Case citation rules for Pro Se litigants–Cornell Rules of Citation Indigo Book

I had a question today about proper legal citations and where to find the rules for that.

Cornell University has published an online guide for this which can be found at:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/

Introduction to Basic Legal Citation(online ed. 2016)By Peter W. Martin

This work first appeared in 1993. It was most recently revised in the summer of 2016 to reflect the release of a new, free citation guide, The Indigo Book, and the publication of The Supreme Court’s Style Guide. Like all prior revisions this one also included a thorough review of the relevant rules of appellate practice of federal and state courts, and the latest edition of The Bluebook, released in 2015. It is linked to the new Indigo Book. As has been true of all editions released since 2010, it is also indexed to the The Bluebook and the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation. Importantly, however, it documents the many respects in which contemporary legal writing, very often following guidelines set out in court rules or style guides, diverges from the citation formats specified by those academic texts. The current online format, released in early 2016, was created with the assistance of a team of students enrolled in a graduate software engineering course at Cornell.

The content of this guide is also available in three e-book formats: 1) a PDF version that can be printed out in whole or part and also used with hyperlink navigation on an iPad or other tablet, indeed, on any computer (Be aware that not all PDF readers allow the user to follow links. You’ll want one, like Adobe’s, which does.); 2) a version designed specifically for use on the full range of Kindles as well as other ereaders or apps using the Mobi format; and 3) a version in ePub format for ereaders or apps that work with it. To access any of them, select “eBooks” at the top of the page. (Over 50,000 copies of the 2015 edition were downloaded.)

Since the guide is online, its further revision is not tied to a rigid publication cycle. Any user seeing a need for clarification, correction, or other improvement is encouraged to “speak up.” What doesn’t work, isn’t clear, is missing, appears to be in error? Has a change occurred in one of the fifty states that should be reported? Comments of these and other kinds can be sent by email addressed to peter.martin@cornell.edu. (Please include “Citation” in the subject line.) Many of the features and some of the coverage of this reference are the direct result of past user questions and advice.

A complementary series of video tutorials offers a quick start introduction to citation of several major categories of legal sources. They may also be useful for review. Currently, the following are available:

  1. Citing Judicial Opinions … in Brief (8.5 minutes)
  2. Citing Constitutional and Statutory Provisions … in Brief (14 minutes)
  3. Citing Agency Material … in Brief (12 minutes)

Finally, for those with an interest in current issues of citation practice, policy, and instruction, there is a companion blog, “Citing Legally,” at: http://citeblog.access-to-law.com.

Peter W. Martin

I hope this helps all pro se litigants out there with your pleadings.

Joanne

Advertisements

From NASGA–how lawyer scams and high fees hurt abuse litigation against nursing homes

Anatomy Of A Scam: How Lawyers Hurt Clients And Crush Nursing Homes

Photo of Kevin Daley

KEVIN DALEY
Supreme Court Reporter

Nellie Keffer won an $80,000 award from a nursing home she claims had brutally abused her husband. Weeks later, her lawyers sent her a bill for $71,000.

There is no shortage of aggrieved nursing home negligence or medical malpractice plaintiffs who express serious misgivings about the quality of their representation, and the fees lawyers assess against them after securing awards. One such attorney is Michael Fuller of McHugh Fuller, a Mississippi-based firm specializing in nursing home litigation.

A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation suggests that McHugh Fuller and its allies bankroll a nonprofit that promotes litigation in the states where they practice. The firms then collect a huge percentage of the awards they secure, while quality long term care is compromised by their tactics.

Fuller‘s former clients describe an attorney who is elusive and inattentive, but all too eager to collect large percentages of the awards he secures. His firm also evidences a history of misleading advertising that has resulted in sanctions from state courts. What’s more, his law partner, James McHugh, is intimately connected to a Pennsylvania-based law practice that bankrolled a nursing home oversight group called Families for Better Care, which tax records suggests may be a front to provoke litigation in jurisdictions where the firm frequently practices.

As a result of relentless litigation in certain jurisdictions of the sort practiced by these firms, quality longterm care has all but withdrawn from states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

McHugh Fuller declined comment for this story.

Big Awards, Bigger Fees

Fuller represented Mrs. Keffer in litigation she brought against a West Virginia nursing home she claims abused her late husband, Ralph Keffer, while he was in their care. Mr. Keffer subsequently died while in the care of a separate facility. After a lengthy mediation process, the nursing home agreed to settle for $80,000. Mrs. Keffer recovered $50,000 of that award.

Per an initial settlement agreement reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Medicare and Medicaid were entitled to collect a $25,000 lien from the award, and McHugh Fuller kept $5,000 in attorneys fees. However, Medicare and Medicaid declined to collect the lien, so Fuller kept the $25,000.

“He didn’t ask me if he could take it or anything like that, he just took that amount,” Mrs. Keffer told TheDCNF. Thereafter, she attempted to contact him repeatedly over a period of several months.

“Every time I called him he would be out of the office, he would never call me back,” she said. “He just wouldn’t talk to me.”

After settling the case, Keffer received an itemized bill from McHugh Fuller for $71,000. TheDCNF obtained a copy of the statement. Ultimately, she was not made to pay out any of the charges.

In the early going, Keffer says Fuller was diligent in his supervision of the case and in communicating with her on a regular basis. As the litigation progressed over time, however, he became less and less interested.

“In the beginning, he cared about my case, but then as time went on … he didn’t want anything to do with [it],” she told TheDCNF. She further said she regrets her decision to settle the case, especially after learning of the full extent of the abuse to which her late husband may have been subject.

“He treated me very unfairly in the end,” she said of Fuller.

Keffer ultimately lodged a complaint against Fuller with the West Virginia Bar Association, which dismissed the claim. According to documents reviewed by TheDCNF, Fuller said he guaranteed the Keffer estate a $50,000 award. He further claimed that he told Mrs. Keffer any reduction in the Medicare/Medicaid lien would be retained by the firm.

“The remaining allegation in this complaint is a fee dispute,” the Bar Association’s ruling read. “The Lawyer Disciplinary Board will not resolve such disputes unless the fee charged is in violation of law or grossly excessive on its face and that does not appear to be the case here.”

Complaints about Fuller‘s fees have been voiced by other clients. McHugh Fuller represented another litigant, Lora Jarrell, in a wrongful death action she brought against the nursing home where her mother, Ursula Gerencir, died in 2009. Fuller secured a $250,000 award for her and her brother — and kept $150,000 of it.

“I never understood why they needed $150,000 for expenses, but I didn’t argue,” she told TheDCNF.

“They’re taking more of their share of the money than they’re supposed to,” she added.

Like Keffer, Jarrell also claims she did not confer often with Fuller. Neither Fuller nor his law partner came to the case’s final proceedings.

“I wasn’t happy about that,” she said. “But they took all the money.”

Jarrell was unable to produce an itemized bill from the firm for TheDCNF. She also said that she was pleased McHugh Fuller was able to secure an award against the nursing home.

Misleading Advertising

Some nursing homes around the country have accused the firm of deceptive, misleading, or false advertising. An Ohio nursing home, Heartland of Urbana OH, LLC, brought a suit against McHugh Fuller late in 2014 for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and defamation. The firm bought full page ads in a local paper indicating the nursing home had been sanctioned by the federal government for “failing to provide necessary care and service to maintain the highest well-being of each resident.” The ad specifically solicited contacts from individuals whose loved ones may have suffered “bedsores, broken bones, unexplained injuries, or death” in Heartland’s care.

Heartland argues the ad falsely left readers with the impression the facility had been cited recently. In point of fact, the nursing home had not been cited for concerns even remotely similar to those expressed in the advertisement since 2010.

Nursing home citations are assessed across a spectrum of “A” to “L,” with “L” being the most severe. Heartland received an “E” level violation in 2010 because of three instances court documents describe as “relatively minor.” They include failure to document and administer a laxative prescribed for constipation, failure to reassess abdominal pain within 18 hours, and failure to administer an antibiotic. In these cases, no serious harm befell any of the residents, and no person in the nursing home’s care suffered the sorts of injuries referenced in the ad because of staff negligence or poor quality of care.

The facility was also cited for violations in 2012, though they were less severe than the 2010 citation. U.S. News awarded the facility a three out of five star rating, matching or exceeding three of the nearest four nursing homes.

An Ohio appeals court found that McHugh Fuller‘s ad was “literally false” by necessary implication in Sept. 2016. Though the fact, it concluded, of Heartland’s citation was literally true, “the words ‘considered in context necessarily imply a false message.’” A lower court initially sided with McHugh Fuller in the dispute.

A Front Group For Litigation?

McHugh Fuller partner James McHugh practiced law at a Pennsylvania-based firm called Wilkes McHugh for 17 years before joining his current firm. Wilkes McHugh is a multi-service outfit representing clients in appeals proceedings, bankruptcy court, and a wide range of personal injury areas, including nursing home negligence.

Tax records show Wilkes McHugh was the primary financier of an advocacy group called Families for Better Care (FFBC), a nursing home watchdog frequently cited as an authority on quality of care. The group’s director, Brian Lee, was cited in a newspaper report as recently as March 3. Lee previously served in Florida state government as an ombudsman for the Department of Elder Affairs, but was ousted from government service in 2011. He claims the administration of Florida Gov. Rick Scott forced him from office under pressure from the nursing home lobby.

The group frequently publishes a national report card ranking the quality of nursing homes in each state and the District of Columbia. The states in which both Wilkes McHugh and McHugh Fuller are active, including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Mississippi, Ohio, and Kentucky perform dismally in the reviews.

A review of the organization’s tax records from 2011 to 2014 show that Wilkes McHugh essentially bankrolled the group. For example, FFBC reported $69,400 in revenue on their 2011 990. The same record shows the entirety of that amount came from a donation given by Wilkes McHugh. The following year, the group reported $130,000 in revenue, all of which came from a donation from the firm, as in the previous year. The pattern follows for 2013 and 2014. The firm was the group’s sole benefactor in three of the four years during this period.

“Families for Better Care has a diversity of supporters, that in the past, we can proudly state included Wilkes and McHugh,” the group told TheDCNF in response to an inquiry about their relationship to the firm.

Wilkes McHugh partner James Wilkes II denied that his firm directs the organization in any way in an interview with TheDCNF. He said his firm’s motives were entirely philanthropic.

“I don’t think we are the primary benefactor,” Wilkes told TheDCNF. “We got involved when Brian Lee resigned as ombudsman.” Wilkes claims their professional relationship began when he read accounts of Lee’s dismissal in Florida newspapers.

Wilkes claimed he could not recall if he has ever met Lee. He further claims the cumulative total of their conversations runs less than 30 minutes.

In a separate 2014 interview with local media, Lee went even further than Wilkes, claiming he has never spoken with anyone from Wilkes McHugh.

Wilkes has a five-star AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell for high ethical standing, and has won several awards for his work litigating around longterm care issues. He is a previous nominee for the AARP’s National Aging and Law Award.

FFBC also disputed that their advocacy was meant to promote business for the firm.

“In regard to our nursing home annual report, our methodology is included on the report card’s website, which shows it’s based on federal data,” Lee told TheDCNF. “Finally, we are proud of our determined advocacy on behalf of residents and their rights, to ensure they receive the best care possible.”

Lee’s activities raise questions about the tax-status of the group, which is a registered 501(c)3 group. The IRS requires nonprofits to disclose any and all lobbying activity and lobbying-related expenses on government forms. Lee has written in the Florida press about matters pending in the state legislature, identified as a “lobbyist” in applying for other positions according to court documents reviewed by TheDCNF, and describes himself as an “advocate for changes in laws and regulations” on his LinkedIn page. Despite this, the organization did not disclose any lobbying on its tax forms.

What’s more, Wilkes McHugh’s lobbying and media firm, Vancore Jones, is intimately connected to FFBC. The firm’s two principals, Steve Vancore and Andrew Jones, registered as officers of FFBC. Both previously registered as lobbyists for Wilkes McHugh in Florida, according to state records. The registrant-contact for FFBC’s domain name is also an employee of Vancore Jones.

All told, FFBC appears more closely connected to Wilkes McHugh than its principals contend.

In addition to client complaints, court sanctions, and its connection to FFBC, McHugh Fuller attracted notoriety for its involvement in the purchase of a private jet from a judge they had occasion to argue before, and for a bevy of campaign donations to the same judge that campaign finance experts say resembles an illegal straw-donor scheme.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

From Joanne;

Many clients say they cannot get lawyers to go up against local nursing home for abuse to their elderly or disabled loved ones, and when they do, fees are enormous.  Medicare/Medicaid may even put a lien on part of that claim.

Many times in probate, lawyers get out of being sued for being part of the abuse and judges are reluctant to keep them in suits, even though they actively participated in the abuse (isolation, false/forced sales of homes, false waiver of rights, etc.)

The system has to change.  Nursing homes are rampant far too often with abuse.  They wiggle out of fines and lawsuits, probate courts are still isolating senior citizens and putting them at risk in nursing homes, they force sales of homes and the nursing homes are stuff with elders wanting to go home, and no one seems to care or investigate.

The whole system is a house of cards.

Joanne

From NLJ: Interesting Fed. Ct decision on workplace Health Programs incentives for Employees

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202796129499/Judge-Tells-EEOC-to-Revisit-Rule-for-Workplace-Wellness-Programs?kw=Judge%20Tells%20EEOC%20to%20Revisit%20Rule%20for%20Workplace%20Wellness%20Programs&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20170822&src=EMC-Email&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&slreturn=20170722171844

Judge Tells EEOC to Revisit Rule for Workplace Wellness Programs

Regulation wasn’t vacated outright for concern about “significant disruptive consequences.”

C. Ryan Barber, The National Law JournalAugust 22, 2017    | 0 Comments

AARP headquarters in Washington, D.C.
AARP headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A federal judge on Tuesday sent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission back to the drawing board on regulations for increasingly popular workplace wellness programs, ruling in part that the agency failed to justify its 30 percent cap on cost incentives for participating workers.

AARP challenged the rule in October, arguing it would allow employers to illegally access private health information and potentially use that data in a discriminatory manner. The AARP, which lobbies on behalf of nearly 38 million people age 50 and older, also alleged the 30 percent limit on health care cost incentives was too high of a penalty for nonparticipating workers.

In the rulemaking process, the EEOC determined a wellness program could be considered “voluntary” so long as the cost incentives—or, seen another way, the penalty for nonparticipating employees—did not exceed 30 percent of the value of an individual’s plan.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia in Washington acknowledged the “tension that exists between the laudable goals behind such wellness programs”—which often entail collecting sensitive medical information from employees—and other federal regulations limiting employers’ access to such data. But he found that the EEOC had failed to adequately explain its decision to interpret the term “voluntary” in those other regulations—the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act—to allow the 30 percent incentive threshold.

“Neither the final rules nor the administrative record contain any concrete data, studies or analysis that would support any particular incentive level as the threshold past which an incentive becomes involuntary in violation of the ADA and GINA,” Bates wrote. “To be clear, this would likely be a different case if the administrative record had contained support for and an explanation of the agency’s decision, given the deference courts must give in this context. But ‘deference’ does not mean that courts act as a rubber stamp for agency policies.”

The EEOC and AARP—represented by its litigation arm, the AARP Foundation Litigation—did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Read moreAnthem, Cigna and Macy’s Sued Over Wellness Plan

Bates’ decision granted the AARP’s motion for summary judgment against the EEOC rule. But Bates declined to vacate the rule entirely out of concern for “significant disruptive consequences.”

If the rule were vacated, Bates said, employees who’ve already received wellness program incentives “would presumably be obligated to pay these back,” while employers who effectively imposed a penalty on nonparticipating employees “would likewise be obligated to repay to employees the cost of the penalty.”

Protected health care information that was already disclosed to companies “cannot be made confidential again,” Bates said.

“It is far from clear that it would be possible to restore the status quo ante if the rules were vacated; rather, it may well end up punishing those firms—and employees—who acted in reliance on the rules,” Bates wrote.

From GG — Correct portal to Illinois Appellate Court Filing Website

This morning, GG tells me he spent 45 min. trying to upload a document on the new Illinois Court of Appeals Website.

So he called the help desk and they told him one of the portals doesn’t work and they forgot to take it down but another one does work.

So here is the correct URL if you are filing something:

from Odessey tech support:
the e-filing website has changed
the old one is not supported anymore and has errors

use https://illinois.tylerhost.net/OfsWeb/   to access their current website

From GG: Great Case law on TILA (Truth in Lending Act) and recission of a bad mortgage or mortgage servicer

see Barnes v Chase 9th Circuit RESCINDED and Remanded NOT for Publication 13-35716
Causey v US Bank 9th Circuit RESCINDED and Remanded NOT for Publication 10-56021
Here we find some amazing rulings from the Ninth Circuit. One pre-Jesinoski, and the other post Jesinoski …
Causey v. US Bank (2011) [3 day rescission decided pre-Jesinoski]
But in a case where the creditor acquiesces in the
consumer’s notice of rescission or fails to respond within the 20-day response period, rescission is accomplished automatically. See id.
Barnes v Chase (8/10/2017)
Check this ruling out:
For reasons that are unclear from the record, the letter to the creditor was returned to Barnes undelivered. The loan was not rescinded, and Barnes brought suit for rescission and violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and its requirements regarding rescission procedures against CBUSA, CHF, and LBPS.1 The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because notice of rescission was properly given, we vacate the grant of summary judgment on Barnes’s claims for rescission and failure to effect
rescission and remand for further proceedings.2
And:
Specifically, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Official Staff
Commentary to Regulation Z provides: “Where the creditor fails to provide the consumer with a designated address for sending the notification of rescission delivery of the notification to the person or address to which the consumer has been directed to send payments constitutes delivery to the creditor or assignee.” 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I, para. 23(a)(2); Truth in Lending, 69 Fed. Reg. 16,769-03,
16,771 (Mar. 31, 2004).

And:

CBUSA “fail[ed] to provide [Barnes] with a designated address for sending the notification of rescission” because the address it did provide was not successfully receiving mail when Barnes sent his notice there. See 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. I, paras. 15(a)(2), 23(a)(2). The only remaining action for Barnes to take, per Regulation Z and the CFPB Official Staff Commentary, was to notify the servicer, which he had already done.

and

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Naifeh (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 767, 769: “[A] timely notice of rescission automatically renders the security interest void under section 1635(b) where the creditor acquiesces in the rescission or ignores it.

Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp. (9th Cir. 2012) 759 F.3d 1023, 1030 [under the procedure set forth in 15 USC 1635(b), “‘all that the consumer need do is notify the creditor of his intent to rescind,’” and the “‘”agreement is then automatically rescinded”‘”]; Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services (3rd Cir. 2013) 707 F.3d 255, 258 [“rescission occurs automatically when the obligor validly exercises his right to rescind;” Williams v. Homestake Mortgage Co. (11th Cir. 1992) 968 F.2d 1137, 1140 [agreement “automatically rescinded” when consumer notifies the creditor of his intent to rescind] and of course Jesinoski.

From AJP–Important class action settlement for those annoying robo calls. Up to $900 if you were on their list!

I just checked AND MY PHONE NUMBER was on the list.

I have no doubt that I receive dozens of these stupid robo calls per week or month.

Go to https://www.rmgtcpasettlement.com/Landing.aspx and put in your cell phone, work phone (if you own a business like I do) and home phone.

See if you are eligible to get $300 per phone call or up to $900 if you received 3 or more phone calls.

I know many of you hate attorneys, but don’t let that stop you. Every once in a while the little guys with no clout win just a teeny tiny bit.

Joanne

From SSW–Where is the accountability in the DCFS system?

I find countless cases of erroneous and/or malicious removal of kids from their homes based on any number of questionable allegations; One must ask not only themselves, but certainly the COURTS claiming jurisdiction over the family or subject, on what foundation do the merits of these petitions to remove rest?
Our constitution was written to establish the guidelines that should enforce the protections of ALL citizens involved in any case brought to a court when any person’s human, fundamental & constitutional rights are threatened on either side of a case.

When highly publicized crimes are tried in our living rooms via news or television stations allow us into the courtroom, we are also exposed to the reporters own reaction, no matter how subdued, to any particular component of a case on either side. It is natural for us to assume that what WE see and hear about a case is also what the jury inside also sees and hears. From our perspectives, the facts as presented (on our side of the television screen) are so conclusive, there can be no question as to the findings of guilt, whether the guilt is on the accused or revealed to be more on the accuser.

We have seen cases that cause us to truly question the judicial machine and the competence of jurors who hand down verdicts that defy OUR logic.

High-profile cases such as OJ Simpson’s murder trial and Casey Anthony, have left us in jaw-dropping disbelief as we are riveted to the television broadcast of verdicts handed down that are in direct conflict to what OUR perception of them were: But WE are also privileged to information of a case that the inside courtroom never saw… ie: the bloody glove and shoes theory in explicit detail or the mother’s lifestyle over the 31 days between the last time she saw her child and the time she finally “mentioned” it had been a month and she did not know where her child was. There are infinite innuendos, revelations, and even personal interjections by the reporters that we were receiving in our private living rooms that the judge and jury trying and hearing the case never knew.
While we want to scream out for justice, there is an entire court process that has concluded, from its perspective, that justice has been served.
The occurrence of child removal from parents based on nothing more than the allegation that caused the petition to be filed is increasing at an alarming rate. The reference in this article, calling these accelerated dissolutions of families “ASSEMBLY LINE JUSTICE” is horrifyingly accurate.

There is something very obviously missing in these cases, but only to those who are standing on the INSIDE of the closed doors of a family court;

*EVIDENCE, MOTIVE, REASONABLE EFFORT, JURISDICTION, VALIDITY*

The officers of the courts who are solely empowered to determine the filing, trying and defending these cases, have become so overburdened by the frequency and numbers of these cases filed, while also cloaked in the secrecy of the closed doors of family court, it has become commonplace practice of the entire system inside to fall into a mindset of mass-production. Every case has a different number, the names change, but the common factor in all of them are the allegations contain within.
Our courts have unconsciously streamlined the process, to lighten their loads. In that streamlining, certain elements of the process have been eliminated, to save time and energy.
Unfortunately for the families, mainly the parents who have been FALSELY ACCUSED by a malicious reporter, an angry family member, an uninformed caller, and even a misconstrued comment from the child himself, the courts have decided to forego the FACTS of a case that may ONLY be determined through a thorough a properly conducted investigative process, then fact-checked for validation by the court, and finally, by the Due Process protections we are promised as United States citizens.

Our family courts have forgotten those components and erroneously proceed with “Best Interest” as their motivator, as they justify the systematic annihilation of the American family on the predetermined assumption of guilt based on nothing more than a written report of a caseworker who was entrusted with the duty to investigate the allegations against parents, to collect evidence through interviews of witnesses who give weight to BOTH sides, and then to compare this evidence to conclude: Is there enough evidence to indicate this parent is a danger to her child and the child is in imminent danger of harm or has this parent been falsely, even mistakenly accused and evidence gathered has shown this to be the foundation of an allegation that does NOT constitute abuse or neglect.
These caseworkers have been bestowed with a duty to ensure a child is safe and out of harm’s way. They are sent out to the population with an illusion of superpowers. They see themselves as necessary heroes.
In many ways, they should be.

But it is the “quota” that becomes the delusion. When there are no guilty parents, no children to take, there is no funding for the budget. Then there is really no need for so many caseworkers, (just to name ONE basic reason for the need to increase the numbers of removals…if you review this ONE component in a breakdown of every penny that comes out of the budget, it may seem insignificant in the vast $$$$ of expenses included in the granting of federal funds to agencies. BUT, no $$$ are granted for intact families! It only starts flowing when the valve is opened with the removal of the children. From there it becomes a flood).
The workers who have the successful Indicated Findings which end up in family court for removal are the bread winners for this broken system. It has become a survival tactic; Their OWN self-preservation has become priority over family preservation.
*****************************************
LEGISLATORS…There is an immediate and urgent need for review of the FACTS and REASONABLE EFFORTS practices of DCFS nation wide!!! The Administrative Codes are subliminally written with the protection of the AGENCY first. The child is the vehicle. Many of the codes, policies and procedures are written to allow the agencies themselves to inflict the very same treatment of a child that they used against a parent to TAKE that child. They are given protections from prosecutions for committing the same acts they have just accused and prosecuted parents for, and usually this is done without the court ever establishing any substantial or evidentiary basis at all!
The workers write the complaint. They hand it in like a homework assignment. Their supervisor signs off on these reports as being valid and accurate without even making a follow up call to anyone noted in the investigation or a background check of the reporter to determine possible malicious motivation…all of these are essential and relevant components that are SUPPOSED to be included in the investigation process, but are overlooked or ignored. These accepted and approved submissions ultimately result in $$$$ flowing into the budget, ensures job security, wage increases, and the creation of more jobs when the numbers indicate the need for MORE SERVICES (consequently, more service PROVIDERS).

Every successful removal is like another can of spinach to Popeye.
The statutes are written to cover every aspect of potential prosecution of a guilty parent…and guilty parents SHOULD be prosecuted APPROPRIATELY. What the laws and policies do NOT address is the potential prosecution of innocent parents. Laws are written in the conclusion that ANY parent indicated for abuse/neglect IS guilty, and the Due Process that is supposed to ensure that is a CORRECT assumption ceases to exist. There is no consideration to the contrary once an Indicated finding has been submitted.

When will the courts finally begin moving the over-population of legal orphans into the FEMA camps along with the rest of the refugees, undesirables and overflows from whatever else the system has caused through mismanagement and lack of accountability?

THINK ABOUT IT

Sharon Shay Watson, court corruption victim (loss of grandchild)