Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Le Sueur County CPS Workers meet the Definition of Child Abusers








  • Emotional abuse. Emotional abuse or maltreatment is the consistent or deliberate infliction of mental harm on a child by a person responsible for the child’s care where there is an observable, sustained, adverse effect on the child’s physical, mental or emotional development.

  • A two year old arching her back in a car seat to try and stop the person from strapping her in while screaming;to try and stop the adult from taking her away from her mom at the end of each visit. 
  • A five year old is not sleeping and eating and has had to be held back from starting kindergarten. He is starting his third year of head start. 

  • Teachers for both boys describing emotional problems and lack of concentration and becoming easily animated. 

  • Carie Krenik is arranging for additional therapy for the five year old who could not sleep and eat after being traumatized  by Sally Schroer after being removed from his mother and proceeded to abuse him by means of parental alienation for an additional 10 months. 

  • Carie Krenik who has taken over, Has overwhelming proof that the mom did not receive services to correct the conditions. That specialists have said she is a zero risk to abuse and all she requires is age appropriate safety education class and work on effective discipline. The county has also been given a way to reunite with supervision but has not opted to support that either. 
That being said, Carie Krenik in terms of being dangerous to a child is a higher risk of maltreating a child then the biological mother. Carie Krenik's abuse to emotionally harm the three children  is intentional. The mother on the other hand; according to a psychiatrist who testified in court, would never intentionally harm her children. 

Supporting Evidence that the case worker is aware that she is harming the children.

GH just received a phone call from owatonna. The case worker knows the judge will be ruling soon and is attempting to secure therapy for the five year old who stopped eating and sleeping after being removed from his mom. 

She has agreed to allow the 5 year old to repeat a 3rd year of head start rather than start kindergarten because of the emotional problems he is having and lack of concentration he has as a result of missing his mom. The parent therapy specialist  explains the trauma from removing the children from their mother has not improved.

The five year old begs his mom he promises he will not eat and he will be good and only take a small place on the floor to sleep if he could just spend one night with her.  

 The Good news is for these little ones, Carie Krenik their new case worker has overwhelming evidence that the mother only required parent education, is loving and nurturing, and zero risk to abuse. Yet Carie Krenik adamantly supports the family being destroyed so the county Attorney's Childless cousins are supplied with children. Unfortunately at the expense of the children. Carie has been given the option to have a family member take the kids in a supervised situation and has declined to support that option and has informed every one her intent is termination of parental rights. In this situation the Termination of parental rights will give the unstable foster couple who placed orders to have the mother removed will be in a one up position because of the length of time the children have been illegally held hostage in their home by the county. 

This is Also proof of intentional abuse the delay tactics on the back ground check will be evident in any court to try and get around state and federal law to meet the one year deadline of the children being held in foster care. AB does have a proper background check that I submitted the same time Carie Did for a family member so their would be proof against the county worker for breaking the law in federal court. I knew based on earlier documented history that they play games to break laws. I wanted to see if that was true and placed all my ducks in a row to see if this county was capable of trying to manipulate laws with an unjustified reason to destroy a family. Child protection is there for children who are abused not for the county to take and abuse the children. 

 when this back ground search was conducted in July. Also a letter sent out confirming that she had not submitted a relative search in complete disregard of Minnesota law thats shows she should have conducted a relative search. AB is listed as the childrens grandmother in the county paperwork.  

 Minnesota also defines 

Child neglect is continued failure by parents or caretakers to

 provide a child with needed care or protection. 

Protect the child from conditions or actions that endanger the child.

According to interviews conducted with numerous child advocates one must appeal in a federal court so the county workers involved in violation of constitutional laws can be held legally accountable. While we wait for the judge who had 10 days to rule 2 days ago on closing arguments the civil suit is being prepared for federal court. The mother is only interested in holding those who violated her rights be held accountable. Case workers are immune with the exception of constitutional law. 

There is significant evidence that Schroer is guilty of illegal searches. There is also a police report that she was seen exiting the apartment of GH when she was not home. The threat of removing visitation to force a body search of the mother. The Neurological psycological evaluation asking for a general search with out probable cause of the search is a violation of the mothers rights. 

Carie Krenik has proof of services not being offered to correct and refuses an oppertunity that will provide supervision to the children and mother. She has continued to attempt tactics to get around the laws to meet a one year deadline so the children will be adopted for being in foster care.  She is treading on the mothers fundamental right to her family with out just cause.

Read below about court cases involving parental alienation of 

one parent to another. Now imagine 

GH has proof of BOTH 



child protection caseworker  doing it to a loving nurturing mother. 

Parental Rights are Fundamental Liberty Interests
The liberty interest at issue in this case - - the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court Troxel v. Granville United States Supreme Court (2000)
It is well-settled that parents have a liberty interest in the custody of their children. Hence, any deprivation of that interest by the state must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requirements of due process." Hooks v. Hooks United States Court of Appeals (1985)
Indeed, the right to rear one's children is so firmly rooted in our culture that the United States Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hawk v. Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993)
Parental Rights also contain Fundamental Privacy Interests
"[p]rivate realm of family life which the state cannot enter" Prince v. Massachusetts United States Supreme Court (1944)
Throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right to privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion in such intimate family matters as procreation, child-rearing, marriage, and contraceptive choice. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey United States Supreme Court (1992)
Statutes and rulings that infringe upon fundamental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, and a substantial burden rests on the state, not citizen, to prove its case
It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional." Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980)
The application of strict scrutiny is not flexible at all, and I can find no case in this state where application of this standard has resulted in upholding the challenged law. With the adoption of strict scrutiny, this Court has forced the State of Tennessee into an "all-or-nothing" scenario, where only the most impeccably drafted legislation withstands the slightest possibility of darkening the constitutional doorway. Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist Tennessee Supreme Court (2000) Note: This citation goes beyond saying infringements on fundamental parental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, and clearly states essentially no legislative restrictions on parents will be upheld.
If the classification affects fundamental rights however, there is no presumption of constitutionality, and the classification will be sustained only if justified by a compelling state interest. Coles v. Ryan Illinois Appeals Court (1980)
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Due Process and Equal Protection to all
"[n]o state shall.deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1
The state must meet a threshold prior to infringing upon fundamental rights
First, according to the Washington Supreme Court, the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child. Section 26.10.160(3) fails that standard because it requires no threshold showing of harm. Troxel v. Granville United States Supreme Court (2000)
The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in the State and Federal Constitutions" In re J.P. Utah Supreme Court (1982)
Likewise, following the analysis of the Tennessee Supreme Court in interpreting its state statutes and constitutions, we find that implicit in Georgia cases, statutory and constitutional law is that state interference with parental rights to custody and control of children is permissible only where the health or welfare of a child is threatened. Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)
For the constitutional requirement to be satisfied, before visitation can be ordered over the objection of the child's parents, a court must find an actual harm to the child's health or welfare without such visitation. Williams v. Williams Virginia Supreme Court (1998)
Examples of Tennessee's threshold standard
In 1993 in a grandparent visitation case the Tennessee Supreme Court held, "we believe that when no substantial harm threatens a child's welfare, the state lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit." Hawk v. Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993)
In a 1995 parent vs. third party custody case, "Therefore, in a contest between a parent and a non-parent, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody of a child unless there has been a finding, after notice required by due process, of substantial harm to the child. Only then may a court engage in a "best interest of the child" evaluation in making a determination of custody." In re Adoption of a Female Child Tennessee Supreme Court (1995)
In a 1999 parental rights termination case, "Therefore Bond stands for the proposition that a natural parent may only be deprived of custody of a child upon a showing of substantial harm to the child." In re Askew Tennessee (1999)
A July 2001 parental abuse case, "In furtherance of that goal, and in the best interests of Pamela due to a threat of substantial harm, the juvenile court ordered a termination of visitation." "Although parents' have a right to raise, care for and have the companionship of their child under both Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions, these rights can be infringed upon if the court finds substantial harm threatens a child's welfare." "The court made clear that there must be a threshold finding of harm before the state can intervene in a parent-child relationship; however, once this finding of harm to the child is made, a determination of custody is made based on the "best interest of the child". This threshold finding of substantial harm was made when Pamela was found by the juvenile court to be abused, dependent, and neglected and removed form the custody of her parents and placed in foster care." DCS v. Cox Tennessee Appeals Court (2001)
An August 2001 divorced parent v. parent case, "We believe the parents' constitutional right of privacy as found by our Supreme Court in Hawk is applicable here where we have two fit parents, even if those parents are now divorced. Additionally, we believe the constitutional rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution are worthy of the same protection as is the constitutional right to privacy discussed in Hawk. Accordingly, the Trial Court could not restrict Father's otherwise lawful possession of a firearm absent a showing of risk of substantial harm to the child. The Trial Court made no such finding." Stillwell v. Stillwell Tennessee Appeals Court (2001) Note: This may be the first and only U.S. case where a harm standard was applied to divorced parents.
A standardized threshold (bright-line rule) is needed
Many threshold terms are in use, and the best seems to be "severe harm". It has a proper sense of urgency which strikes a balance between too low of threshold terms such as "harm" which implies virtually no barrier, and too high of ones like "serious danger" implying an impossible hurdle. When combined with the designation as a "bright line rule" that cuts cleanly and clearly between the state and parents in all circumstances, a trial judge will have no problem properly applying family law to any circumstance that he or she faces.
The state may not apply the best interest of the child standard nor infringe in the parent-child relationship prior to proving that a child is in severe harm
We too, agree that neither the legislature nor a court may properly intervene in parenting decisions absent significant harm to the child from those decisions. In so holding, we approve the logic of Santosky v. Kramer which applied a two-step process to child neglect cases leading to foster family placement. In Santosky, the Supreme Court approved New York's bifurcated proceeding requiring the state first to establish paternal unfitness before placing a child in foster care. This procedure assures parents that a "best interest of the child" analysis will not pit them against potential foster parents; rather, the state consider a child's "best interests" until the natural parents have been declared unfit. Hawk v Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993) Note: In a case where parental rights are infringed to a much lesser degree than in a parent v. parent custody case, the Tennessee Supreme Court clearly states parents must be declared "unfit" prior to "best interests" being applied.
The proof in this case supports the trial court's finding that the father is not unfit to have custody, and that he has developed a substantial relationship with the child. It shows that the child is in no danger of substantial harm. The father, therefore, has a fundamental interest in parenting the child which precludes a "best interest" determination of custody. Petrosky v. Keene Tennessee Supreme Court (1995)
If the threshold of severe harm is found, any orders issued must be so as no less restrictive remedies can be contemplated
To satisfy strict scrutiny, the State must show that a statute furthers a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means practically available. Bernal v. Fainter United States Supreme Court (1984)
Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law. City of Boerne v. Flores United States Supreme Court (1997)
T.C.A. § 36-6-101(a)(1) "In a suit for annulment, divorce or separate maintenance, where the custody of a minor child or minor children is a question, the court may,.award the care, custody and control of such child or the welfare and interest of the child or children may demand" Note: This is Tennessee's custody statute for divorcing parents. No harm threshold is present, nor any requirement for narrow tailoring. This statute is facially unconstitutional on two grounds.
A statute must be followed as written
When "the language contained within the four corners of a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, the duty of the courts is simple and obvious, 'to say sic lex scripta, and obey it." Hawks v. City of Westmoreland Tennessee Supreme Court (1997)
Thus, a court must "presume that the legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." A statute, therefore, must be construed as it is written. Berryhill v. Rhodes Tennessee Supreme Court (2000)
T.C.A. § 36-6-301 After making an award of custody, the court shall, upon request of the non-custodial parent, grant such rights of visitation as will enable the child and the non-custodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship. Note: A reasonable definition of the clause "enable the child and the non-custodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship" is two to three overnights per week. Tennessee courts routinely allow moveaways, long stretches (weeks/months/years) where no parenting occurs, and other restrictions such as every other weekend visitation. All of these circumstances violate their own case law, "the language contained within the four corners of a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, the duty of the courts is simple and obvious, 'to say sic lex scripta, and obey it.", and can be challenged on this basis.
Parental rights are identical between natural parents, without regard to gender or marital status
The Constitution protects "the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children." Stanley v. Illinois United States Supreme Court (1972)
"The parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and to every parent, regardless of the marital status of the parents." Johnson v. Calvert California Supreme Court (1993)
The Nales' position that this Court in Hawk limited the protection of parental rights to an "intact, nuclear family with fit parents" is untenable. Nale v. Robertson Tennessee Supreme Court (1994)
Parental Alienation
It is clear to this Court that both parents love their children. What concerns this Court most, however, and was apparently a concern to the trial court, is Wife's blatant attempt to alienate the affections of the children from their father. When loved by both parents, children should be taught to love and respect each parent equally. The reciprocation, in turn, will garner self-respect and a positive self image in the children. The record in this case lends absolutely no reason as to why the children should not be encouraged to respect and love their father. We do not find the record to show that Wife has supported such a healthy relationship between parent and child. Although Wife testified otherwise, her actions speak loud and clear. Varley v. Varley Tennessee Appeals Court (1996)
Effect on the parent-child relationship by being apart
Between parent and child, there is no monster like separateness. It can grow even faster than children, shutting first the heart, then the home, then history. Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)
Friendly Parent Doctrine
The Court stressed, the parent-child relationship "undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." Stanley v. Illinois United States Supreme Court (1972)
Custody and visitation arrangements should promote the development of a healthy relationship between children and both their parents. Solima v. Solima Tennessee Appeals Court (1998)
Parent vs. Third Party Custody
Therefore, in a contest between a parent and a non-parent, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody of a child unless there has been a finding, after notice required by due process, of substantial harm to the child. Only then may a court engage in a "best interest of the child" evaluation in making a determination of custody." In re Adoption of a Female Child Tennessee Supreme Court (1995)
Biological parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children under both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. These parental rights are superior to the rights of others and continue without interruption unless a biological parent consents to relinquish them, abandons his or her child, or forfeits his or her parental rights by some conduct that substantially harms the child. O' Daniel v. Messier Tennessee Appeals Court (1995)
Grandparent/third party visitation
This appeal presents the issue of the constitutionality of Georgia's "Grandparent Visitation Statute", OCGA § 19-7-3. We hold that the statute is unconstitutional under both our state and federal constitutions, and reverse the trial court's order to the contrary. Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)
Children in state care
Judge Quinones, a Family Court Judge with eight years of experience, described the conditions of detention as follows:
"Then again, Juvenile Center, as much as we might try, is not the most pleasant place in the world. If you put them in detention, you are liable to be exposing these youngsters to all sorts of things. They are liable to be exposed to assault, they are liable to be exposed to sexual assaults. You are taking the risk of putting them together with a youngster that might be much worse than they, possibly might be, and it might have a bad effect in that respect."
Many other observers of the circumstances of juvenile detention in New York have come to similar conclusions. Schall v. Martin United States Supreme Court (1984)
1st Amendment Protest Guarantees
We have recognized that the First Amendment reflects a "profound national commitment" to the principle that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. Boos v. Barry United States Supreme Court (1988)
The traditional approach sets forth a bright-line rule: any restriction on speech, the application of which turns on the content of the speech, is a content-based restriction regardless of the motivation that lies behind it. Boos v. Barry United States Supreme Court (1988)
Pro-Se litigant's pleadings
Pro se litigant's pleadings should not be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. "Significantly, the Haines case involved a pro se complaint - as does the present case - which requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer. Puckett v. Cox United States Court of Appeals (1972)

Section 2 Persuasive Arguments

Thus, apart from constitutional problems of using the best interest of the child standard without a prerequisite showing of harm, the vagueness and subjectivity of such a standard lends itself to an invasion of family privacy which is abhorrent to our current society. Kathleen Bean (1985-86) Grandparent Visitation: Can the Parent Refuse? Note: This statement is equally applicable to all invasions of the parent-child relationship.
The bible advises input from both parents; "Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and reject not your mother's teaching;" Proverbs 1:8 Revised Standard Version
Hubin, Donald (1999). Parental Rights and Due Process. University of Utah Journal of Law & Family Studies Volume 1 Number 2, 123-150. Note: The best article on unconstitutionality of family law.
See at: RDP.PDF
See Childs Best Interest website generally for useful information: