Friday, September 27, 2013

I SEEN GENIE TODAY AND THE GIRL IS IN SO MUCH PAIN . WHY EVEN BOTHER BEING ALIVE SHE SAID ......

 I TOTALLY SEE HOW SHE COULD HAVE THAT OUTLOOK

THE PARENTS WHO BROUGHT HER IN TO THIS WORLD AND WHO WERE MEANT TO PROTECT HER DID NOT DO THEIR JOB. ONE ABANDON HER AND THE OTHER ALLOWED HER TO BE SEXUALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSED IN CAPTIVITY.

THE LAWS THAT ARE INPLACE TO PROTECT HER AND HER CHILDREN FROM BEING TORN APART LIKE THIS WERE BROKEN TO TAKE HER KIDS AND GIFT THEM OUT TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE JUDGES PERSONAL FRIENDS.

THE FRUSTRATING PART IS THEY WERE PUTTING HER IN TREATMENT CENTERS FOR HAVING BREAKDOWNS OVER THEM TERRORIZING HER. SO SHE GETS BOOTED OUT WHEN SHE EXPERIENCES PROBLEMS REGULATING HER EMOTIONS.  SHE IS RETRAUMATIZED HER LEGAL RIGHTS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED AND HER CHILDREN ARE BEING GIFTED OUT TO FRIENDS OF THE JUDGE FOR EXPERIENCING SYMPTOMS OF WHAT WAS DONE TO HER BY OTHER PEOPLE IN HER LIFE WHO VIOLATED HER OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THIS TIME IT IS A JUDGE, WHO VIOLATED NOT JUST  HER BUT THE BABIES WHO LOVE HER. THEY NEVER WANTED TO BE WITH OUT HER AND SHE HAS NO WAY TO COMFORT THEM TO TELL THEM SHE IS STILL TRYING. NO WAY TO TELL THEM THAT IF THE JUDGE HAD TO UPHOLD THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS THEY WOULD BE WITH HER RIGHT NOW.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

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

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


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

This is what happened at the park. 


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Section 11

Immunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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

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


 ected classes."

Sunday, September 15, 2013

FINDING OF FACTS PART 2 JUDGE M MICHAEL BAXTER BABY BROKER




                               

THE BOYS REACTING TO THEIR MOTHER GOING TO GET DRINKS FROM THE CAR 

A JUDGE IS COMMITTING PERJURY IN 1-30 + STATEMENTS; Perjury affects the integrity of the judicial fact-finding process, all offenders should be vigorously prosecuted. Cases may be submitted to the grand jury ...

FINDING OF FACT
I MISSED THE END NOTES AT THE END OF the PAGE MOTHER IS LIVING TRANSIENT LIFE STYLE AND LIVING IN TENT JULY AND AUGUST WITH ALL THREE CHILDREN LIVING WITH HER.  INCORRECT information.

If mother is living in an apartment when the county gets involved then it sounds like any hardship the family suffered was corrected and while maybe it is not common for people to go homeless in Le Center it happens all over the United States and families may for a time go with out housing. The Ombudsman I interviewed who is now a lawyer who's children are now grown told me for a time she lived in a car with her children.

As a child protection case worker myself I was told if a family is homeless it is my job to find them resources to correct their conditions. So the above remark is a sign of discrimination and bias against situations that are the result of someone's socioeconomic status.
Education for Justice Fact Sheets
By Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid and Legal Services State Support

Education for Justice  P.O. Box 14246  St. Pa




Can my rights be terminated just because things in my life are hard?
Your rights can’t be terminated just because you physically or financially can’t provide for your children. This means that having a disability, being homeless, or being poor are not good 
enough reasons to terminate your rights. A social worker can work with you to find resources 

to help you.


WHAT IF MY SOCIAL WORKER INTENTIONALLY CUTS RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND DID NOT TELL ME ?   I ASKED MY SOCIAL WORKER FOR HELP SO I WOULD NOT GO HOMELESS WITH NO MONEY, NO FOOD, NO PHONE, AND NO TRANSPORTATION 

(MY SOCIAL WORKER RESPONDED I AM DONE HELPING YOU)


THESE PEOPLE HAVE SERIOUS PREJUDICE AGAINST POVERTY, SALLY SCHROER DOCUMENTS CB ARRIVED AT COURT HOUSE ON FOOT!!!!!!!!!!!! ALMOST THE ENTIRE TPR ORDER IS DISCUSSING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AS A REASON FOR TERMINATION OF MOTHERS PARENTAL RIGHTS. NOTE NUMBER  30  AND 31 


(27) DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT WERE PROVIDED  FOR ALL THREE CHILDREN. THEY ARE ALL EXPERIENCING  SEVERE EMOTIONAL DAMAGE BY THE UNLAWFUL AND EXTREMELY ABUSIVE REMOVAL THAT WAS FOLLOWED UP WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION OF THE MOTHER. THAT HAS BEEN ON GOING WITH THE 100% FULL SUPPORT OF HEAD OF HUMAN SERVICE SUSAN RYNDA, SALLY SCHROER'S SUPERVISOR LOWELL FREEMAN, AND SALLY SCHROER. LATER THE SEVERE CHILD ABUSE OF THESE CHILDREN WOULD BE CONTINUED BY AN EQUALLY DANGEROUS WOMAN NAMED CARIE KRENIK..WITH THE SAME SUPPORT BEHIND HER AS SALLY SCHROER.

 BOTH BOYS DIAGNOSED WITH SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THE COUNTIES EMOTIONALLY VIOLENT REMOVAL FROM THEIR MOTHER. PLUS BEING EXPOSED TO PEOPLE WHO JUSTIFY ABUSING THEM SO THEY CAN BE PARENTS.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CHILDREN PARTICIPATE IN CHILD PARENT  INTERACTION THERAPY OR IT WOULD CONTINUE TO GET WORSE.

(28 ) COUNTY ORDERED PARENT CHILD THERAPY WITH AMY NOAKES.  MOTHER PARTICIPATES 5 TIMES AND ON FEBRUARY 11, 2013 NOAKES SHOWS UP FOR AN APPOINTMENT AT THE HOME OF MOTHER AND MOTHER IS NOT THERE.

MOTHER IS NOT THERE BECAUSE AFTER MELISA AND TONY DOBMEIER TOLD SALLY SCHROER THEY WANT TO KEEP EUGENIE'S CHILDREN, SALLY SCHROER CUT MOTHERS RENTAL AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE FORCING HER IN TO HOMELESSNESS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RESOURCES IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER AND WHEN EUGENIE ASKED FOR HELP SALLY SCHROER PROFESSED SHE IS DONE HELPING HER. MOTHER HAS NO PLACE TO LIVE NO FOOD NO PHONE NO TRANSPORTATION. I BELIEVE THAT MAY BE WHY MOM WAS NOT HOME.

MS NOAKES ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT MOTHER BY PHONE THREE TIMES BUT MOTHER NEVER CONTACTED ANY ONE TO SCHEDULE ANY FURTHER APPOINTMENTS.

MOTHER HAS TROUBLE AFFORDING A PHONE AND IS STRUGGLING TO FIND A PLACE TO SLEEP EVERY DAY. SHE HAD NO FAMILY IN IN LE CENTER AND GETS DISPLACED TO FARIBAULT.

 ACCORDING TO # 24 OF THIS DOCUMENT; MOTHER WAS PROVIDED WITH A CASE MANAGER (SALLY SCHROER) AND ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA CHILD PROTECTION WORKER  HANDBOOK IT IS THE CASE MANAGERS JOB TO GET MOTHER TO AND FROM THESE APPOINTMENTS AND OR TO PROVIDE RENTAL ASSISTANCE TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS IF APPOINTMENTS WERE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE HOME.

 IF THE APPOINTMENTS ARE TAKING PLACE IN MOTHERS HOME THEN THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE SALLY SCHROER CUT THE MOTHERS RENTAL AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE WITHOUT INFORMING HER IN NOVEMBER. THE TIME FRAME IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST ORDER PLACED BY TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER TO HAVE THE WORKER GET RID OF MOTHER SO THEY CAN KEEP HER CHILDREN PERMANENTLY.

CONSEQUENTLY HAD THE WORKER NOT BROKE SO MANY LAWS AND VIOLATED MOTHERS RIGHTS THE CHILDREN WOULD NOT NEED THERAPY FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE THE CHILD ABUSER SALLY SCHROER INTENTIONALLY P;UT THEM THROUGH.

 NOT ONCE BUT SEVERAL TIMES SHE ILLEGALLY ENTERED THE MOTHERS HOME WITH OUT PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSENT AND OR A PHYSICAL WARRANT SHE THEN TWICE ILLEGALLY INTERVIEWED CHILDREN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH IS PART OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCESS THAT AGAIN REQUIRES  PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSENT AND OR A PHYSICAL WARRANT. NONE OF WHICH SHE HAD.

SALLY THEN ILLEGALLY SEIZED  CHILDREN  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSENT AND OR A PHYSICAL WARRANT.

BECAUSE THE CHILDREN WERE NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER THE REQUIRES SERVICES TO BE OFFERED BEFORE REMOVAL.

ONCE SCHROER CUT HOUSING ANYTHING THAT CAUSES PROBLEMS AS A RESULT OF SALLY SCHROER FORCING SOMEONE WITH A DISABILITY OUT IN TO THE COLD IS GOING TO FALL UNDER REASONABLE EFFORT WAS NOT MET BY THE COUNTY

IN A NUT SHELL
TESTIFIED TO IN COURT AND Earlier IN THIS  DOCUMENT SEE (# 24 ) MOTHER IS GIVEN A CASE MANAGER TO HELP HER ORGANIZE AND COMPLETE THE CASE PLAN
SALLY SCHROER KNOWS WHERE MOTHER IS BECAUSE MOTHER CHECKS IN WITH HER REGULARLY. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH NOAKES IS COMMUNICATING WITH CASE MANAGER THAT SHE IS HAVING TROUBLE GETTING A HOLD OF MOTHER. CASE MANAGER HAS CONTACT WITH MOTHER. ANYONE ELSE SEE THE BREAKDOWN HERE.
 PLUS IF APPOINMENTS WERE TAKING PLACE IN MOTHERS HOME, SALLY SCHROER CUT THE ASSISTANCE FORCING MOTHER IN TO HOMELESSNESS


 DEFENSE ATTORNEY ASKS WHY SCHROER IS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT GETTING MOTHER BACK IN TO THERAPY. SCHROER ADMITS SHE WAS ONLY FOCUSED ON MOTHERS THC USE WHICH ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MALTREATMENT.

26.556

8) chronic and severe use of alcohol or a controlled substance by a parent or person responsible for the care of the child that adversely affects the child's basic needs and safety. There was never any maltreatment as a result of illegal or even legal chemical use.

  PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PARENT SPECIALISTS TESTIFY MALTREATMENT WAS THE RESULT OF MOTHERS OWN CHILDHOOD ABUSE. MOTHER DID NOT HAVE EXPOSURE TO A GOOD ROLE MODEL SETTING AGE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS. THIS RESULTED IN MOTHER HAVING UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS AS TO HOW OLD A CHILD CAN BE WHEN LEFT ALONE. 

WHEN A PROGRAM WAS AVAILABLE THAT COMBINED TREATMENT, THERAPY AND PARENTING CLASSES. SALLY SCHROER DOCUMENTS SHE WOULD NOT SEND CHILDREN AT LEAST 6 TIMES TO THE PARENTING PORTION OF THIS TREATMENT

SHE EVEN SAYS IN ONE REPORT MOTHER REALLY SHOT HERSELF IN THE FOOT BECAUSE I WILL NEVER SEND CHILDREN TO WELCOME MANOR. SCHROER SAYS SHE WILL NOT TAKE CHILDREN FROM THE DOBMEIER'S WHO PLACED AN ORDER TO KEEP EUGENIE'S CHILDREN IN LATE OCTOBER EARLY NOVEMBER. WHEN SCHROER TOLD MOTHER HER CHILDREN COULD NOT GO IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE FOR MOTHER TO GO BECAUSE THE PROGRAM WAS AN EXTENDED PROGRAM THAT WOULD HAVE PROLONGED THE AMOUNT OF TIME SHE WAS IN TREATMENT AND AWAY FROM HER CHILDREN.


 


(29) TESTING POSITIVE
THE JUDGE USES TWO TESTINGS IN ONE WEEK FOR A SINGULAR USE THAT WAS PRIOR TO CHIPS CASE AND CPS INVOLVEMENT. THC STAYS IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR WEEKS I BELIEVE.



 LISTS BOTH DATES AS TWO DIFFERENT USES. THIS IS ALSO DONE IN JANUARY FOR THC 2 DATES FOR A SINGULAR USE. THC STAYS IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR A LONG TIME AND THOSE TWO DATES IN ONE WEEK ARE CLOSE TOGETHER. SO THEY  WERE FROM  A ONE TIME USE.

 THEY ARE LISTING PAIN KILLERS FROM MOTHERS TEETH BEING PULLED. GETTING MOTHERS TEETH FIXED IS ON HER CASE PLAN. THE COUNTY WAS ALSO PROVIDED PROOF FROM THE DENTIST THAT THE PRESCRIPTION WAS MADE BY HER DENTIST TO HELP WITH PAIN AS A RESULT OF A PULLED TOOTH.  THERE IS ALSO AN EMAIL SENT BY EUGENIE TO HER CASE WORKER AND LAWYER INFOMING THEM BOTH, THAT A TOOTH WAS PULLED AND THAT A PAIN NMEDICATION WAS PRESCRIBED. EUGENIE'S TEETH WERE SO BAD SHE WAS IN THE DENTIST OFFICE 2-3 TIMES A WEEK BECAUSE SO MANY OF HER TEETH WERE INFECTED AND ABSESSING.

HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD ALLOW THEIR MOUTH TO BE INFECTED FOR THREE MONTHS TO COMPLETE AN OUT PATIENT TREATMENT? IT IS IN HER CASE PLAN TO GET TEETH FIXED. IT GOT TO THE POINT SHE WAS IN SO MUCH PAIN AND HER MOUTH WAS SWELLING THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO GET HER TEETH FIXED

  THE COUNTY IS AWARE THAT SHE HAS A MOUTH FULL OF ROTTING TEETH. THEY SHOULD ALSO KNOW IF SOMEONE IS HAVEING TEETH PULLED THAT IT REQUIRES MEDICATION. SO IF A SECOND TREATMENT IS GOING TO CONFLICT WITH HER SEEKING TREATMENT FOR HER ROTTING TEETH THEN MAYBE HOLD OFF ON ANOTHER TREATMENT FACILITY BEING INVOLVED FOR A PHYSICALLY NON ADDICTIVE DRUG THAT PLAYED NO ROLE IN THE MALTREATMENT OF HER CHILDREN.

GETTING HER TEETH FIXED AND A PRESCRIBED MEDICATION WITH ANTIBIOTICS TO TREAT THE INFECTION IS NOTHING COMPARED TO PEOPLE BREAKING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS TO REMOVE CHILDREN ILLEGALLY.

JUST SAYING.


TREATMENT PLAN WAS CONFLICTING WITH HER ABILITY TO MAINTAIN HER PHYSICAL HEALTH.
____________________________________________________________________
IN SUM UP TO THIS POINT UNHONERABLE JUDGE M.MICHAEL BAXTER HAS MALICIOUSLY PERJURED ALL BUT A FEW OF THE STATEMENTS. SHOWING  INTENT TO CAUSE THE MOTHER AND HER THREE CHILDREN  HARM  BY MEANS OF PROLONGED FORCED PAINFUL SEPARATION.

(30) LSCDHS ALSO PROVIDED MOTHER WITH TRANSPORTATION SERVICES  MOTHER WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE HER OWN TRANSPORTATION FOR VISITS AT ANY POINT DURING THE CHIPS CASE. LSCDHS OR FOSTER PARENTS HAD TO DO IT. MOTHER ALSO RECEIVED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR APPOINTMENTS FOR HER SELF AND FOR CHILDREN AND FOR COURT.

COUNTY  CUT RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND MOTHER IS DISPLACED TO ANOTHER TOWN. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE BLAMING MOTHER FOR SOMETHING THEY DID..... HAD SHE REMAINED IN LE CENTER SHE COULD HAVE WALKED TO LOCAL ESTABLISHMENTS. ALSO ANITA BRACKEN OFFERED TO ASSIST WITH VISITATION TRANSPORTATION AND THE JUDGE SAID NO WE HAVE IT COVERED !!!!!!

FROM APRIL TO AUGUST ANITA BRACKEN PROVIDED TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM COURT. ALSO TRANSPORTATION TO ALL APPOINTMENTS.

#31 IS THE ONE I CANNOT HELP BUT LAUGH AT BECAUSE UMMM HELLO JUDGE !!!!!

(31) PROVIDED  RENTAL AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE TO MAINTAIN STABLE HOME BUT SHE ULTIMATELY GOES HOMELESS

ANYONE ELSE SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT PHRASING????? HOW THE HELL DOES SOMEONE GO HOMELESS IF THEY ARE RECEIVING RENTAL AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE 


THEY DONT  


ABSENT FROM FINDING OF FACTS RENTAL ASSISTANCE IS CUT WHEN AN ORDER IS PLACED BY TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER WITH SALLY SCHROER TO KEEP EUGENIE HARRIS'S CHILDREN.  WHEN MOTHER ASKS FOR HELP FROM SCHROER WHO INTENTIONALLY CUT THE RENTAL SERVICE EUGENIE HARRIS IS TOLD DURING THE REUNIFICATION PERIOD I AM DONE HELPING YOU.


I AM DONE HELPING YOU DURING THE REUNIFICATION PERIOD
JUDGE M.MICHAEL BAXTER BELIEVES THAT A REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COUNTY. 


WHAT IS ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION?

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Statutes, Chapter 363A), the state's comprehensive civil rights law, declares that certain types of differential treatment are unfair, discriminatory practices and against the law. The Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, education, credit services and business.
Not every act that is unfair or unreasonable is illegal. To be considered unlawful under the Human Rights Act, the discrimination must have happened because of one of the following reasons: race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, age, family status (housing only), and Human Rights Commission activity (employment only). These personal characteristics are also called "protected classes."

(32) IS ABOUT MOTHERS LIVE IN BOYFRIEND AND MOTHER TESTIFIED IN COURT THAT HE WOULD NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN THE CHILDREN'S LIFE. SO NOT RELEVANT...

(33) SUPERVISED VISITATION DATE STARTED SEPT 24, 2012

(34) SUPERVISED VISITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO MOTHER
 NOTE: CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED UNDER STATE LAW FOR REASONABLE EFFORT,SERVICES HAVE TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO REMOVAL  COUNTY IS IN THE WRONG BY OFFERING SUPERVISED VISITS BECAUSE THE CHILDREN ARE BEING HELD IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

UPDATE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE COUNTY VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AS WELL WITH AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. A CRYING BABY IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE TO STICK YOUR HEAD IN SOMEONES HOME. INTERVIEWING THE FOUR YEAR OLD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT OR A WARRANT IS ALSO CONSIDERED A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF INFORMATION THAT REQUIRES CONSENT OR A WARRANT.  SO THE COUNTY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE ANYTHING FROM THEIR FINDINGS FROM THE HOME WHEN CHILDREN WERE ABDUCTED. THEY WILL ALSO BE CHARGED WITH A FEDERAL CRIME!!!

SINCE THAT TIME MOTHER HAS BEEN GENERALLY COMPLIANT WITH THESE VISITS BUT THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW ISSUES NOTED WITH MOTHERS PARTICIPATION IN VISITATION MOTHER AT TIMES ARRIVED LATE LEFT EARLY OR CANCELLED ALL TOGETHER. NOTE: JUDGE  OMITTED DETAILS FOR PURPOSE OF INTENT TO CAUSE EUGENIE HARRIS HARM. EUGENIE HARRIS  ALWAYS RESCHEDULED CANCELLED VISITS

SEE NUMBER #30
(30) LSCDHS ALSO PROVIDED MOTHER WITH TRANSPORTATION SERVICES  MOTHER WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE HER OWN TRANSPORTATION FOR VISITS AT ANY POINT DURING THE CHIPS CASE. THE JUDGE ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES COUNTY IS REASON FOR LATE OR EARLY DISMISSAL OF VISITATION. 



NOTE: I HAVE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT COUNTY WAS ONLY PARTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH VISITATION  SALLY SCHROER CANCELLING  VISITATION TO PUNISH MOTHER,CUTTING THEM SHORT, AND STARTING THEM LATE. ALSO DRIVERS SHOWING UP LATE. 




(35) MOTHER DOES NOT TAKE INITIATIVE IN PLANNING ACTIVITIES FOR CHILDREN
LSCDHS FREQUENTLY SUGGESTED OR PLANNED LOCATIONS FOR VISITS..IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING ACCORDING TO NUMBER 24 IN FINDING OF FACTS THAT MOTHER IS GIVEN A CASE MANAGER.

I have seen the case plan and if the county would have never cut rental assistance with the intent to get rid of the mother so they could give her children to a local childless couple RELATED TO THE LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEY; then visits would have taken place in her home. see the break down here. I also read the visitation agreement and there is nothing in there telling her she should be doing this.MOTHER  has requested in court for visits to take place at Anita Bracken's residence because that is where she was staying. THAT WAS DENIED. MOTHER REQUESTED TO TAKE KIDS TO DAM DAYS IT WAS DENIED. SALLY SAID SHE DID NOT WANT THE CHILDREN TO LEAVE THE DOBMEIER=S OR THE COUNTY.

Anyway according to the state of Minnesota it is the social workers primary responsibility. Unless Le Sueur COUNTY is exempt from the state of Minnesota's guidelines.

IS IT JUST ME OR IS MOM GETTING BLAMED FOR NOT DOING THE CASE MANAGERS JOB?

Social workers have the primary responsibility to ensure that the visitation plan is developed, implemented and revised as needed. Afixed visitation schedule is best practice and has been related to more frequent visitation and fewer missed visits. Visitation is a purposeful, planned activity that will have a positive effect on a child’s need for safety, well-being and permanency.
The visitation plan:
■Honors a child’s existing bonds and attachments- 
SCHROER REFUSES TO SEND CHILDREN TO WELCOME MANOR WHICH WOULD HAVE REUNITED UNDER SUPERVISION ADDRESSED PARENTING EDUCATION THC USE ATTACHMENT IN CASE PLAN CHILDREN WOULD HAVE BEEN CARED FOR BY MOM EVERY DAY SCHROER DOES NOT WANT TO DISRUPT CHILDREN BEING WITH TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER

 SHE INSTEAD SENT MOTHER TO A TREATMENT FACILITY THAT PUSHED VISITS TO 1 HOUR A WEEK AND HAD CHILDREN ON THE ROAD FOR 3 HOURS AND DRIVER WAS LATE FOR ALL BUT ONE OF THE ONE HOUR A WEEK VISITS 


CHANGED TO 4 HOURS A WEEK WITH ATTACHMENT IN CASE PLAN
 SCHROER ALSO TRIED TO SET UP A HALF WAY HOUSE OVER 6 HOURS AWAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS WHEN ANITA BRACKEN GOT WIND IT THREW A WRENCH IN SCHROERS PLANS,  SCHROER STILL HAD HER SENT TO A HALF WAY HOUSE FOR MARIJUANA USE BUT ONLY 10 MINUTES AWAY. 
  
■ Includes father and mother, siblings, and other relatives or kin who are significant to a child
-NO FAMILY ALLOWED IN PERSON OR ON PHONE 
■ Promotes the family’s individual strengths
COUNTY CANNOT IDENTIFY A SINGLE STRENGTH WHICH WAS MY FIRST INDICATOR THEY HAVE SOMEONE MANNAGING THE CASE WHO IS NOT CAPABLE OF DOING IT. THIS FAMILY CANT RECIEVE HELP FROM SOMEONE WHO IS ACTIVELY TELLING THE MOTHER I am done helping you and is prejudice against people in poverty.  WHEN SOMEONE IS SO BIAS THEY CANNOT FIND ONE STRENGTH YOU KNOW THE PERSON HELPING SHOULD BE REMOVED. That is why over 12 requests were made to have the county worker removed and over 12 requests were denied until the county worker was put up on the stand and looked like an idiot because of what she did.
■ Provides continuity of family relationships
NO FAMILY ALLOWED IN PERSON OR ON PHONE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR AND MRS DOBMEIER'S FAMILY. THE DOBMEIERS  STARTED MAKING THIS ABOUT THEM IMMEDIATELY BY CONFUSING THE CHILDREN ABOUT WHO THEY ARE RELATED TOO. THEY PLACED THE ORDER TO GET RID OF THE MOTHER. TONY DOBMEIER TELLS CHILDREN HIS MOTHERIS THEIR GRANDMOTHER THAT HIS SIBLINGS ARE AUNT AND UNCLES THEIR KIDS ARE THEIR COUSINS. TONY DOMEIER TELLS BABY TO CALL HIM DADDY !!! 


IT WAS THE SISTRER OF MRS DOBMEIER WHO TOLD A FOUR YEAR OLD WHO WAS MISSING HIS MOMMY THAT HE CANTR SEE HIS MOMMY BECAUSE SHE IS A CRACK HEAD. THE FOUR YEAR OLD IS TOLD BY MELISA DOBMEIER THAT THE PERSON RIPPING HIS MOTHER APART IS HIS AUNT.  
■ Involves the parent(s), child, and foster family in the
development and ongoing assessment of the plan
PARENTAL ALIENATION HAD FOSTER PARENTS DOING CHILD PARENT THERAPY ONLY GAVE MOM 4 HOURS A WEEK WITH NO OFFERED EDUCATION ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY. FOSTER PARENTS HAVE PLACED ORDER WITH SOCIAL WORKER AND JUDGE TO KEEP MOTHERS CHILDREN.  THERE IS NO INTERACTION OF FOSTER PARENTS AND MOTHER EXCEPT WHEN THEY SHOW UP IN COURT TO WATCH THE MOTHER GET SLAUGHTERED SO THEY CAN KEEP HER KIDS. 


ARE COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM THE MOTHER NO INTERACTION. TPR EVEN STARTS OUT LIKE IT IS A PARENTING CONTEST BETWEEN MOTHER AND MENTALLY UNSTABLE DOBMEIERS 

■ Involves the family’s support system

FAMILY SUPPORT SYSTEM RECEIVED LETTERS FROM LAWYERS TELLING THEM THEY BETTER STAY AWAY WITH NUMEROUS THREATS WHEN THEY QUESTIONED COUNTY ABOUT SAFETY CONCERNS. SCHROER THREATENS ANITA BRACKEN IF SHE SHOWS UP TO A MEETING SHE LIE TO THE JUDGE AND SAY EUGENIE IS REFUSING TO WORK WITH social services AND SHE WILL LOSE HER KIDS. ANITA BRACKEN RESPOND TO THE THREAT SAYING IT IS UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT AND IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AND SCHROER TELLS ANITA SHE IS GOING TO PRESS HARASSMENT CHARGES ON ANITA IN RESPONCE TO ANITA TELLING HER THAT HER INITIAL THREAT TO PERMANENTLY HARM THE MOTHER AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP IS UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST STOP. 


. THE ONLY PERSON NOT MAKING THREATS IS ANITA BRACKEN AND SALLY SCHROER THE CHILD PROTECTION WORKER HAS TWICE THREATENED TO HARM ANITA BRACKEN. EUGENIE AND HER CHILDREN IF SOMEONE SHOWS UP ON BEHALF OF THE MOTHER. 

■ Arranges visitation in the most home-like setting that will
maintain a child’s safety and existing attachments
 IRENE CHRISTENSON DID NOT WANT TO HAVE VISITATION IN HOME LIKE SETTING BECAUSE ANITA BRACKEN WAS DOCUMENTING THINGS 
THEY WERE HELD AT A PARK AT A LIBRARY AND A GYM. ONLY GIVING MOTHER 4 HOURS A WEEK TO BE A PARENT
■ Connects a child’s safety to the level of supervision
ACCORDING TO THE DIAGRAM MOTHERS REQUIRED  LEVEL IS MODERATE WITH AN EDUCATIONAL ASPECT.  THERE WAS ZERO EDUCATION OFFERED BY IRENE CHRISTENSON. TESTIFIED TO IN COURT. PLUS WHEN THE MOTHER HAD PARENT EDUCATION SET UP AT WELCOME MANOR SALLY SCHROER DID NOT WANT TO REDUCE THE TIME SPENT WITH TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER BY REUNITING CHILDREN WITH MOTHER SO SALLY DOCUMENTS 6 TIMES THAT SHE IS REFUSING TO SEND KIDS THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SUPERVISED ENVIROMENT 
  
■ Considers a child’s daily schedule, and the parent(s)’ work and/
or treatment obligations.

THERE WAS ALWAYS CONSIDERATION FOR THE DOBMEIERS AND THEIR SCHEDUEL WITH THE CHILDREN BUT NOT FOR THE MOTHER. 

THE NUMBER OF DRUG TREATMENT CLASSES MOTHER HAD TO TAKE PREVENTED HER FROM WORKING AND GOING TO SCHOOL. IN FACT SALLY SCHROER WAS GIVEN THE SCHEDULE FOR THE REQUIRED 3 AA CLASSES A WEEK PLUS MOTHERS 3 DAY A WEEK OUT PATIENT TREATMENT SCHEDULE. SCHROER OVER LAPPED THE VISITATIONS RESTRICTING EUGENIE FROM BEING ABLE TO ATTEND 1 OF THE REQUIRED 3 A WEEK AA MEETINGS. 

SENT EMAIL INFORMING LAWYER THAT SCHROER DID PREVENT MOTHER FROM ATTENDING ONE  OF THE THREE REQUIRED MEETINGS
■ Ensures that visitation frequency and settings are consistent,
and develop progressively towards a permanency goal

VISITATION WAS SET UP TO BE REDUCED SO THE CHILDREN WOULD BE WITH THE DOBMEIERS MORE THAN THE MOTHER. TONY AND MELISA WERE DOING THE PARENT CHILD THERAPY AND PERFORMING ALL PARENTING ROLES. 

■ Respects the family’s culture, faith and rituals
TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER WHO PLACED AN ORDER TO HAVE THE MOTHER REMOVED SO THEY COULD KEEP HER CHILDREN DID GET THEIR CULTURE AND FAITH AND RITUALS MET. MOTHER WAS ISOLATED OUT

■ Ensures that parent(s) assist in daily decision making, and
participate in everyday activities as much as possible11

FOR TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER THIS WAS CONSISTENT BUT NOT FOR THE MOTHER. 

MOTHER WAS NO NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN ATTEND HER SONS FAMILY DAY. MELISSA DOBMEIER DID THAT.  SALLY SCHROER TOLD TEACHERS THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO INCLUDE MOTHER IN ON SCHOOL INFORMATION SUCH AS SHE WOULD NOT GET SCHOOL CONFERENCES TO ATTEND. TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER DID THAT. SHE WAS NOT GIVEN ORDER FORMS FOR SCHOOL PICTURES; THE LIST GOES ON. 


MOTHER WAS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO BE INVOLVED BUT WAS BLOCKED BY SALLY SCHROER THE TEACHERS COMPLIED. 


■ Increases contact and parents’ role toward reunification, or
THIS WAS DONE FOR TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER THE TEMPORARY CARE GIVERS WHO PLACED AN ORDER TO KEEP THE CHILDREN.
when a child cannot return to parents’ care, continues family
relationships that preserves family and community connections.
FAMILY WAS ISOLATED OUT AT 6 MONTHS BECAUSE SALLY SCHROER WANTS THEM TO GO TO TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER. THAT IS WHY SHE CUT DENIED AND REFUSED SERVICES FOR MOM, WITH EVIDENCE OF TRYING TO KEEP MOTHER SENT AWAY TO RESTRICT HER TIME WITH KIDS.  FAMILY IS TOLD GET A LAWYER IF THEY DONT LIKE BEING FORCED OUT
TONY AND MELISSA DOBMEIER FAMILY CAN AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE WITH OUT BEING THREATENED LIKE ANITA BRACKEN WAS 


MOTHER RARELY UTILIZES THE TOY BOX
NOTE ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY IN COURT SHE IS MORE OF A HANDS ON KIND OF MOM WHEN SHE PLAYS WITH HER CHILDREN 







(36) ABOUT MOTHERS BOYFRIEND WHO DID NOT FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS SO THERE FOR MOTHER DECIDED HE WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED

(37) NOT ONLY ARE THE CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE MOM PREFERS HANDS ON PLAY VERSUS TOY BOX PLAY TOY BOX PLAY THERE ARE STILL SUPERVISION CONCERNS

(A) IS ABOUT MOTHERS BOYFRIEND AND NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE MOM AGREES KIDS FIRST SO HE WILL NOT BE INVOLVED.

(B) MOTHER ALLOWS BOYS TO MOVE OUT OF SIGHT AT PARK.

PROBLEM NUMBER ONE WITH COUNTY SUPERVISION CONCERNS
(B) IT WAS MADE CLEAR MOM REQUIRED EDUCATION TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS. THAT WAS THE ONLY THING SHE NEEDED TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS. THE CHILDREN DID NOT SUFFER FROM MALTREATMENT AS A RESULT OF MOM TESTING POSITIVE FOR THC. IT WAS ALWAYS AN EDUCATIONAL ISSUE. IN COURT IT IS REPEATED THROUGH OUT  FROM PERSON AFTER PERSON  MOTHER NEVER GETS ANY FORM OF EDUCATION. SO THE COUNTY SEEMS TO BE ADMITTING THEY FAILED TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT.

EDUCATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF HER VISITATION REGIMENT BUT THE COUNTY FOCUSED ON REDUCED VISITS DESPITE THE ATTACHMENT ISSUE WITH THE BABY IN PLACES THAT WERE DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE PERSON TO TRY AND ENFORCE RULES.


. IT ALSO SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT WELCOME MANOR  OR IN A HOME LIKE SETTING BUT SCHROER DENIED TO PROVIDE THE CHILDREN FOR THOSE SERVICES. IRENE CHRISTENSON DID NOT WANT TO HAVE VISITS IN HER HOME. SCHROER SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NUMEROUS EMAIL REQUESTS ASKING FOR PARENT EDUCATION RESOURCES HOWEVER SHE WAS NEGLIGENT TO RESPOND.


GAL, VISITATION SUPERVISOR, PARENTING SPECIALIST, AND SOCIAL WORKER/CASE MANAGER SALLY SCHROER  ALL SAY COUNTY DOES NOTHING TO HELP MOM WITH THE ONE THING THAT WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE MALTREATMENT AND THAT IS EDUCATION ON COGNITIVE SKILLS FOR HER CHILDREN.

IT WAS ALSO DETERMINED IN COURT THAT SALLY SCHROER WOULD ASK IRENE WHO WRITES THIS DOCUMENTATION TO ALTER DOCUMENTATION.

MOTHER WAS NOT ABLE TO HAVE ANYONE PRESENT FOR HER OWN REPRESENTATION, IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS. THE COUNTY HAS A ONE SIDED VERSION OF EVENTS AND THE COUNTY HAS CONTINUED TO PRESENT FALSE BLAME PERJURED FACTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FIST ORDER BEING PLACED BY MELISSA AND TONY DOBMEIER TO KEEP EUGENIE'S CHILDREN.

 FOR EXAMPLE MOTHER CANCELS VISITS (LEAVE OUT MOTHER RESCHEDULES). INTENTIONAL ISOLATION SO ONLY A COUNTY WORKER IS PRESENT.

WHEN A CONCERN IS EXPRESSED ABOUT MOTHER ONLY HAVING A COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE BASED ON PROOF THAT COUNTY WORKERS WERE FALSIFYING THEIR DOCUMENTATION  DEMONSTRATING PROOF THAT THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO HARM THIS FAMILY TO FILL AN ORDER FOR CHILDREN PLACED BY THE LE SUEUR COUNTY ATTORNEYS CHILDLESS  FAMILY MEMBERS.


THE FAMILY IS TOLD IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GET A LAWYER AND FIGHT ME... "CARIE KRENIK-CHILD PROTECTION WORKER" PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS.

IT WAS ALSO DETERMINED THAT SALLY SCHROER WOULD EDIT STUFF OUT OF THE DOCUMENTATION IF SHE DID NOT WANT THE MOTHER TO SEE SOMETHING.

ON A 3RD OCCASION IRENE CHRISTENSON'S ACCOUNT WAS FALSE WHEN COMPARED TO THE VERSION OF EVENTS OF THE 4 OTHER ADULTS IN THE ROOM.

(38) ON OCTOBER 11 2012 MOTHER MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR MARIJUANA DEPENDENCE IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR MOTHER TO COMPLETE OUT PATIENT TREATMENT PROGRAM IN 45 DAYS MOTHER DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH.

NOTE: MOTHER DID COMPLETE INPATIENT TREATMENT THERAPY WHICH MAKES NUMBER 38 NOT RELEVANT.

WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THAT PARENTING CLASSES, PARENT CHILD THERAPY AND ATTACHMENT FOR BABY, KEEPING MOTHER INVOLVED IN OLDEST SONS EDUCATION  WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED AND IN CASE PLAN AND NONE OF THOSE ARE FOLLOWED THROUGH ON BY THE SOCIAL WORKER.WHERE AS MOTHER DOES FOLLOW THROUGH.

(39) FOLLOWING MOTHERS ARREST "ABSENT FROM FINDING OF FACTS MOTHERS ARREST WAS FOR BEING LOUD IN HER APARTMENT."  AND TRANSPORT TO DETOX SHE WAS GIVEN A SECOND CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY ASSESSMENT ON JANUARY 25 2013 MOTHER MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE EXISTING CANNABIS AND NOW ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE.

MOM WAS AT HOME SALLY SCHROER CALLED AND CANCELLED HER VISIT AND SHE SNAPS AND CHUGS SOME ALCOHOL. THE COP GETS REPORT  AND INVESTIGATES TO SEE WHY SOMEONE IS BEING LOUD IN HER HOME.  THE POLICE OFFICER CHARGES HER WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND TAKES HER TO DETOX.

AS AN OUTSIDER LOOKING IN I AM SEEING A EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWN. 

THE COUNTY IDIOTS TACK ON A NEW ADDICTION. EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS NO CONTACT WITH ALCOHOL FROM SEPTEMBER 2012 TO JANUARY 2013? GEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME FROM AN OBSERVERS POINT OF VIEW AND BEING VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT CAN HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF BEING ABUSED. I SEE A TRAUMA SURVIVOR EXPERIENCING A BREAK DOWN. A PERSON WHO FEELS HELPLESS AND DEFEATED.

IT IS A VERY COMMON EVENT FOR VICTIMS OF EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE LIKE MOTHER IS GOING THROUGH WHILE BEING ABUSED BY SALLY SCHROER, TO SNAP
IT IS EVEN MORE COMMON FOR SOMEONE WITH C-PTSD TO SNAP. THESE PEOPLE BROKE LAWS TO TAKE HER KIDS AND ARE CONSTANTLY TELLING HER SHE WILL NEVER GET THEM BACK. THEY HAVE FOUND THEM NEW PARENTS. THE SOCIAL WORKER COMMITS PERJURY VIOLATE MOTHER'S CIVIL AND STATE LEGAL RIGHTS TO TAKE THE ONE AND ONLY THING SHE WOULD DIE FOR AND THAT IS HER KIDS.

OF COURSE SHE WILL SNAP YOU MORONS!

 A PERSON WHO WAS NEVER TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY WOULD HAVE SNAPPED EXPERIENCING THAT MUCH ABUSE.

IT IS ALSO VERY PREDICABLE FOR THE ABUSER TO BLAME THE VICTIM FOR THE EVOKED RESPONSE TO THE EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE. I WOULD SAY BLAMING THE VICTIM MAY BE REPRESENTED HERE IN TACKING ON AN ADDITIONAL ADDICTION AND SHIPPING HER OFF TO A IN PATIENT TREATMENT CENTER WHERE ALCOHOL IS RULED OUT AS AN ADDICTION.

WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS! YOU HAVE NO DAMN PROOF SHE IS ADDICTED TO MARIJUANA EITHER.THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. 

BAXTER, DID YA EVER THINK ABOUT SHOWING YOUR NASTY SICK SADISTIC  FRIENDS HOW TO GET IN CONTACT WITH AN ADOPTION AGENCY!!!

(40) LSCDHS ARRANGES FOR MOTHER TO GO TO NEW BEGINNINGS IN WAVERLY BUT MOTHER CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE TREATMENT BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO GO TO ONE CLOSER.

NOTE WAVERLY IS .58.64 miles 1 hour 23 mins AWAY FROM HOME. I WONDER HOW THEY ARE GOING TO MANAGE FREQUENT VISITS FOR THE BABY, WHO IS IN DANGER OF ATTACHMENT DISORDER.ALSO KEEP MOTHER INVOLVED IN HER SONS SCHOOLING


(41) ON FEBRUARY 14 2013 MOTHER ENTERED THE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM AT CARE IN ST PETER BECAUSE COUNTY WORKER SALLY SCHROER BEAT HER SO BADLY THAT SHE EXPERIENCED A BREAK DOWN. MOTHER LEFT THE FACILITY AND WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED AGAINST STAFF ADVICE 10 DAYS LATER.

SALLY SCHROER BROUGHT THE CHILDREN TO SEE MOM ON THE DAY MOTHER CHECKED OUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE A RECORDING ON A CAMERZA OF SALLY SCHROER TELLING THE MOTHER THE TRAUMA SURVIVOR IN FRONT OF HER BABIES; LOOK WHERE YOU ARE YOU ARE, YOU ARE NO KIND OF MOTHER. I AM MORE OF A MOTHER TO YOUR CHILDREN THEN YOU ARE.  MOM CHECKED OUT AFTER THE VISIT.IN FRONT OF HER THREE CHILDREN.

(42) MOTHER WAS DOING WELL PRIOR TO LEAVING HOWEVER GIVEN A POOR PROGNOSIS FOR LEAVING AFTER SALLY SCHROER EMOTIONALLY ABUSED HER FOR HAVING SYMPTOMS OF COMPLEX POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER  AFTER SALLY TOOK HER CHILDREN FROM HER IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

IT SOUNDS LIKE MOTHER IS HAVING ANOTHER BREAKDOWN AFTER BEING AROUND SOMEONE WHO IS USING EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE ON SOMEONE WHO WAS TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY


(43) MOTHER IS SCHEDULED FOR ANOTHER CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY EVALUATION ON MARCH 12, 2013 A BED IS RESERVED FOR MOTHER AT WELCOME MANOR. MOTHER IS A NO SHOW AND HER RESERVED BED IS GIVEN AWAY

ACTUALLY ANITA BRACKEN SPOKE TO WELCOME MANOR ON APRIL 9 AND ACCORDING TO WELCOME MANOR BEDS FOR MOTHER AND HER THREE CHILDREN WERE RESERVED SO BEDS FOR CHILDREN AND MOTHER ARE GIVEN AWAY. FINDING OF FACTS SAY ONLY A BED FOR MOTHER IS RESERVED.

SALLY SCHROER DOCUMENTS IN CHRONOLOGY REPORT SHE TOLD MOTHER SHE WILL NOT BE SENDING CHILDREN; SHE HEARD THEY DO NOT HAVE ROOM FOR KIDS. SALLY NOTES  GENIE DOES NOT SEEM SURPRISED THAT SALLY IS IS NOT WILLING TO REUNITE THE MOTHER WITH HER CHILDREN. GENIE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS AND KNOWS SALLY SCHROER IS TELLING A LIE. ANITA BRACKEN RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT SCHROER LIED DIRECTLY FROM WELCOME MANOR

SCHROER DOCUMENTS MOTHER WAS A NO SHOW FOR WELCOME MANOR WHERE HER KIDS COULD ULTIMATELY JOIN HER. ALLOWING THE READER TO BELIEVE MOTHER HAD OPPORTUNITY TO BE REUNITED WITH CHILDREN AND DID NOT SHOW UP. 

SCHROER ALSO DOCUMENTS LYING TO ANITA BRACKEN SAYING SHE TOLD ANITA THE CHILDREN COULD JOIN HER SO THAT ANITA WOULD BELIEVE GENIE WAS THE LIAR. EXCEPT SCHROER DOCUMENTS AROUND 6 TIMES HOW SHE REFUSES TO REUNITE CHILDREN WITH THE MOTHER SO WELCOME MANOR COULD PROVIDE THE FAMILY WITH THE REQUIRED EDUCATION TO REUNITE THEM. SHE DOES NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT THE BONDING PROCESS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE PLACED AN ORDER FOR THE CHILDREN TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER.

ALSO NOT MENTIONED WELCOME MANOR IS AN EXTENDED PROGRAM THAT WILL KEEP MOM AWAY LONGER FROM CHILDREN THAN A PROGRAM THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO JOIN HER.

(44) ON MARCH 19 2013 MOTHER COMPLETED A THIRD CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY ASSESSMENT MOTHER CONTINUED TO MEET CRITERIA FOR CANNABIS DEPENDENCE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE AND IT WAS AGAIN RECOMMENDED THAT MOTHER ENTER AND COMPLETE A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM.

(45) ON APRIL 11 2013 MOTHER WAS ADMITTED TO A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM AT FOUNTAIN CENTERS IN ALBERT LEA. MOTHER APPEARED TO BENEFIT FROM TREATMENT AND WAS DOING WELL.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME IS MOTHER IS GETTING HELP DEALING WITH SALLY SCHROER. FOUNTAIN CENTERS IS AWARE THAT SCHROER IS ABUSING MOTHER AND ARE RECORDED SAYING IT IN SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH FAMILY. ANITA BRACKEN IS DOCUMENTING AND ADDRESSING EVERYTHING SALLY SCHROER DOES TO HARM MOTHER. THIS HOLDS SALLY SCHROER AT BAY AND MOTHER DOES COMPLETE INPATIENT TREATMENT FOR THE PHYSICALLY NON ADDICTIVE DRUG MARIJUANA.

(46) ON MAY 5, 2013  MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED  WITH THE CONDITION THAT SHE GO TO WEST HILLS LODGE, A HALF WAY HOUSE PROGRAM. STAFF AT FOUNTAIN CENTERS TESTIFIED THAT CONTINUING AFTER CARE AND ATTENDING  A HALFWAY HOUSE TYPE PROGRAM WAS IMPORTANT FOR MOTHER BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT YET DEVELOPED ALL THE SKILLS NECESSARY TO SUCCEED IN MAINTAINING SOBRIETY. MOTHER NEEDED TO LEARN THE 12 STEPS PROCESS, DEVELOP HEALTHY COPING AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS, OBTAIN A SPONSOR AND DEVELOP A SOBER SUPPORT NETWORK.

SALLY SCHROER HAS BEEN ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A HALFWAY HOUSE MORE THAN SIX HOURS A WAY FROM MOTHERS CHILDREN. FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS. MOTHER CALLS ANITA BRACKEN UPSET. ANITA CALLS LOWELL FREEMAN WHO TELLS ANITA BRACKEN SALLY SCHROER HAS NO BUSINESS PRESCRIBING FOLLOW UP CARE FOR MOTHER. LOWELL FREEMAN CALLS FOUNTAIN CENTERS AND TELLS FOUNTAIN CENTERS THAT THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF PRESCRIBING FOLLOWUP CARE. ANITA BRACKEN SENDS A LETTER TO MOTHERS ATTORNEY SAYING THAT SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON BECAUSE SALLY SCHROER REFUSED TO SEND CHILDREN TO WELCOME MANOR AN EXTENDED PROGRAM WHICH WAS NOT REASONABLE BASED ON THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD KEEP HER SEPARATED FROM HER CHILDREN. NOW SHE IS TRYING TO SEND HER 6 HOURS AWAY... FOR AN ADDITIONAL 6 MONTHS ENDANGERING THE BABY PUTTING HER AT HIGH RISK FOR ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

MOTHER MIGHT NOT HAVE ACQUIRED ALL THE SKILLS BECAUSE SHE HAS COMPLEX POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AS A RESULT OF BEING TORTURED IN CAPTIVITY. WHEN MOTHER IS BEING TERRORIZED LIKE SALLY SCHROER IS DOING TO HER SHE WILL HAVE IMPAIRED THINKING DURING TIMES OF HELPLESSNESS AND THREATS OF NEVER SEEING HER KIDS AGAIN ARE HAPPENING TO HER. ANITA MENTIONS THAT SALLY CAUSES HER TO BREAK DOWN THERE IS A PATTERN SO MAYBE IF I AM WITH HER IT WILL HELP KEEP HER EMOTIONS FROM GOING ALL OVER THE PLACE. THAT WAS WHEN THE COUNTY FREAKED OUT AND ANITA BRACKEN STARTED RECEIVING THREATS AND WAS BANNED FROM SPEAKING WITH ANYONE.



(47) MOTHERS PROGNOSIS AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE IS POOR BUT IT WAS NOTED THIS COULD BE UPDATED   IF MOTHER FOLLOWED THE CONTINUING CARE RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTHER  REDUCED HER SEVERITY RATING BUT WAS ONLY IN THE PRECONTEMPLATION STAGE FOR CHANGE.

MOTHER WOULD NEED TO SEPARATE FROM THE PEOPLE ABUSING HER SALLY SCHROER BUT SHE COULD NOT SHE MADE OVER 20 REQUESTS FOR SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ABUSIVE AND WAS NOT DONE HELPING HER BACK IN NOVEMBER. MOTHER ALSO HAS COMPLEX POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME AND NOT A DRUG ADDICTION AND SHE IS RESPONDING TO THE ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF HER CHILDREN AND MISSING THEM. 

(48) MOTHER WAS ADMITTED TO THE HALFWAY HOUSE PROGRAM AT WESTHILLS LODGE IN NORTHFIELD ON MAY 6 2013. AFTER THREE DAYS MOTHER WAS ASKED TO LEAVE THE PROGRAM AT STAFF REQUEST AND WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED ON MAY 8 2013 THIS IN EFFECT WAS ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL TREATMENT PROCESS FOR MOTHER.

MOTHER SPENT THE FIRST DAY UNPACKING SHE SPENT THE 2ND DAY TRYING TO LEARN THE ROUTINE. SHE WAS THROWN OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF HER 3RD DAY BUT HAD ONLY BEEN THERE FOR ONE FULL DAY TO LEARN THE ROUTINE. 



(49) MS JODY ANDERSON PROGRAM DIRECTOR TESTIFIED THAT MOTHER DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM  AND HAD A BAD ATTITUDE. MOTHER WAS NEGATIVE TOWARD HER PEERS AND STAFF. MOTHER FELT SHE HAD BEEN TRICKED AND FORCED TO BE THERE. MOTHER LEFT GROUP EARLY REFUSED TO COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT AND BROKE PROGRAM RULES.

JODY IS CORRECT MOTHER DID NOT. SHE JUST FINISHED INPATIENT TREATMENT PROGRAM

Mother just completed inpatient drug treatment for marijuana which is ranked lower than caffeine and nicotine in terms of being dangerous. with a false charge of alcohol addiction when mother had a breakdown AS A RESULT OF SALLY SCHROER BREAKING LAWS TO FIRST TAKE HER KIDS AND BREAKING LAWS TO MAKE SURE SHE DOES NOT GET THEM BACK. SALLY USES TECHNIQUES LIKE NOT SENDING HER CHILDREN TO WSELCOME MANOR FORCING MOM TO GO TO A SHORTER PROGRAM THAT REDUCES VISITS TO AN HOUR A WEEK. SALLY SCHROER FOUND A HALF WAY HOUSE 6 HOURS AWAY WITH A 6 MONTH EXTENDED TREATMENT TIME TO KEEP MOTHER AWAY FROM HER KIDS.

THE JUDGE THOUGHT IT WAS MESSED UP SHE WAS IN A HALFWAY HOUSE WHEN METH USERS DON'T GET PLACED IN HALFWAY THEIR FIRST TIME OUT OF TREATMENT.

HENCE EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS THE RESULT OF SALLY SCHROER MANIPULATING DRUG COUNSELORS.  

SALLY SCHROER CONTACTS WEST HILLS LODGE AND TELLS THEM IF EUGENIE HAS ANITA BRACKEN AROUND I CANT WORK WITH EUGENIE. SHE ALSO EMAILS THE DRUG COUNSELORS SAYING THAT SINCE ANITA BRACKEN HAS BEEN INVOLVED I FEAR IT HAS CAUSED EUGENIE TO FALL BACK IN HER TREATMENT.

WE KNOW EUGENIE NEVER COMPLETES TREATMENT UNTIL ANITA BRACKEN IS INVOLVED AND SALLY HAD BEEN AROUND FOR 6 -8 MONTHS ANITA STEPS IN TREATS HER LIKE A HUMAN BEING AND THINGS CHANGE FOR THE BETTER BUT NOT FOR THE DOBMEIER/S WHO WANT HER CHILDREN AT ALL COSTS. EVEN IF IT TORMENTS THE CHILDREN....


(50) STAFF ATTEMPTED  TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT HER BEHAVIOR, ATTITUDE, AND COMMITMENT BY GOING OVER  A BEHAVIOR CONTRACT WHICH MOTHER SIGNED. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT MOTHER WAS NO AMENABLE TO TREATMENT AND WAS DISCHARGED FROM PROGRAM.

mothers attitude has to do with wanting to get back to her children. With constant game playing by the county IS UPSETTING THE TRAUMA SURVIVOR. THE child protection worker  HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE  SHE IS  more violent then Eugenie's boyfriend. Eugenie said she was willing to try if they could just let her know when she would start experiencing symptoms of EMOTIONAL DIS REGULATION WHICH IS A SYMPTOM OF being sexually and physically abused in captivity AS A CHILD, AND RE-TRAUMATIZED BY SALLY SCHROER WHO HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED AND VERBALLY ABUSED HER WITH THREATS TO HER CHILDREN.  EUGENIE she would try to work on them. The halfwayhouse also does not know Eugenie Harris is a

(51) MOTHER WENT UP IN SEVERITY LEVEL AT DISCHARGE, MOTHER LACKED WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE SHE ALSO LACKED SOBER SUPPORT NETWORKS AND HAD NOT YET DEVELOPED HABITS THAT SUPPORT RECOVERY.

MOTHER IS ACTUALLY SUFFERING FROM HER EARLIER ABUSE IN CAPTIVITY AND HER CURRENT ABUSE IN CAPTIVITY AND SHE IS SHOWING SYMPTOMS OF IT. SHE IS UNABLE TO WALK AWAY FROM HER CHILDREN.



Thursday, September 12, 2013

MOM A TRAUMA SURVIVOR IS UNRESPONSIVE POSSIBLY IN SHOCK

UPDATED FINDING OF FACTS WITH EVIDENCE OF JUDGE COMMITTING PERJURY AND I AM OUTLINING HIS CODE OF CONDUCT HE VIOLATED .WHICH WILL BE INVESTIGATED WE HAD ABOUT 20 PEOPLE SUBMIT A COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL BOARD.

 TERMINATING RIGHTS WITH PERJURY VIOLATING CODE OF CONDUCT HIDING HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEOPLE WHO PLACE AN ORDER FOR HIM TO GIVE THEM THE MOTHERS CHILDREN. AND SO MUCH MORE THIS GUY IS A THREAT TO CHILDREN AND HAS PROVEN HE WILL TEAR FAMILY APART TO CHILDREN TO HIS CHILDLESS FRIENDS.


The symptoms of PTSD apply to people who have experienced a 

psychological injury from a singular short 

lived traumatic event. soldiers who experience combat, or women 

who have been raped have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic 

Stress Syndrome. This is not exactly  what Eugenie Harris has. 

Complex Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome has the applied elements

 of PTSD; however, the symptoms of PTSD DO NOT always 

completely map  onto the experiences of people LIKE EUGENIE HARRIS who have experienced chronic, repeated, or long-lasting traumatic events, such as childhood sexual and/or physical abuse, domestic violence, in captivity.  

Events Connected to Complex PTSD

The traumatic events connected to Complex PTSD are long-lasting and generally involve some form of physical or emotional captivity, such as childhood sexual and/or physical abuse or domestic violence. In these types of events, a victim is under the control of another person and does not have the ability to easily escape.
The system set up to punish parents actually models emotional violence elements of entrapment and control over a persons life


 They take away your children and take control of your life. For example employment would be impossible with a case plan like the one Sally Schroer created for Eugenie Harris. Sally Schroer frequently used threats of removing visitation or permanent removal of the children to control Eugenie Harris. Sally Schroer wants to get rid of Eugenie she cuts services that like section 8 rental assistance to force the unemployed mother into homelessness. Sally told Eugenie she would not get a visit with her children if she did not strip down so Sally could inspect her for bruises. Carie Krenik did not want to deal with positive family support . She told Eugenie if she had to deal with Anita Bracken she would tell the judge to terminate today. Irene Christenson Tells Eugenie if she continues to play with her children like that you will never see them again. Eugenie is frequently asked if she is ready to throw in the towel yet. The day she left treatment Sally Schroer says look at you, look where you are! (with Eugenie's children in the room) . Your no mother I am more of a mother to your children then you are. 

The judge is equally as brutal as the Social worker to Eugenie. She qualified for an extension but he rules to move to terminate her rights??? 

She busted her ass and was exhausted trying to comply but the night before the first hearing Eugenie Harris breaks down. Anita said their was terror in her eyes and nothing could console her. She said she knew that the judge would give her children away no matter what she does. She is awake sometimes for almost three days. she is not eating. She was seen in the hospital for having a slight heart attack from the chronic fear of losing her children.  
Stress breakdown is a psychiatric injury, which is a normal reaction to an abnormal situation
The two types of breakdown are distinct and should not be confused. A stress breakdown is a natural and normal conclusion to a period of prolonged negative stress; the body is saying "I'm not designed to operate under these conditions of prolonged negative stress so I am going to do something dramatic to ensure that you reduce or eliminate the stress otherwise your body may suffer irreparable damage; you must take action now". A stress breakdown is often predictable days - sometimes weeks - in advance as the person's fear, fragility, obsessiveness, hypervigilance and hypersensitivity combine to evolve into paranoia (as evidenced by increasingly bizarre talk of conspiracy or MI6). If this happens, a stress breakdown is only days or even hours away and the person needs urgent medical help. The risk of suicide at this point is heightened.

Often the cause of negative stress in an organisation can be traced to the behaviour of one individual. The profile of this individual is on the serial bully page. I believe bullying is the main - but least recognised - cause of negative stress in the workplace today. To see the effects of prolonged negative stress on the body click here.
The person who suffers a stress breakdown is often treated as if they have had a mental breakdown; they are sent to a psychiatrist, prescribed drugs used to treat mental illness, and may be encouraged - sometimes coerced or sectioned - into becoming a patient in a psychiatric hospital. The sudden transition from professional working environment to a ward containing schizophrenics, drug addicts and other people with genuine long-term mental health problems adds to rather than alleviates the trauma. 

One example is that Eugenie Harris is sent to treatment centers where she is the only person who did not have a drug related crime and was not addicted to anything that was physically addictive. When she starts to experience physical symptoms she is diagnosed with a slight heart attack and as being in chronic pain with long bouts of insomnia and no appetite. The more she was seen at the hospital they called her an opiate addict for seeking medical attention when her symptoms were unbearable. She also had several teeth pulled because seeing a dentist was in her case plan which also played a role in prescriptions for pain killers. 


Words like "psychiatrist", "psychiatric unit" etc are often translated by work colleagues, friends, and sometimes family into "nutcase", "shrink", "funny farm", "loony" and other inappropriate epithets. The bully encourages this, often ensuring that the employee's personnel record contains a reference to the person's "mental health problems". Sometimes, the bully produces their own amateur diagnosis of mental illness - but this is more likely to be a projection of the bully's own state of mind and should be regarded as such.
During the First World War, British soldiers suffering PTSD and stress breakdown were labelled as "cowards" and "deserters". During the Second World War, soldiers suffering PTSD and stress breakdowns were again vilified with these labels; Royal Air Force personnel were labelled as "lacking moral fibre" and their papers stamped "LMF". For further commentary on this issue, click here. It's noticeable that those administrators and top brass enforcing this labelling were themselves always situated a safe distance from the fighting; see the section on projection.

The person who is being bullied often thinks they are going mad, and may be encouraged in this belief by those who do not have that person's best interests at heart. They are not going mad; PTSD is an injury,not an illness.Sometimes, the term "psychosis" is applied 

CARIE KRENIK KNEW WEEKS IN ADVANCE THAT THEY WERE TERMINATING THE MOTHERS RIGHTS BECAUSE THE JUDGE TOLD HER HE WOULD. SHE WAS MAKING PHONE CALLS A MONTH EARLIER TELLING PEOPLE......

CARIE KRENIK CANCELS DRIVER ON LAST DAY EUGENIE WILL GET TO SEE HER CHILDREN. CARIE  DOES NOT CALL AND TELL MOM SO SHE CAN FIND A RIDE TO LE CENTER WHICH TAKES BETWEEN 35 AND 40 MINUTES TO GET TO FROM FARIBAULT. AS A RESULT MOM LOSES ONE HOUR OUT OF THE TWO SHE HAD TO SPEND WITH HER CHILDREN. 

SHE WILL BE MISSING HER SONS BIRTHDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE KIDS WILL COME HOME BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAS BROKE SO MANY LAWS IN ORDER TO GET CHILDREN TO FILL MELISA AND TONY DOBMEIERS ORDER FOR CHILDREN. ITS JUST BRUTAL ON THE FAMILY BECAUSE LOOK AT HOW TORMENTED THE BOYS ARE WHEN MOM JUST GOES TO GET WATER.   

THE BOYS RESPONDING TO THEIR MOTHER RUNNING TO THE CAR FOR WATERS 
THEY LOST AN HOUR BECAUSE CARIE CANCELLED DRIVER AND NEVER TOLD MOM. THEY DONT KNOW THEY WONT GET TO SEE HER AGAIN UNTIL IT IS FOUGHT THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM THEY WILL BE TOLD THEY WONT BE GETTING THEIR MOM BACK BY TONY AND MELISA DOBMEIER THEY WONT KNOW MOM WILL GET THEM BACK EVENTUALLY 




 THEY DID NOT KNOW!!!!! THIS WAS GOODBYE 

 THEY DID NOT KNOW!!!!! 
THIS WAS GOODBYE THE BABY CRY'S LIKE THIS AT THE END OF EVERY VISIT!  MOMMY CANT MAKE HER FEEL BETTER BECAUSE JUDGE BAXTER HAS SOLD HER OFF TO HIS FRIENDS CHILDLESS RELATIVES. HE HAD THE OPTION TO REUNITE WITH SUPERVISION BUT HIS FRIENDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIVES OF THE MOTHER AND HER CHILDREN. The judge  HAS PROLONGED THE ABUSE UNTIL FEDERAL COURT SHUTS THIS DOWN  BY THEN THERE WILL BE SEVERE MENTAL TRAUMA TO THE CHILDREN.  

They did not know 
THIS WAS GOODBYE THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN BROKERED OUT TO MELISSA AND TONY DOBMEIER BECAUSE THEY WERE RELATED TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND FRIENDS WITH THE JUDGE 

MOTHER IS IN SHOCK AND UNRESPONSIVE. ANITA BRACKEN GOT HER BACK ON HER FEET TO FIGHT AGAIN. SHE MANAGED TO GET MOM TO GO BACK TO THE COURT HOUSE TO START THE APPEAL PROCESS.  

 http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm#Breakdown