Thursday, October 31, 2013

meeting with lawyer to sue Le Sueur County Tomorrow

Civil Action for Deprovision of Civil Rights 
Sept 21 2012
Sally Schroer claims to hear hears a baby cry while standing outside the home of Eugenie Harris. Sally Schroer opens the door and enters the private residence of Eugenie Harris and conducts an interview with the four year old child of Eugenie Harris.

Sally Schroer concluded based on an interview with the four year old child that mother was not home.

Sally Schroer claims she steps outside and called a police officer to conduct a welfare check. Officer Tracey Hanna arrives in under one minute at the home of Eugenie Harris. He opens the door and both the police officer enter the private residence of Eugenie Harris. A second interview is conducted with the children.

Sally Schroer is opening dresser drawers and going through bags and starts packing to remove the children from the child proof room they were left alone in for only a matter of minutes with adults just up the stairs.

Mother is calling in children to School because children are sick. She does not have money for a phone and did not want to expose children to neighbors young children.  Mom runs 18 ft next door to call school because Sally Schroer told her she would take her kids away if she does not call children in to school the day before .

Sally Schroer claims children are not afraid and poverty and being a single parent was the determining cause of mothers 15 minute absence. The time frame is a guess mainly because witnesses claim sally Schroer accused mother of being absent for up to 45 minutes on the scene she changes it to 23. Mother argues with officer outside for a period of time before she gets back in the residence.

CALABRETTA v. FLOYD No. 97-15385.

Argued and Submitted June 8, 1998 -- August 26, 1999

The facts in this case are noteworthy for the absence of emergency.
The social worker  told him that they had received a report of the children crying.The police officer had the opinion that in any check on the welfare of children “there is an exigent circumstance” so no search warrant is needed.   
The Calabrettas sued the social worker and policeman and other defendants for damages, declaratory relief and an injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.   The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.   The district court denied the defendants' motion, and the social worker and police officer appeal.A. The coerced entry
The social worker and police officer concede that for purposes of appeal, they should be treated as having entered the Calabretta home without consent.   They argue that the district court erred in holding that their nonconsensual entry required special exigency or a search warrant.   Their theory is that an administrative search to protect the welfare of children does not carry these requirements, and the social worker was doing just what she was supposed to do under state administrative regulations.   They claim immunity for entry into the home, interviewing the twelve year old, and strip searching the three year old.
 Minnesota Child Maltreatment 
Screening Guidelines

Neglect Defined [M.S. 626.556, subd. 2 (f) (1)-(9)]
Neglect means “the failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with
necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child’s
physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so.” [M.S. 626.556, subd. 2 (f) (1)]

At times, conditions of poverty create circumstances in which a child may be neglected due 
to the parent(s)’ lack of financial resources. Under these circumstances, counties work to 
assist parent(s) in correcting the conditions of neglect, and to meet the protective needs of 
their children, but do not determine the parents’ behavior as neglectful. 
The following conditions should be considered when screening alleged reports of neglect:
the concern poses a significant health or safety hazard, or there is a continuing pattern of
neglect that poses a significant health or safety hazard; the age and vulnerability of a child.

Categories of Neglect

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)]

1. Modifying factors affecting screening decisions include:

 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. Schroer asks child are you scared child responds no

2. Examples of parent(s) not providing adequately for a child’s supervision and safety
includes, but is not limited to:

 Failing to provide supervision of children in bathtubs, near swimming
pools, lakes, ponds, holding tanks, machinery, busy streets and alleys
 Selecting an unreliable person to provide child care.

G. Failure to Protect a Child from Conditions or Actions that Present Serious
Endangerment [M.S. 626.556, subd. 2 (f) (2)]
“Failure to protect means the failure to protect a child from conditions or actions that
seriously endanger the child’s physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so,
including a growth delay, which may be referred to as failure to thrive that has been
diagnosed by a physician and is due to parental neglect.” [M.S. 626.556, subd. 2 (f) (2)]
Examples of parental failure to protect would include, but not limited to:

1. A child is present and/or participates with the parent(s), guardian(s), or caretaker(s)
in committing a criminal act that seriously endangers a child’s physical or mental
health. Serious endangerment in these situations includes, but is not limited to, the
use of guns, knives, or other weapons, and also threats of violence, or actions
resulting in harm to the victim.

2. The parent(s), guardian(s), or person(s) responsible for a child’s care do not protect
them from a person who poses a serious threat to a child’s safety and the parent(s) or
caretaker(s) do not act to protect a child.

3. Reports of ongoing abuse between siblings that result in physical injury and the
parent(s) or caretaker(s) do not act to protect a child.

4. Parent(s), guardian(s), or other person(s) knowingly allows a person who has
sexually abused a child to reside in the family home or have unsupervised contact
with the child. (This constitutes threatened sexual abuse, and should be screened in
as child sexual abuse, as stated on pg. 8.) 16

5. Parent(s), guardian(s), or other persons responsible for a child’s care are arrested
for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs with children in the vehicle.

6. Drug raids where a child is present and where illegal drugs are found

discrimination of disability in services have been prepared

proof of lawyer and head of human services  isolating mother with disability to exploit


proof that county attorneys placed children in foster care under rules that do not apply

proof that Minnesota  screens out poverty and maltreatment shall not be found

proof that reasonable efforts were not made

conflict of interest intentionally hidden by judge and county attorneys and head of human services susan rynda

in civil court all evidence can be used, Sally Schroer documenting to not send children twice while writing in tpr that mother was a no show where children could join her- implying she had the opportunity and passed

refused to send children to new york mills recommendations for follow up treatment

the order placed by the Dobmeier's to permanently keep  children

replacing parent with Dobmeiers in parent child therapy

refusing to reunite children in safe place with parent

special treatment they received

judge stating in court kids cannot go with anita because he will have to get them back

judge isolating family in violation of case plan to keep included

no safety risk involved to isolate

judge and schroer beating up on mother for allowing children to talk to bio relatives

cari krenik refusing to work with mother recorded and documented cari refused to here best interest proposal for children

cari wrote letter saying no evidence but terminatew only

cari called family 1 month before termination saying judge terminated

cari responded to family with safety concerns about mother to get a lawyer if you do not like it

rose valdez perjury- intent to harm

irene christenson perjury -intent to harm