A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
Rule 1.1Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
-ORDERS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED ON: Baxter's exact words
"" ALLOT OF ALLEGATIONS FLYING AROUND"".
""THE HEARING WILL AIR THINGS OUT"".
NO CLEAR CONCISE EVIDENCE HE ORDERS ON ONE SIDED HEARSAY FROM HIS CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS.
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND DEFENDANT ARE NOT CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT THE FLYING ALLEGATIONS ARE. IT IS PRESUMED THERE ARE FLYING ALLEGATIONS COMING FROM COUNTY OFFICIALS, WHOM THE JUDGE HAS CLOSE FRIENDSHIPS WITH. THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY CARIE KRENIK IS CALLING PEOPLE AUGUST 5TH TELLING PEOPLE MOTHER'S RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED. WHEN THE HEARING HAD YET TO TAKE PLACE.
COURT ORDERED SIGNATURE ON CASE PLAN OVER REACH OF AUTHORITY. MOTHER HAS A RIGHT UNDER REASONABLE EFFORT TO HELP CREATE HER CASE PLAN. IF SHE IS NOT ALLOWED THAT OPPORTUNITY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE PLAN WILL FAIL. THE JUDGE DENIED THE MOTHER THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AND COURT ORDERED HER TO SIGN THE CASE PLAN.
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. according to Minnesota maltreatment screening guidelines imminent danger would be present if children were unattended in a bathtub or near a pool or by a fire.
Minnesota STATE guidelines suggest SERVICES TO BE OFFERED BEFORE REMOVAL SHOULD BE.....
drug and alcohol abuse treatment,
parent support groups,
home visiting program,
free phone service
A JUDGE SO INTENT ON REMOVING A MOTHER SO HE CAN GIFT HER CHILDREN TO A CREEPY CHILDLESS COUPLE WHO ARE SO CRUDE THEY PLACED AN ORDER WITH BAXTER ASKING HIM TO GIVE THEM THE CHILDREN. BAXTER ACTUALLY LIED IN DOCUMENTATION TO COMPLETE THE COUPLES ORDER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CHILDREN.
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009 192A.585
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.
judge M Michael BAXTER PERJURED THE FINDING OF FACTS THAT HE MAILED OUT SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 AFTER CARIE KRENIK THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKER INFORMED EVERY ONE ON AUGUST 5 2013 THAT THE JUDGE TERMINATED THE MOTHERS RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAST HEARING EVEN TOOK PLACE.
CRYING CHILD HAS BEEN RULED NOT TO BE PROBABLE CAUSE, NOR DOES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF EXIGENTCIRCUMSTANCES. THAT BEING SAID THEIR WAS ALSO NO WARRANT OR CONSENT FOR THE UNLAWFUL ENTRANCE AND INTERVIEW OF THE FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD. ANY INTERVIEW OF A CHILD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCESS AND REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE, CONSENT OR A WARRANT.
Taking away mothers parental rights for not signing over full access to medical records to the county. no probable cause in relationship to finding of facts and not limited in scale. General searches are prohibited by law
taking away mothers parental rights for not being able to do a general search on mothers brain no probable cause to do a large scale search in relationship of to finding of facts. General searches are prohibited by law.
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.
violation refused to acknowledge Minnesota Law and the definition of
Family members are the first placement consideration for children who are not able to live with their parents or guardians. Relative, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, section 260C.007, subdivision 27, is a person related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption, or an individual who is an important friend with whom the child has resided or had significant contact.
The majority of children placed in family foster care or pre-adoptive families in Minnesota are not living with adults to whom they are related, or with whom the child had a significant relationship with prior to entering foster care.
Judge M Michael Baxter told defense attorney he would not accept a Minnesota back ground for human services and if Anita Bracken was not related by blood she is not family, despite acting as a grandmother to the children for a year prior to the chips case.
SUBD. 14.CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
(a) A potential conflict of interest related to assisting in an assessment under this section resulting in a direct or shared financial interest with a child abuse and neglect treatment provider or resulting from a personal or family relationship with a party in the investigation must be considered by the local welfare agency in an effort to prevent unethical relationships.
(b) A person who conducts an assessment under this section or section 626.5561 may not have:
(1) any direct or shared financial interest or referral relationship resulting in a direct shared financial gain with a child abuse and neglect treatment provider; or
(2) a personal or family relationship with a party in the investigation.
If an independent assessor is not available, the person responsible for making the determination under this section may use the services of an assessor with a financial interest, referral, or personal or family relationship.
The commissioner of human services shall regularly audit for accuracy the data reported by counties on maltreatment of minors. The commissioner Susan Rynda is in on it.
Judge M Michael Baxter is aware of the conflict of interest with Melisa and Tony Dobmeier who placed the order yet proceeds with hearings.
THE CHILDREN WERE ILLEGALLY REMOVED IN VIOLATION OF MS HARRIS'S RIGHTS BY THE JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER WE ARE NOT SURE IF THESE CHILDREN WERE SPECIFICALLY HAND PICKED BY COUNTY OFFICIALS RELATIVES. NEXT NONE OF THE RULES LISTED BELOW GIVE THE COUNTY ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO HOLD THE CHILDREN IN FORSTER CARE.
Minnesota Child Maltreatment
Screening Guidelines IMMINENT DANGER IS DESCRIBED AS NEAR A POOL UNATTENDED IN A FULL BATH TUB UNATTENDED. NEAR FIRE UNATTENDED I AM GUESSING CLEAN BABY PROOF ROOM AND PEOPLE RIGHT UPSTAIRS IF THE BOYS NEEDED TO GET SISTER OUT OF HER CHAIR. THEN THE FACTS ARE MOM WAS ONLY ABSENT FOR A MATTER OF MINUTES AND WOULD HAVE LIKELY BEEN AVAILABLE IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY. AFTER ALL SHE DID WALK IN ON A SOCIAL WORKER WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERED HER HOME TO ABDUCT CHILDREN WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CONSENT OR A WARRANT WHERE SHE ADMITS TO THE UNLAWFUL ENTRY TO STICK HER HEAD IN AND INTERVIEW A CHILD WITH OUT PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CONSENT OR A WARRANT
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.
LE SUEUR COUNTY OFFICIALS SEE POVERTY AS MALTREATMENT !!!
Screeners and persons who conduct assessments or investigations
shall take into account accepted child-rearing practices of the culture in which a child
participates that are not injurious to a child’s health, welfare and safety. [M.S. 626.556,
subd. 2 (o)]
BABY PROOF ROOM FOR 15 MINUTES WHILE OTHER PEOPLE ARE IN THE SAME HOUSE RIGHT UP THE STEPS..... MOTHER WAS DETAINED BY POLICE OFFICER FOR 5 EXTRA MINUTES OUTSIDE. HAD THERE NOT BEEN AN ILLEGAL ENTRY AND AN OFFICER THAT DETAINED HER OUTSIDE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER 15 MINUTES.
3 SICK KIDS AND NO PHONE SHE NEEDS TO CALL SCHOOL TO LET THEM KNOW THE KIDS ARE SICK. POVERTY AND SINGLE PARENT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DRAG ALL THREE KIDS OUT OR EXPOSE THE SICK KIDS TO HER NEIGHBORS CHILDREN.
I. Failure to Provide Necessary Supervision or Child Care Arrangements [M.S. 626.556,
subd. 2 (f) (3)]
Failure to provide for necessary supervision or child care arrangements occurs when a
child is unable to provide for their own basic needs or safety, or the basic needs or
safety of another child in their care. [M.S. 626.556, subd. 2 (3)]
A child’s age, mental ability and maturity level.
The accessibility of the parent/guardian/or designated caretaker to a child
by phone and/or in person.
The presence of intellectual deficits, psychological problems, or mental health
concerns; the existence of physical problems or disabilities.
The behavioral history of a child, including suicidal thoughts or actions, fire
setting, delinquency, vandalism or assault.
A child’s age, if using the kitchen stove, an iron or other appliance.
The establishment of a well understood escape plan that has been worked out
by the parent(s), or fire drill practice that has been rehearsed with a child. The
presence of a working fire/smoke detector in the home.
The presence of unusual hazards in the home. 17
A child feeling confident and safe when left alone.
COUNTY REMOVES CHILDREN UNDER THE FOLLOWING RULES WHICH ACCORDING TO MINNESOTA MALTREATMENT SCREENING THERE WAS NO MALTREATMENT
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 orunwillingto provide that care;
(9) is one whosebehavior,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
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.
"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"
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
IT IS ULTIMATELY REVEALED RIGHT BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARINGS THE JUDGE HAS A PERSONAL INTEREST IN THESE HEARINGS WHICH MAY BE WHY HE IS UNABLE TO RULE ON WHAT THE STATE SAID IS AN EASY 6 MONTH EXTENSION. THE JUDGE REALIZED EVERY TIME HE THREW AN UNFAIR BLOW AT THE MOTHER WHO WAS TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY ALL HER CHILDHOOD, MOTHER STARTED TO BREAK FROM THE STRESS. SHE STOPPED SLEEPING FOR 2-3 DAYS AT A TIME OVER THE LOSS OF HER CHILDREN CAUSING HER TO EXPERIENCE UNSTABLE EMOTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE INSOMNIA. (ANITA BRACKEN'S JOURNAL)
MOTHER IS NOT CRAZY. THE EVIDENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE CAME THROUGH LOUD AND CLEAR.
WHILE ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE HELD COMPLETE RESPECT FROM THE JUDGE.
EVIDENCE IN RULINGS OF DISCRIMINATION
THE JUDGE DENIED MOTHER THE 6 MONTH EXTENSION SEPTEMBER 5 2013 THAT WAS FIRST REQUESTED FEB 2013. IT TOOK 8 MONTHS TO RULE AND REJECT THE REQUEST. DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOTHER MET ALL THREE CRITERIA LISTED IN THE MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BENCH BOOK. THE JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS MOTHER WILL NOT GET ONE BASED ON HER QUALIFICATIONS. DURING THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARINGS THE JUDGE RECEIVES TESTIMONY THAT THE COUNTY IGNORED RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT IT WAS NEVER POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE CASE PLAN IN 6 MONTHS.
BASED ON EVIDENCE ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT IF SOMEONE QUALIFIED FOR AN EXTENSION; WOULDN'T A FAIR AND HONEST JUDGE HAVE A READY EXPLANATION WHY THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT GOING TO APPLY TO THIS MOTHER SPECIFICALLY?
TAKING 8 MONTHS TO RULE ON WHAT HEAD OF CHILD PROTECTION FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SAID WAS AN "EASY 6 MONTH EXTENSION"
BAXTER ULTIMATELY TERMINATES MOTHERS RIGHTS FOR GETTING KICKED OUT OF A HALFWAY HOUSE FOR SHOWING EMOTIONAL DIS-REGULATION WHICH IS A SYMPTOM OF C-PTSD. MOTHER CANNOT HELP THAT IT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT IS A SYMPTOM OF THE TORTURE IN CAPTIVITY SHE ENDURED AS A CHILD OVER A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME. THE SECOND ONE SHE WAS FORCED TO GO TO SHE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE BECAUSE SHE MISSED TO MANY DAYS FOR THE COURT HEARINGS AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGE TAKING 8 MONTHS TO RULE ON AND RUSHING INTO A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE HIS CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS WERE MAKING ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE FLYING AROUND HE SAID. SHE ALSO LOST HER RIGHTS FOR SEEKING MEDICAL CARE FOR AN INFECTION IN HER MOUTH AND A PULLED TOOTH. NOT USING THE TOY BOX
YET ON THE OTHER SIDE HE WILL TERMINATE SERVICES FROM THE COUNTY TO CEASE ALL REUNIFICATION EFFORTS ON THE SPOT WITH NO QUESTIONS. ALL MEGAN GAUDETTE NEED DO IS ASK AND IT WAS GRANTED. IN FACT THE JUDGE ASKED GAUDETTE IF MS BRACKEN COULD TAKE THE CHILDREN AND NO EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED WHEN SHE SAYS NO. THIS MAY HAVE TO DO WITH HER NEW BOSS BEING RELATED TO THE PEOPLE WHO PLACED AN ORDER WITH THE JUDGE TO KEEP THE CHILDREN. THE JUDGE WAS PRETTY EXCITED TO SEE HIS FORMER EMPLOYEE IN COURT AS WELL.
HOW MANY PEOPLE THINK WE HAVE A FAIR, UNBIAS, HONEST JUDGE?
 A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
 Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.
EXAMPLE; A REQUEST BY DEFENSE IS MADE; THAT MS BRACKEN WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE CHILDREN OR PROVIDE SUPERVISION DURING VISITS. SALLY SCHROER YELLS OUT I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HER FOR 6 MONTHS. MS BRACKEN SAID MY BROTHER WENT IN TO A COMA IN OCTOBER AND I AM THE ONLY ADULT FAMILY HE HAS. MS BRACKEN WAS TOLD HE WOULD NOT SURVIVE. SHE DID NOT WANT HIM TO DIE ALONE AND SHE NEEDED TO TEND TO BILLS AND KEEPING OUT OF STATE FAMILY INFORMED OF HIS CONDITION. MS BRACKEN TRIES TO EXPLAIN HER ABSENCE TO THE JUDGE BY TELLING HIM HER BROTHER WENT IN TO A COMA AND SHE HAD TO BE THERE.
THE JUDGE YELLS I DON'T CARE WHAT
HAPPENED TO YOU!!
HE DENIES MS BRACKEN TO BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE CHILDREN HOME, TO KEEP THE FAMILY TOGETHER. HE DENIES MS. BRACKEN TO SUPERVISE VISITS AND HE DENIES TO ALLOW MS BRACKEN TO VISIT HER GRANDCHILDREN AT ALL WITH NO REASON OF SAFETY BEHIND IT TO SEVER HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN. DESPITE THE FACT SHE MEETS THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY UNDER MINNESOTA LAW.
THE JUDGE INSISTS ALL VISITS MUST BE ISOLATED AND MOTHER SHOULD NOT BE ON THE PHONE TALKING TO FAMILY OR ALLOW HER FAMILY TO TALK TO HER CHILDREN.WHILE THE CHILDREN ARE WITH HER IN A VISIT TO ENSURE COMPLETE ISOLATION AND NO OUTSIDE WITNESSES.
ONLY THE COUNTY WORKER IS ABLE TO BE PRESENT. THERE IS PROOF THAT THAT WORKER FALSELY ACCUSED MS BRACKEN OF SABOTAGING A SUNDAY VISIT AT THE TREATMENT CENTER; MS BRACKEN DOCUMENTS EVERYTHING AS WELL ONCE SHE REALIZED THESE PEOPLE LIE TO TRAFFIC CHILDREN. MS BRACKEN TOOK HER VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED AND IRENE CHRISTENSON'S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED AND ASKED JUDY TO SIGN OFF ON THE MOST TRUE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNT. THE EMPLOYEE SIGNED OFF ON MS BRACKEN'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT TOOK PLACE WHEN SHE STEPPED OFF THE ELEVATOR. IRENE CHRISTENSON'S DOCUMENTATION GOES LIKE THIS 4/14/13 Anita and Chris Bracken stepped off the elevator and I immediately went up to Judy and told her it is my understanding they cannot be here when the children are here the judge wants the children isolated from their family. Judy asks everyone to go in the office and talks to Chris and Anita about releases and states she has been told that they cannot be visiting at the same time as the children. Irene says that is my understanding.
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Anita and Chris Bracken arrived about 2pm. After getting off the elevator Anita and Chris are surprised to see the kids are here. Anita said I asked you before we left if they were going to be here because we are not suppose to be here if the kids are here. Judy interrupts before Genie can answer and asks everyone to step into her office. Judy starts discussing visits and releases. Anita said I talked to Genie yesterday and she said that she did not think the kids were going to be coming, because Irene Christensen did not know if she felt like driving all that way. Anita then stated which is ridiculous because there should be no reason for Genie's one day a week visit to ever be cancelled! Sally Schroer made the decision to NOT send her children to the treatment center that allows the children to join the mother. So there should be no excuse or guessing if kids are coming or not, regardless of how inconvenient Sally has made it for someone else to do their job. Anita looks at Irene who shrugs her shoulders as if to say " I don't know"
Anita looked at Genie I talked to you before I came you said the kids would not be here and thats why we came. Genie says I did not know until they were here. Anita asked Judy if she knew the kids were coming Judy said no. Anita says why would you not know until they are here? Chris says thats all right mom, we had to bring bathroom stuff anyway. Anita looks at irene and asks why is the mother not being informed when and if her kids are coming. Irene shrugs her shoulders as if to say " I don't know" a 2nd time.
ACCOUNTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE OFFICE AND THE FOUNTAIN CENTERS EMPLOYEE SIGNED OFF ON MS BRACKEN'S ACCOUNT AS TRUE WHICH REVEALED NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COUNTY AND POOR TREATMENT TO THE MOTHER.
MS BRACKEN IS STUDYING TO GET HER HUMAN SERVICE DEGREE AND HAD A BACKGROUND CHECK DONE BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. BAXTER REFUSES TO ALLOW IT! IT IS THE SAME BACK GROUND CHECK SALLY SCHROER HAD DONE. BAXTER SAYS NO...SALLY SCHROER WHO HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN ABUSING THE CHILDREN IS PERMITTED TO BE AROUND THE CHILDREN EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS BEEN ABUSING THEM.
THEN BAXTER BLAMES MS BRACKEN FOR NOT HAVING A COPY OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK SHE SIGNED IN SALLY SCHROER'S OFFICE OCTOBER 5TH 2012 AND HAS WITNESSES TO SALLY SCHROER TELLING ANITA BRACKEN HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO GET RESULTS. ANITA BRACKEN WAS NOT AROUND BECAUSE HER YOUNGER BROTHER IS ON HIS DEATH BED. SO SHE DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO DO THE COUNTY'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THE KIDS ARE WITH FAMILY... CARIE KRENIK PERJURRED HERSELF AND LOOKED FOR A LOOP HOLE WHICH MAKES IT EASY FOR MOM TO SUE HER TO
SALLY SCHROER NEVER SENT THE SIGNED RELEASE IN. IT NEVER CROSSES THE JUDGES MIND TO SHOW A LITTLE DISRESPECT TO THE COUNTY WORKER WHO NEVER SENT THE BACKGROUND CHECK. HE CONTINUES WITH OUT REASON TO MAKE SURE THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN A GRANDMOTHER TO THESE KIDS FOR A YEAR NEVER SEES THEM AGAIN.
Lowell I am scared to do the relative placement through your county based on documented proof of bad paper work. then the number of people who want the county attorney's sister to adopt Genies Kids. can I do it through rice. according to guidelines now that reunification is done they can be moved I checked laws and as long as I will keep them forever they can be moved which I will do. What ever they need I will do. someone needs to direct the Dobmeiers to an adoption agency that might be a much better place then breaking down families that don't want to be torn apart.
Minnesota state guidelines and Federal and state Laws. I am also the same religion as the boys and according to the law the mother can select a placement with the same religious beliefs . I have a great husband and I miss them so much
THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS BROKE HE CANT WORK BECAUSE HE WAS IN A SERIOUS CAR ACCIDENT BREAKING BOTH HIS LEGS. DAD HAD TO BORROW 5 DOLLARS TO PAY FOR A NOTARY SIGNATURE IN NEVADA. IN AN ATTEMPT TO NOT LOSE HIS CHILDREN FROM FILLING AN ORDER , IN THE HOPES THEY WOULD ALSO NOT LOSE THEIR MOTHER BECAUSE OF THE UNDISCLOSED CONNECTION THE JUDGE HAD WITH THE PEOPLE TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER WHO PLACED THE ORDERS TO KEEP EUGENIE'SS CHILDREN. DAD SIGNED HIS RIGHTS OVER TO MS BRACKEN FOR A YEAR. JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER TEARS IT UP AND SAYS ITS GARBAGE JUST LIKE THE BACK GROUND CHECK.THE FATHER IS NOW HELPLESS TO STOP THE JUDGE FROM GIFTING HIS CHILDREN OUT TO HIS FRIENDS. DAD IS OUT OF STATE RECOVERING FROM AN AUTO ACCIDENT AND CANNOT WORK. JUDGE STRIPS HIM OF THE ONLY WAY HE CAN DEAL WITH THIS BY PUTTING SOMEONE HERE TO REPRESENT HIM AND THE JUDGE THROWS IT OUT BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE FATHER WHO IS OUT OF STATE AND BROKE RECOVERING FROM TO BROKEN LEGS HELPLESS TO STOP THE JUDGE FROM PILLAGING HIS CHILDREN. COULD YOU BE ANY MORE SICK AND VILE OF A HUMAN BEING THAN JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER HOW DOES A PREDATOR COME TO BE A JUDGE? HE TORMENTS A MOTHER WHO WAS TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY AND STRIPS A FATHER HELPLESS IN CIRCUMSTANCE TO DISASSEMBLE A FAMILY TO GIFT CHILDREN TO RELATIVES OF CLOSE FRIENDS...... CHILDREN WHO WILL BE DAMAGED AT THE LOSS OF THEIR MOTHER BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER ABUSED OR NEGLECTED ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND 99.9% OF THE PARENTS WHO HAVE DONE THE SAME THING
EVERYONE SEES THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST SITTING IN THE COURT ROOM BASED ON HOW THE JUDGE DEHUMANIZES ANYONE TRYING TO HELP THE FAMILY STAY TOGETHER. ONE SIDE CAN SHOUT OUT DEGRADING COMMENTS AT THE MOTHER LIKE THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKER. AND LIE ON THE STAND. WHILE THE OTHER SIDE CAN NOT EVEN SPEAK..
THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE JUDGE TREATS GOOD PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON HIM TO BE FAIR AND UN BIAS.
NOW THIS IS HOW HE TREATS THE OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE JUDGE ACCEPTS AN ORDER FOR CHILDREN APRIL 10 2013 BY THE CREEPY PEOPLE TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER TO KEEP EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN.
APRIL 10 2013 JUDGE TELLS ANITA BRACKEN SHE CANT TAKE THE KIDS BECAUSE THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO GET THEM BACK??????
THIS WAS RECORDED THIS GUY COULD NOT CHANGE HIS TRANSCRIPT EVEN IF HE WANTED TO BECAUSE IT WAS RECORDED.
TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER ARE SEATED IN COURT WITH ALL THE COUNTY OFFICIALS AND GET TO SIT IN ON AND PARTICIPATE IN OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE JUDGE, THAT MOTHER DOES NOT GET TO SIT IN ON.
SHE IS SITTING OUT IN THE HALL ON A BENCH. PEOPLE TESTIFYING HAVE TO SIT IN THE HALL ON THE BENCH BUT NOT TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER. WHO SHOW UP TO EVERY HEARING BECAUSE THE CREEPY PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE IN A CUSTODY BATTLE.
WHAT IS INTERESTING I NOTICED WHILE READING THE TRANSCRIPTS NOT ONLY DO TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER RECEIVE SPECIAL WAITING AREAS AND SEATING AND GET TO SIT IN ON OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATIONS THAT THE JUDGE HOLDS BEFORE COURT, AND THE CHILDREN ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO SEE THE DOBMEIER'S EXTENDED FAMILY FOR EXAMPLE THEIR AUNT, MELISSA DOBMEIER'S SISTER WHO TOLD THE 4 YEAR OLD HIS MOMMY WAS A CRACKHEAD. SHE DRIVES CALOB TO SCHOOL EVERY MORNING. THE KIDS SPEND WEEKENDS AT BRENT CHRISTIAN'S HOME ALSO RELATED TO MELISSA DOBMEIER. BRENT IS THE LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO'S OFFICE IS TERMINATING THE MOTHERS RIGHTS. THEY ARE ALSO ALLOWED TO BE AROUND CREEPY PEOPLE WHO PLACE ORDERS TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN WITH THE JUDGE MELISSA AND TONY DOBMEIER. SO THE KIDS CAN SEE THE EXTENDED FAMILY OF TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER. JUST NOT THEIR MOTHERS FAMILY OR SPEAK TO THEIR MOTHERS FAMILY ON THE ON THE PHONE. WHEN MOTHER WANTS TO SPEND A BIRTHDAY WITH HER CHILDREN OR EVEN A HOLIDAY MINNESOTA STATE GUIDELINES SAY THE MOTHER'S PLANS MUST BE A PRIORITY OVER THE PLANS OF THE FOSTER CARE GIVER. YET FROM APRIL ON THE TRANSCRIPTS HAVE THE JUDGE GIVING THE FOSTER CARE GIVERS PRIORITY. THE JUDGE DOES NOT WANT THE MOTHER IMPOSING ON THE DOBMEIER'S FAMILY TIME. SOMEONE ACTUALLY GASPS IN SHOCK WHEN BAXTER DOES THIS!
SOCIAL WORKER KNOWS BEFORE HEARING THAT MOTHERS RIGHTS ARE TERMINATED
CARIE KRENIK IS CALLING FAMILY ON AUGUST 5TH TELLING PEOPLE THE JUDGE TERMINATED MOTHERS RIGHTS. THE COURT HEARING HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE YET INDICATING THE JUDGE HAD TOLD HER BEFORE SEPTEMBER 5TH 2013
JUDGE IS ACCEPTING AND FILLS ORDERS FOR CHILDREN FROM FRIENDS FAMILY MEMBERS
THE JUDGE KNEW ALL ALONG THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST YET CONTINUES.
AS STATED BEFORE EVERYONE KNEW THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS A TEAM OF GOOD GUYS AND PERCEIVED BAD GUYS. BAXTER BEATS UP ON ANYONE SITTING BEHIND THE MOTHER WHO ARE SHOWING HIM RESPECT. BAXTER SEEMS TO PRAISE THOSE WHO ARE NOT SHOWING RESPECT IN THE COURT ROOM. FOR EXAMPLE THE ASSIGNED CASE MANAGER MAKING JUVENILE COMMENTS ATTACKING MOTHER IN THE JUDGES COURT ROOM. WHEN THE CASE FILE IS ORDERED TO DEFENSE. THE DOTS GET CONNECTED FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNJUSTLY DEHUMANIZED BY JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER.
JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER- PRESIDING JUDGE OVER EUGENIE HARRIS'S FALSIFIED MALTREATMENT HEARINGS FORMER EMPLOYER OF MEGAN GAUDETTE. ACCEPTING ORDERS FOR CHILDREN FROM MELISSA AND TONY DOBMEIER, THE DOBMEIER'S SPECIFICALLY PLACE AN ORDER FOR THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS.
MEGAN GAUDETTE -ASSISTANT LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY -FRIEND OF SALLY SCHROER THE COUNTY WORKER OVER EUGENIE HARRIS'S CASE. FORMER EMPLOYEE OF JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER- CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF BRENT CHRISTIAN THE LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. SALLY SCHROER- FRIEND OF MEGAN GAUDETTE ABUSER OF EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN CHILD PROTECTION WORKER WHO ACCEPTS ORDERS FOR CHILDREN FORM FOSTER CARE PEOPLE
IRENE CHRISTENSON - VISITATION SUPERVISOR-FORMER SCHOOL TEACHER OF SALLY SCHROER AND GOOD FRIEND.
BRENT CHRISTIAN- LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, FRIEND OF JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER, WEEKEND BABYSITTER FOR THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS, HIS OFFICE IS TERMINATING RIGHTS OF EUGENIE HARRIS, RELATED TO TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER WHO ARE DOING FOSTER CARE FOR THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS, THE SAME FOSTER CARE GIVERS WHO PLACED ORDERS WITH COUNTY WORKER AND JUDGE TO GET RID OF THE CHILDREN'S MOTHER SO THEY COULD KEEP HER CHILDREN. BRENT IS ALSO THE CURRENT EMPLOYER OF MEGAN GAUDETTE
TONY DOBMEIER - FOSTER CARE PERSON OF EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN, RELATED TO BRENT CHRISTIAN LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS PLACED ORDERS WITH SEVERAL COUNTY OFFICIALS TO PERMANENTLY KEEP THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS, REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO GET RID OF THE MOTHER
MELISA DOBMEIER-FOSTER CARE PERSON OF EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN, RELATED TO BRENT CHRISTIAN LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS PLACED ORDERS WITH SEVERAL COUNTY OFFICIALS TO PERMANENTLY KEEP THE CHILDREN OF EUGENIE HARRIS , REQUESTING THE COUNTY TO GET RID OF THE MOTHER
SUSAN RYNDA HEAD OF HUMAN SERVICE WHO ATTACKED ANITA BRACKEN FOR POINTING OUT HER EMPLOYEES CONDUCT AND PERJURY WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ALSO AWARE OF CONFLICT AND SUPPORTED HIDING IT
ROSE VALDEZ FRIENDS WITH COUNTY WORKERS COMMITTED PERJURY MULTIPLE TIMES AND MADE STATEMENTS LIKE I SUPPORT SOCIAL SERVICES.
 Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
JUDGE ALLOWS COUNTY TO TURN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TRIAL IN TO A PARENT OFF COMPETITION OF WHO IS THE BETTER PARENT, MOM OR CHILDLESS COUPLE TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER, WHO PLACED ORDER TO KEEP MOTHERS CHILDREN WITH JUDGE AND ARE RELATIVES OF COUNTY OFFICIALS WHO ARE GOOD FRIENDS OF THE JUDGE.
 Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
 A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.