXAMPLE OF A PARENT LEAVING CHILDREN AGE 4 UNATTENDED FOR HOURS. MOTHER IS ABSENT FOR 15 MINUTES. WHY IS THE MALTREATMENT LITERATURE REFERRING TO MALTREATMENT IN INCREMENTS OF  HOURS AND NOT MINUTES? AS IN THIS CASE.

Le Sueur County offers brief conversation to mother with ignorance that an individual in comparison to another individual can come with individual differential learning capabilities. The untrained county workers have rigid rules of expectations that all people have A systematic standard OF learning capabilities. Hence those who are not capable of meeting the county's systematic standard will be penalized. The county is also ignorant to the effects of the impact child abuse can have on an adult. It will require education to fix the flawed learning and not a brief conversation. 

Minnesota STATE guidelines suggest SERVICES TO BE OFFERED BEFORE REMOVAL SHOULD BE.....
 family therapy, 
parenting classes, 
drug and alcohol abuse treatment, 
respite care, 
parent support groups, 
home visiting program, 
transportation, 
free phone services. 
In the event the above services failed the responsible social service agency needs to provide clear concise evidence of how those services failed.
__________________________________________________________

Services offered BY COUNTY according to testimony BEFORE REMOVAL. A brief conversation with victor Atherton about age. 

Federal law has long required State agencies to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to provide assistance and services to PREVENT the removal of a child from his or her home.
ABSENT -PROBABLE CAUSE -A CRYING BABY  IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE  ( FOUR DIFFERENT LAWYERS AGREE)

ABSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE  

ABSENT IMMINENT DANGER TO EXCUSE COUNTY FROM NOT OFFERING SERVICES TO MOTHER

ABSENT NO SERVICES OFFERED BEFORE REMOVING CHILDREN FROM A SITUATION THAT DOES NOT PRESENT IMMINENT  DANGER. 

ABSENT REASONABLE EFFORT BY A RESPONSIBLE SOCIAL SERVICES  AGENCY. 

(13) VICTOR ATHERTON MAKES ANOTHER ASSESSMENT AND AGAIN DETERMINED MALTREATMENT HAD OCCURRED AND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WERE NEEDED.

(14) ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2012  ORDER AN EXPARTE EMERGENCY HEARING FOR PROTECTIVE CARE. PURSUANT 260C.007 SUBD 6 (3) AND SUBDIVISION 6 (9)

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;

15 MINUTES UNATTENDED 
Studies have found links between child neglect and parents' poor problem-solving skills, poor parenting skills, and inadequate knowledge of childhood development.156 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. MALTREATMENT IN HUMAN SERVICE LITITURE USES THE EXAMPLE OF A FOUR YEAR OLD LEFT ALONE FOR HOURS IN DESCRIBING MALTREATMENT. THIS IS A MATTER OF MINUTES. 

(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 criminal activity in the child's home;

SALLY SCHROER TESTIFIED THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE HOME AND THAT THE BASEMENT IS BABY PROOFED AND THAT TODDLER IS SAFE AND SECURE BOYS ARE ENJOYING A BREAKFAST FOR THE ENTIRE 15 MINUTES.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(15) SALLY SCHROER  DRAFTED CASE PLAN ON SEPTEMBER 21 2012 TO ADDRESS SUPERVISION ISSUES AND CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY. WHICH SHOULD HAVE DONE BEFORE REMOVING THE CHILDREN IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PROOF THEY MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN.

According to state and federal law the mother is entitled to participate in drafting her case plan. The county has the burden of providing proof that they allowed her to participate in creating her case plan; if they are to show a reasonable effort was made. 

note: there is documented evidence that Schroer refused to allow mother to participate in creating her case plan in testimony and her chronology report. 

The state of Minnesota sees this as not making a reasonable effort. 
Judge M Michael Baxter disagrees with the state of Minnesota and dictates in his findings a reasonable effort was made. THE JUDGE COURT ORDERS MOTHER TO SIGN CASE PLAN

WHICH IS AN OVER REACH OF AUTHORITY. 

(16) ON SEPTEMBER 24 THE COUNTY  ILLEGALLY TAKES TEMPORARY LEGAL CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.


CHILDREN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM COUNTY BECAUSE COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED UP UNTIL THIS POINT ARE GUILTY OF BREAKING AND ENTERING ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE KIDNAPPING AND REMOVING CHILDREN UNDER RULES THAT DO NOT APPLY AND EVEN IF THEY DID APPLY THEY BROKE THE LAW WHEN THEY DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT SO NOTHING CAN BE USED WHEN SCHROER WENT TO THE HOUSE. THEY ARE ABUSING THREE CHILDREN INTENTIONALLY. THEY ARE BROKERING BABIES OUT TO A CHILDLESS COUPLE THEY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH.


2012 Minnesota Statutes

Subd. 15.Emotional maltreatment.


"Emotional maltreatment" means the consistent, deliberate infliction of mental harm on a child by a person responsible for the child's care, that has an observable, sustained, and adverse effect on the child's physical, mental, or emotional development. "Emotional maltreatment" 

THE MOTHER HAS SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION OF SEVERE MENTAL INJURY TO ALL THREE OF THE CHILDREN AND PHYSICAL INJURIES TO HER MIDDLE CHILD WHILE  IN THE CUSTODY OF LE SUEUR COUNTY.  

 FEB 6 2013
(17) MOTHER ENTERED THE ADMISSION TO THE CHIPS PETITION THAT ACKNOWLEDGING  THAT SHE IS CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT AND THAT WHEN SHE IS USING SHE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE CARE TO CHILDREN.

ACCORDING TO MINNESOTA LAW EVERYTHING MUST HAVE CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP IN CHIPS CASE OR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.
THE PROBLEM WITH MOTHER'S ADMISSION IS THERE IS NO CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE THAT A DRUG HABIT IS PREVENTING HER TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN. ALL THEY HAVE IS SHE TESTED POSITIVE FOR THC AND THAT STAYS IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR WEEKS.

NO MENTION OF THE MOTHER BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS DURING THE PARK INCIDENT OR DURING THE HOME INCIDENT WHEN CHILDREN ARE LEFT ALONE FOR TIME PERIODS OF 15 MINUTES. NO MENTION OF DRUGS BEING FOUND ON THE PARENTS. THE ONLY THING THEY ARE FOUND TO HAVE WITH THEM IS GROCERIES FOR CHILDREN AND THE BABY.


NO MENTION OF DRUGS BEING FOUND WHILE SCHROER WENT THROUGH THE MOTHERS HOME FROM ROOM TO ROOM OPENING UP DRAWERS WITH OUT A WARRANT AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. A PROPERLY TRAINED SOCIAL WORKER WOULD HAVE WAITED IN THE ROOM WHERE THE THREE CHILDREN WERE UNTIL THE HOME OWNER MADE AN APPEARANCE.

NO MENTION IN OFFICER HANNA'S TESTIMONY OF DRUGS BEING FOUND IN THE APARTMENT WHEN HE TESTIFIES OF WALKING THROUGH EACH ROOM WHILE MOTHER IS AT NEIGHBORS. NO MENTION OF THE MOTHER BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS WHEN SHE RAN TO CALL THE BOYS IN TO SCHOOL

NO MENTION OF SALLY SCHROER FINDING ANY DRUGS ON HER SECOND VISIT WHEN SHE WAS SEEN BY A NEIGHBOR  ENTERING THE APARTMENT  ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 WHEN NO ONE WAS HOME. MOTHER ENCOUNTERED SALLY SCHROER EXITING THE APARTMENT WHEN SHE RETURNED HOME. ACCORDING TO THE POLICE REPORT THAT THE RENTERS FILED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

ACCORDING TO SALLY SCHROER'S TESTIMONY:
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT TO THE CHILDREN OTHER THAN LEAVING THEM UNATTENDED  FOR THE 15 MINUTE TIME PERIOD. SHE TESTIFIED TO CHILDREN BEING ADEQUATELY BATHED, IN A CLEAN HOUSE, WITH HEALTHY FOOD IN THE FRIDGE AND APPROPRIATELY BABY PROOFED HOME.NOTE MOTHER IS NOT ALLOWING DRUGS TO GET IN THE WAY OF  FEEDING HER CHILDREN BATHING HER CHILDREN BABY PROOFING OR  CLEANING HER HOME. SHE DOES NOT HAVE DRUGS IN THE HOME.

ACCORDING TO SALLY SCHROER'S ORDER TO TERMINATE MOTHERS PARENTAL RIGHTS  SHE INDICATES IN THE ORDER THAT MOTHER DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT WHICH REQUIRES A BACK GROUND CHECK AND A DRUG SCREEN TO BE HIRED. SHE IS A CNA AND IS USUALLY WORKING IN A NURSING HOME CARING FOR THE ELDERLY. NOTE: DRUGS ARE NOT PREVENTING MOTHER FROM GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.

THIS CLAIM OR ADMISSION LACKS SUPPORTING  CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE THAT DRUGS ARE PREVENTING THIS MOTHER TO PARENT HER CHILDREN.

FEB 7 2013
(18) THE CASE PLAN IS ORDERED BY THE COURT

FINDING OF FACTS FEB. 13 2013 
(19) MOTHERS ATTORNEY PETITIONS COURT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 MONTH EXTENSION.

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES RULE BOOK 3 THINGS MUST BE PRESENT TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXTENSION TO BE GRANTED.

1) HAS NOT REFUSED TO COMPLETE PLAN
2)HAS NOT ABANDONED CHILDREN
3)IS STILL WORKING ON COMPLETING CASE PLAN
JUDGE REFUSES TO RULE ON 6 MONTH EXTENSION

CASE PLAN CANNOT BE COMPLETED IN SIX MONTHS ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY.
JUDGE TERMINATES MOTHERS RIGHTS FOR NOT COMPLETING CASE PLAN IN 6 MONTHS.

FINDING OF FACTS MARCH 28, 2013 
(20) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION IS ORDERED ALLEGING MOTHER FAILED TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO THE OUT OF HOME PLACEMENT.

ACCORDING TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW THE COUNTY HAS BEEN VIOLATING THE MOTHERS RIGHT TO HER FAMILY BECAUSE THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN AND INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD WAS VIOLATING SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS.  

NOT LISTED IN FINDING OF FACTS FOR SOME STRANGE REASON
APRIL 10 2013
MELISA AND TONY DOBMEIER  PLACE ORDER WITH JUDGE TO HAVE MOTHER REMOVED SO THEY CAN KEEP HER CHILDREN.
THE DOBMEIER'S ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE ORDER TO THE JUDGE THAT THE CHILDREN ARE IN SEVERE PAIN AS A RESULT OF BEING SEPARATED FROM THEIR MOTHER. 

THE DOBMEIER'S INSIST THEY DO NOT MIND THAT THE CHILDREN ARE IN AGONY, AS LONG AS THEY CAN BE PARENTS. PARENTING FOR TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PAIN THE CHILDREN ARE EXPERIENCING. THEY PROMISE TREATMENT IN THE FORM OF THERAPY AND PSYCH DRUGS TO NUMB THE CHILDREN. 

6 MONTH EXTENSION IS AGAIN REQUESTED AND ONCE AGAIN NEVER RULED ON 


JUDGE M.MICHAEL BAXTER FAILURE TO UPHOLD 

Rule 2.5Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation




CANON 2

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.

Rule 2.1Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office

The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over all of a judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.
Comment
[1] To ensure that judges are available to fulfill their judicial duties, judges must conduct their personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflicts that would result in frequent disqualification. See Canon 3.
[2] Although it is not a duty of judicial office unless prescribed by law, judges are encouraged to participate in activities that promote public understanding of and confidence in the justice system.
Rule 2.2Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently.
[4] In disposing of matters promptly and efficiently, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases in ways that reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

APRIL 10 2013 
ANITA BRACKEN A FAMILY MEMBER  REQUESTS TO TAKE CHILDREN KNOWING THEY COULD BE SUPERVISED AND HAVE MORE TIME WITH MOM. 
ALSO NOT MENTIONED IN FINDING OF FACTS .

IT WAS DENIED BASED ON SALLY SCHROER NEVER SUBMITTING BACK GROUND CHECK SIGNED IN HER OFFICE OCTOBER 5 2012 BY ANITA BRACKEN AT 2:30 PM 3 PEOPLE  WITNESSED SALLY SCHROER TELLING ANITA BRACKEN HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO GET RESULTS BACK. EMAILS WERE SENT TO VERIFY IF SCHROER EVER SENT THE SIGNED BACK GROUND CHECK IN ALSO HAVE COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE CHECKING ON THE RESULTS. 

JUDGE REFUSES TO ACCEPT MINNESOTA STATE BACKGROUND CHECK THAT WAS DONE FOR ANITA BRACKEN TO COMPLETE COURSES TO STUDY FOR HUMAN SERVICE WORK. 

SALLY SCHROER SAYS TO ANITA IN COURT ! I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HER FOR 6 MONTHS! ANITA BRACKEN EXPLAINS HER YOUNGER BROTHER WENT IN TO A COMA AND SHE WAS THE ONLY ADULT TO DEAL WITH HIS POSSIBLE DEATH ACCORDING TO THE DOCTORS. 

 JUDGE IS RECORDED SHOUTING TO ANITA BRACKEN AFTER SHE EXPLAINS HER BROTHER WAS TERMINAL AND IN A COMA  COULD NOT BELIEVE IT!!!! A DAMN JUDGE TREATING SOMEONE LIKE THAT!!

Rule 2.3Bias, 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.
FINDING OF FACTS JUNE 13, 2013 
PARENTAL RIGHTS OF BROOKS WERE TERMINATED NOT MENTIONED IN FINDING OF FACTS BROOKS SIGNED RIGHTS OVER TO ANITA BRACKEN FOR ONE YEAR.
JUDGE DISMISSED THIS DUE TO WORDING. JUST LIKE JUDGE BLOCKED 2 BACK GROUND CHECKS TO PREVENT THE CHILDREN FROM BEING PLACED WITH FAMILY. JUDGE ALSO BEGINS TO SAY ANITA BRACKEN CANT HAVE THE KIDS BECAUSE IT WILL BE A PROBLEM GETTING THEM BACK TO FILL THE ORDER FOR HIS FRIENDS. HE STOPS TALKING IN MID SENTENCE.

THAT WAS THE INDICATOR JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER HAD NO INTENTION OF RETURNING CHILDREN TO THEIR MOTHER. JUDGE REFUSES TO RULE ON EASY EXTENSION THAT MOTHER QUALIFIES FOR AND WHEN MOTHER DOES ALL THE REQUIRED WORK HE DRAGS OUT RULE SO HE CAN PULL THEM ON HER WHEN EVER HE WANTS. MOM IS TREATED SO UNFAIRLY. UNFORTUNATELY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY OVER A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME CAN ONLY HANDLE SO MUCH ABUSE. MOM CAME  UNGLUED AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGES BRUTALITY. SYMPTOMS OF BEING RE-TRAUMATIZED BEGIN TO SURFACE AND MOM FALL APART.

JUST READING THE HEARINGS WORD FOR WORD A REASONABLE PERSON LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF THINGS WOULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT THIS JUDGE DID. THIS GUY HAS A GOAL IN MIND AND HE CANNOT BE PARTIAL. HE ULTIMATELY BEATS A WOMAN DOWN WHO HAS BEEN TORTURED THROUGH MOST HER CHILDHOOD TO TAKE AWAY THE ONLY BIOLOGICAL FAMILY SHE HAS AND LOVES TO FILL AN ORDER FOR HIS FRIENDS WHO ARE CHILDLESS.

FINDING OF FACTS
(22) LSCDHS INSTITUTED A NUMBER OF SERVICES FOR MOTHER THESE SERVICES ARE FULLY DESCRIBED IN CASE PLAN.
SERVICES ARE ONLY INSTITUTED AFTER THE ILLEGAL ENTRANCE AND INTERVIEW OF A CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY HAS OCCURRED. ALONG WITH THE ILLEGAL ABDUCTION OF THE CHILDREN. DEMONSTRATING THAT LSCDHS DID NOT MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF CHILDREN. 

(23) HAS PROVIDED REASONABLE EFFORT TO MOTHER TO REUNIFY HER WITH CHILDREN. MOTHER RECEIVED NUMEROUS SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES AND THE COMMUNITY.

THEY LEGALLY HAVE NO RIGHT TO REMOVE THE CHILDREN. THEY ALSO DO NOT INSTITUTE SERVICES TO PREVENT REMOVAL.

THE STATEMENT IS FALSE THEY CANNOT LEGALLY PROVE THEY MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT. UNLESS THEY MEAN A REASONABLE EFFORT TO BREAK THE LAW?

THIS IS A FACT COMING FROM A MAN WHO IS FIRST PRESENTED WITH A 6 MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST  THAT THE MOTHER QUALIFIED FOR IN FEB. HE IS NEGLIGENT TO RULE ON THE EXTENSION IN FEB WITH REPEATED REQUESTS  THROUGH OUT THE FOLLOWING MONTHS FEB, MARCH, APRIL, MAY, JUNE, OR IN JULY. TESTIMONY IS PROVIDED WITH SUPPORTED EVIDENCE THAT THE ORIGINAL CASE PLAN COULD NOT BE COMPLETED IN 6 MONTHS IN JULY.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE IS AWARE CASE PLAN WAS NEVER ACHIEVABLE IN SIX MONTHS AND THE MOTHER MET ALL THREE ELEMENTS TO QUALIFY FOR THE EXTENSION IT IS STILL NOT ADDRESSED WITH A RULING IN AUGUST. IN SEPTEMBER THE JUDGE DENIES THE 6 MONTH REQUEST AND TERMINATES THE MOTHERS RIGHTS.

I AM NOT SURE THIS JUDGE IS CONFIDENT TO IDENTIFY REASONABLE EFFORT BASED ON HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORT.

AS OF NOW JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER IS GUILTY OF PERJURY, VIOLATING JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT, SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS,DENYING DUE PROCESS,  CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS

(24) LSCDHS PROVIDED CASE MANAGEMENT, MOTHER WAS PARTIALLY COMPLIANT
WITH THESE BUT AMONG OTHER THINGS REFUSED TO SIGN A RELEASE GIVING LSCDHS FULL ACCESS TO HER MEDICAL RECORDS.
THE JUDGE MAY COURT ORDER THIS SEARCH IF THEIR IS A RELATIONSHIP TO FINDING OF FACTS MOTHER LEFT CHILDREN UNATTENDED FOR 15 MINUTES AS A  RESULT OF LACK OF EDUCATION AND TESTED POSITIVE FOR THC WHICH IN NO WAY PREVENTED HER FROM PARENTING HER CHILDREN.

 The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IVis an amendment to the United States Constitution and part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable causeUnder the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central questions: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the US Supreme Court held that its protections extended to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. 

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE CAN BE NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE 
"plain English" version of the section of the federal law under which most civil rights actions are brought. Because it does not describe the precise legal meanings of some of the terms used in the law itself, this definition is not complete. However, it will give you a general idea of what the law provides:
This law applies to situations where a person, who has been given authority by the law, deprives another person in the United States of rights or privileges that the second person has been given by the US Constitution or by federal or state law. The person who believes that s/he has been harmed in this way may sue in court. 
THE MOTHERS CHILDREN ARE GOING TO BE ADOPTED OUT AS A CONSEQUENCE FOR MOTHER NOT SIGNING OVER FULL ACCESS OF HER MEDICAL RECORDS TO LE SUEUR COUNTY CHILD PROTECTION .  

 PERJURY 
 NOT MENTIONED IN FINDINGS OF FACTS THE MOTHER COMPLYS BY SUBMITTING A STATEMENT FROM HER DOCTOR ESTABLISHING THAT SHE HAD A PHYSICAL AND IS TAKING CARE OF HER MEDICAL NEEDS.  

 MOTHERS DOCTOR IS RELUCTANT TO RELEASE THE STATEMENT AND VIEWS IT AS UNETHICAL CONDUCT OF A JUDGE. 

THIS IS A COMMON THEME THAT CONTINUES TO COME ABOUT WITH DOCTORS AND THE THINGS THIS JUDGE COURT ORDERS. AS IT WILL BE PRESENTED WITH OTHER FACTS NOT LISTED IN THE JUDGES FINDING OF FACTS. JUDGE M. MICHAEL BAXTER DOES NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO COURT ORDER THIS SEARCH IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE FINDING OF FACTS.  

IF THE JUDGE IS BREAKING THIS MANY LAWS IT SEEMS INCONSISTENT FOR THE FACT THAT HE CONTINUES TO MAKE REPEATED STATEMENTS THAT A REASONABLE EFFORT IS MADE. I SEE ABUSE OF A PERSON THAT THIS MAN SHOULD BE TREATING WITH RESPECT BUT RULES IN FAVOR TO ABUSE LAWS AND THE THE MOTHER WHO CANNOT COMPLY WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO RULES.  




FINDING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
 (25) MOTHER ON HER OWN MET WITH KRIS ARMENDARIZ SHE HAD AN APPOINTMENT WITH ARMENDARIZ OCTOBER 18, 2012 BUT FAILED TO SHOW UP. MOTHER DID NOT BEGIN TO ATTEND INDIVIDUAL THERAPY UNTIL MAY 10 2013

JUDGE LEAVES OUT THE FACT THAT EVERY TIME SHE WENT TO A TREATMENT CENTER SHE WAS RECEIVING INDIVIDUAL THERAPY SO THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS PERJURY BY JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER TO MISLEAD AND MAKE THE MOTHER LOOK BAD

 FINDING OF FACTS #26

(26) MOTHER COMPLETED PARENTING ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 12, 2012  HOWEVER MOTHER DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMPLETE PARENTING EDUCATION.

LEFT OUT OF FINDING OF FACTS
MOTHER FINDS A PLACE CALLED WELCOME MANNER WHICH ADDRESSES TREATMENT AND PARENTING BUT THE CHILDREN NEED TO BE SENT TO WELCOME MANOR AFTER 8 WEEKS. SALLY SCHROER DOCUMENTS IN CHRONOLGY REPORT SHE REALLY SHOT HER SELF IN THE FOOT BECAUSE I WILL NOT SEND HER CHILDREN TO THE PARENTING PORTION OF WELCOME MANOR.  SALLY SCHROER DOCUMENTS A SECOND TIME I TOLD EUGENIE HARRIS I WILL NOT SEND HER CHILDREN TO THE PARENTING EDUCATION PORTION AND EUGENIE DOES NOT SEEM SURPRISED. EUGENIE HARRIS SEES NO POINT IN ATTENDING WELCOME MANOR AND DECIDES NOT TO GO IF HER CHILDREN  CANNOT GO WITH HER..

SALLY SCHROER WRITES IN TPR MOM IS A NO SHOW FOR WELCOME MANOR WHERE HER CHILDREN CAN ULTIMATELY JOIN HER SHE LEAVES OUT THE PART WHERE SHE TELLS MOTHER I WILL NEVER SEND YOUR CHILDREN FOR THE PARENTING EDUCATION PORTION OF THE PROGRAM. 

LOWELL FREEMAN SAID IT IS NEVER DENIED TO SEND CHILDREN TO TREATMENT CENTER WHICH ALLOWS CHILDREN TO JOIN THE MOTHER.  THIS  SUGGESTS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THIS MOTHER. STRONG SUPPORTING EVIDENCE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO CORRECT CONDITIONS IS NOT BEING MET 

MOTHER ALSO SENDS NUMEROUS EMAILS REQUESTING RESOURCES FOR PARENTING EDUCATION TO SALLY SCHROER AND SALLY SCHROER IS NEGLIGENT TO RESPOND TO EMAILS ONLY TO EVENTUALLY BLOCKS MOTHERS  EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE. 

REASONABLE EFFORT NOT MET TO CORRECT CONDITIONS TO REUNITE PARENT WITH CHILDREN UNDER CIRCOMSTANCES THAT DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS DONE WITH OUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND A WARRANT. 

SALLY SCHROER IS IN VIOLATION OF NOT FOLLOWING HER OWN CASE PLAN THAT WAS ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT MOTHER NEEDS TO BE WITH BABY FREQUENTLY BECAUSE SHE IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER.  SALLY SCHROER IS NOT EVEN PARTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH COURT ORDERED CASE PLAN SHE CREATED FOR MOTHER AND CHILDREN TO CORRECT CONDITIONS.

IT WAS ALSO WELL ESTABLISHED IN THE TESTIMONY THAT LE SUEUR COUNTY OFFERED NOTHING TO CORRECT THE PARENT EDUCATION PORTION TO REUNITE MOTHER. 

MOTHER DID NOT COMPLETE NEUROLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

MOTHER MISSED TWO APPOINTMENTS FOR NEUROLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION COURT ORDERED BY JUDGE. ONCE AGAIN NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT HENCE THE GENERAL SEARCH OF THE MOTHERS BRAIN IS PROHIBITED BY LAW AND VIOLATES MOTHERS  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY. THE JUDGE IS AGAIN OVER REACHING IN AUTHORITY BECAUSE A GENERAL SEARCH NOT LIMITED IN SCOPE TO FINDING OF FACTS IS AGAINST THE LAW. THIS SEARCH HOLDING PENALTY OF HER CHILDREN  BEING ADOPTED OUT TO THE PEOPLE WHO PLACED AN ORDER FOR THE CHILDREN IS MORE EVIDENCE THE LAW IS BEING VIOLATED ALONG WITH MOTHERS RIGHTS TO FILL AN ORDER FOR CHILDREN HIS FRIENDS SUBMITTED TO HIM.

JUDGE BROKERS MOTHERS CHILDREN OUT TO HIS FRIENDS FAMILY MEMBERS FOR PUNISHMENT FOR MOTHERS NONCOMPLIANCE OF A GENERAL SEARCH THAT REQUIRES MEDICAL  EXAMINATION OF MOTHERS BRAIN. FINDING OF FACTS MOTHER LEFT CHILDREN UN ATTENDED FOR 15 MINUTES AS THE RESULT OF UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS DUE TO HER OWN ABUSE AND NOT HAVING GOOD ROLE MODELS. TESTED POSITIVE FOR THC WHICH IN NO WAY WAS CONNECTED TO ANY MALTREATMENT.

"plain English" version of the section of the federal law under which most civil rights actions are brought. Because it does not describe the precise legal meanings of some of the terms used in the law itself, this definition is not complete. However, it will give you a general idea of what the law provides:
This law applies to situations where a person, who has been given authority by the law, deprives another person in the United States of rights or privileges that the second person has been given by the US Constitution or by federal or state law. The person who believes that s/he has been harmed in this way may sue in court. 

LEFT OUT OF FINDINGS OF FACTS




ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY SALLY SCHROER DOES NOT FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS OF A DOCTOR WHO TELLS HER READINGS WILL NOT BE ACCURATE IF MOTHER DOES NOT HAVE 6 MONTH SOBRIETY FROM THC. 

SALLY ADMITTS SHE IGNORES DOCTORS RECCOMENDATIONS  IN COURTROOM TESTIMONY AND SETS UP APPOINTMENTS. THEY WERE CANCELLED BECAUSE ANITA BRACKEN TOLD MOTHER THE TESTS WERE AGAINST THE LAW WITH OUT PROBABLE CAUSE. HOWEVER ONCE OUT OF TREATMENT MOTHER AGREED TO DO TEST. ONLY  IT WOULD BE WITH A DOCTOR NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE COUNTY VENDORS. SHE WOULD BE FORCED TO VIOLATE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DOCTOR AS WELL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS REFUSED TO RULE ON THE 6 MONTH EXTENSION EVEN AFTER LEARNING THE ORIGINAL CASE PLAN COULD NOT BE COMPLETED IN 6 MONTHS. 

FOUNTAIN CENTERS TOLD MOM AT DISCHARGE IF YOU DO THAT TEST DO NOT USE THE SOCIAL WORKERS VENDOR SALLY SCHROER IS NOT THERE TO HELP YOU AND YOU SHOULD NOT TRUST HER. ONCE OUT OF TREATMENT MOTHER WENT TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE ONLY OTHER PLACE THAT DOES THESE INVASIVE EXAMINATIONS AT ROCHESTER MAYO CLINIC. THEY SAID THEY WOULD NEED A REFERRAL FROM A MAYO DOCTOR AND MOTHER GOT THE REFERRAL WHEN MAYO FOUND OUT A SOCIAL WORKER AND A JUDGE WANTED THE EXAM THEY TOLD MOTHER I AM SORRY BUT JUDGES AND SOCIAL WORKERS ARE NOT DOCTORS AND CANNOT ORDER THIS KIND OF EXAMINATION FOR YOU EVEN IF THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD WE WOULD NOT DO IT. UNLESS YOU HAVE HAD TRAUMA TO THE HEAD BRAIN TUMORS OR SIGNS OF DEMENTIA.  WHILE ASKING AROUND MOST PEOPLE KEPT REFERRING MOTHER TO SOMEONE WHO DOES A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND WHEN THEY EXPLAINED THAT A NEURO PSYCH EVAL WAS COURT ORDERED THEY TOLD MOM YOU SHOULD DOUBLE CHECK JUDGES DON'T COURT ORDER NEUROLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ONLY PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS.

SO MOTHER TRIED AND COULD NOT GET THE UNLAWFUL EXAMINATION DONE.  REGARDLESS AS LONG AS THE COUNTY IS GIVING MOTHER A PENALTY BY REMOVING HER PARENTAL RIGHTS AS A RESULT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS TASK 
This law applies to situations where a person, who has been given authority by the law, deprives another person in the United States of rights or privileges that the second person has been given by the US Constitution or by federal or state law. The person who believes that s/he has been harmed in this way may sue in court.