Find UFOs, The Apocalypse, New World Order, Political Analysis,
Alternative Health, Armageddon, Conspiracies, Prophecies,
Spirituality, Home Schooling, Home Mortgages and more, in:
Rumor Mill News Reading Room, Current Archive
Family Court Whistleblower Complaint Filed To House Oversight Committee - The Court Allegedly Doctored Transcripts
A whistleblower complaint filed to the U.S. House Oversight Committee in Washington, D.C. alleges that a recent family court commissioner in California has a repeated pattern of changing, fabricating or destroying transcripts and evidence in cases pertaining to the custody of children and the collection of child support.
NATIONAL FILE has exclusively obtained the bombshell whistleblower complaint, which provides documentation that purports to show the pattern of fabrication.
“Our office follows House protocols for whistleblower complaints and respects the Whistleblower Protection Act and the confidentiality it provides,” California Democratic Congressman Mark DeSaulnier told NATIONAL FILE after processing the whistleblower complaint and submitting it to the House Oversight Committee, on which DeSaulnier serves on the majority.
Whistleblower Mark Andrews, a California process server, is the whistleblower who filed the complaint.
“I have documented evidence that a court officer – Commissioner Louise Bayles-Fightmaster- altered the transcripts to a hearing. She did it twice. I have two different versions of transcripts from the same hearing proving this” Andrews told NATIONAL FILE.
Bayles-Fightmaster has retired in recent years from her job as Commissioner — which is a role appointed by judges to act as surrogates for judges — and now she performs private mediation and private judge work.
In a child custody case in which Andrews has been trying to get custody back of his two children from his ex-wife, Andrews alleges that Bayles-Fightmaster altered transcripts to make it seem like she offered Andrews a due process hearing, as required by law, despite the fact that Andrews was not offered a due process hearing and has never received said hearing. The difference between the two transcripts that Andrews presents in his complaint shows the manipulation of the record by the court, according to his whistleblower complaint. Andrews alleges that the Court violated California Government Code 6200 (c) and California Penal Code 115 (a)(b).
For starters, the Court erased his lawyer’s name from the second version of the transcript and falsely reported that Andrews was representing himself. Here’s the first version of the transcript from Andrews’ September 18, 2013 hearing listing his deputy public defender.
Here’s the second transcript, listing Andrews as “In Propria Persona.”
Andrews also gained permission to use the stories of Barbara Monroe and Paul Southwick, other people who feel they were slighted by Bayles-FightMaster.
“Mr. Farrell gave me every single piece of paper he had. I had this much stuff from him, which I threw out when I moved across the street. But I had this much stuff. He gave me everything I ordered him. I’m not going back and opening up that. I don’t have a problem going forward. If she has a cause of action against one of her attorneys that’s not relevant,” the Court stated in the Monroe case, according to the transcript provided in Andrews’ whistleblower complaint.
“Litigant Paul Southwick has his State Contractor’s license suspended for non payment of child support under Cal. Family code 17520. His license was suspended for 14 months. I was witness to this in the courtroom. Mr. Southwick repeatedly ask the county’s attorney and Commissioner Louise Bayles Fight-Master for his administrative hearing. Commissioner Louise Bayles Fight-Master refused to schedule this hearing and in a fit of rage yelled at Mr. Southwick, Now your driver’s license is gone, slammed her gavel on the bench and stormed off ending his hearing,” Andrews’ whistleblower complaint states.
This new whistleblower complaint comes amid national scrutiny on family and juvenile courts, with parents and children alleging child molestation and child trafficking in the foster care system and corrupt practices by Child Protective Services (CPS) agents who take children out of their biological parents’ homes. (READ: “A Betrayal of Trust”: Child Molestation Alleged in California CPS). According to many parents, the juvenile courts and family courts are both part of the same corrupt system.
Parents allege that the federal government granting Title IV “incentive” money to states for collecting child support corrupts the system in much the same way as Title IV funding to states for overseeing foster care adoptions, which incentivizes Child Protective Services (CPS) to remove kids from their parents’ homes and place them in foster care to await adoption. (READ: How Bill and Hillary Clinton Distorted Child Protective Services).
“The counties are in such desperate need of money to pay the judges, they stick it to these parents,” Andrews said, noting that when he tried to get a hearing in a lower court in his custody case then Bayles-Fightmaster revoked his driver’s license and professional license until he made a child support payment, effectively blocking him from being able to present new evidence in a lower court in a different jurisdiction.
“I wanted to get my case out of the county. I wanted it to go to a court in Oakland called OAH,” Andrews said. “The state can just turn around and take your license. They don’t allow you a hearing, you go to a hearing, you have to schedule the hearing, and they stalemate you.”
A father recently made his thoughts known to the Judicial Council of California regarding family courts and the nightmare that they subject fathers to.
Pissed off Father calls out the corrupt Judicial Council of California to their face.
In this article, we are going to focus on the federal program of child support enforcement that every state in the United States adheres to in an effort to secure money from non-custodial parents and diverts it to custodial parents so that these parents can then use the money for their children. Well sorta. The problem with child support enforcement is that this agency has a forward facing public side that most people have been socialized to accept. When thinking about child support, and the enforcement of non-custodial parents, we surmise that most people believe that enforcement is a wonderful program that has the SOLE purpose of taking care of children. And, it most cases this is true. Nobody at Fathers and Fathers has any problem with both parents supporting their children, and if one parent is purposefully absent then enforcement of child support is a good thing.
However, there is a rear facing side of child support enforcement that is not well known or talked about much by Judges, Politicians, and many special interest groups; this fact being that there is an industry surrounding enforcement that is replenishing money for Welfare, TANF, and other Low Income Assistance Programs. In looking at the Federal Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, Section 458, you will see language that allows the US Federal Government to give back “Incentive Payments” to US states for performance based child support collection, paternity establishment, and administrative costs. Typically, these incentive payments go back to social services programs because the thinking is after a divorce many women will end up using programs like TANF and Welfare for which US States have little money in their budgets for. While the exact amount of money is hard to define because of performance, and the fact that different states get back different amounts, many studies show that the average is that for every one dollar collected in child support, one dollar is released from Social Security Coffers that can then be given back to US States.
In our thinking, there are several problems with child support enforcement. If US States are dependent on this federal money from the collection of child support, then there is also a dependence on the non-custodial parent not having equal access to their children so that they pay greater child support which triggers the release of more federal money. Fathers and Families has serious concerns that enforcement of child support is in direct conflict with equally shared parenting for all parents and extended families. Under equally shared parenting, many non-custodial parents would pay considerably less child support because of increased time with their children, or they would pay no child support at all. Under equal parenting, there is significantly less federal money available for Welfare programs and most US States would be in financial crisis trying to solve funding of Low Income Programs because of it.
Another issue that is very frightening for our organization is that most child support enforcement programs are housed under US Health and Human Services Agencies like Social Services. Typically, these agencies investigate cases of child abuse, neglect, and dependency, and they often have legislative immunity for any wrong they may commit. Historically, Social Services agencies have been about providing services for women and children, and we are concerned that in many cases, especially those involving child protective services matters, that social services policies and procedures have enforcement mentality in mind when dealing with non-custodial families, while being geared towards services provider with custodial mothers. Furthermore, Social Services knows that if a child abuse, neglect, or dependency case can be made on a father, then he will pay greater child support. Again, this will also lead to greater Title IV-D money being delivered back to the State. In essence, Social Services NEEDS for non-custodial parents to exist, and they need them having little visitation (if any) with their children so they pay greater amount of child support that can be enforced by the federal government.
Enforcement
Fathers and Families understands that domestic violence and child support enforcement are two completely separate issues, but many special interest groups and lobbyist are starting to collaborate on how domestic violence and child support groups can benefit each other. Unfortunately, the lions share of combating domestic violence has focused only on male on female violence despite many federal statistics that women hit, use intimidation, and control at the same rate as men. And, in domestic partnerships involving women, the rate is sky rocketing. But you will not hear much talk about this because unfortunately domestic violence in itself has become an industry that supports many jobs, infrastructure, programs, and services that needs more and more federal money.
Like child support enforcement, the higher the statistics on violence, the more federal money will be delivered to groups that administer domestic violence programs. It seems weird, but one could say that these groups NEED for statistics to remain high so that they get more money. So how does this fit in with child support enforcement? If you are part of a non-custodial family who’s child custody case was heard in the Family Courts, you likely experienced an allegations of domestic violence that is becoming almost routine because hopeful custodial mothers realize that it brings them lots of attention, and immediately puts a father on the defense. These allegations are a perfect tactical weapon that brings about favor in the Family Courts.
Unfortunately, many of the false allegations will immediately lead to the complete alienation of children from their non-custodial fathers, step-mothers, paternal grandmothers, and other family members for an indefinite time. So what happens when a non-custodial father has ZERO time with his kids, he pays greater child support. And what happens when one pays greater child support? You got it, more Title IV-D money is released back to the US States.
So if both the child support enforcement folks and domestic violence folks get greater federal funding when fathers’ are falsely accused, thereby causing them to also trigger even more federal money, why not collaborate?
Fathers and Families has also noted that US States who have brought equally shared parenting to the Family Courts, or for those about to, there is always a provision that if a parent has been convicted of domestic violence, then equally shared parenting is out of the window. Since just about every Domestic Violence special interest group has come out opposed to equally shared parenting, we fear that many more women will be coached into remembering an incident years back that caused fear, even if she helped create it, so that domestic violence can be a factor in custody matters. In short, we fear that the Domestic Violence and Child Support Enforcement Agencies via Social Services will overlook and not address false allegations so that the shared parenting movement can be quashed.
Federal Enforcement
Fathers and Families believes that far greater resources, opportunities, emotional support, psychological support, financial support, and physical support for children is realized when both parents (and extended families) have equal access and parentage of their children, and that these are things that federal child support enforcement or social services agency can never deliver.
Fathers and Families believes that using non-custodial families child support efforts as a means to generate federal money for Welfare programs is misguided.
Fathers and Families has concerns that as more and more Welfare applications are received at Social Services Agencies across the US, there will be even more aggressive child support enforcement tactics used in the future that is designed to secure federal money from Title IV-D legislation to pay for these programs. And given the level of immunity that social services agencies have, we believe that a very wide open door exists for abuse and bias on non-custodial families and children.
In an effort to help Fathers and Families educate Legislators, Judges, and other groups, we hope that you will join our organization, as well as getting involved with others across this great nation using our social media sites like Facebook where you will have the opportunity to collaborate with us and others who are also in the child support enforcement system. Additionally, we ask that you extensively share this article with others via email and other social networking sites to help bring about greater awareness of our mission.
~~~
Clinton-Era Law Has Distorted Child Protective Services, Parents Say
Law passed by Trump seeks to reform a system in crisis
By Patrick Howley
September 25, 2019 Updated: September 25, 2019
Parents blame legislation signed by Bill Clinton for the rash of Child Protective Services (CPS) corruption and abuse claims cropping up all over the country.
On Oct. 1, President Donald Trump’s Family First Prevention Services Act—which he passed by attaching it to a February 2018 spending bill—goes into effect. Trump’s law seeks to reverse some of the damage caused by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which President Clinton signed in 1997.
Critics say Clinton’s law created financial incentives to remove children from their homes and place them in foster care, thus sparking a lucrative government-run business of child removal.
The ASFA created a program in which the federal government cuts checks to states, courtesy of Social Security, for every child adopted out of foster care. The ASFA also requires the termination of most parents’ custodial rights after a child has spent 15 out of the past 22 months in foster care. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spearheaded the push to pass the ASFA through Congress.
“After the passage of that legislation, foster adoptions increased 64% nationwide from 31,030 the year the law passed to 51,000 last year,” Hillary Clinton wrote in the introduction to the 2006 edition of her book, “It Takes a Village.”
ASFA was drafted in response to what was perceived as a failure in the previous legal framework for caring for foster children.
“The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) was enacted in 1997 in response to concerns that many children were remaining in foster care for long periods or experiencing multiple placements. This landmark legislation requires timely permanency planning for children and emphasizes that the child’s safety is the paramount concern,” states a Health and Human Services government training website.
‘Ready for Adoption’
Parents affected by the ASFA say it gives the government a blank check to traffic children.
“As soon as you hit the 15-month period, you automatically get your rights terminated,” Jeremy Powell of Oklahoma told The Epoch Times on Sept. 24, immediately after losing any chance of getting back his four children, all under the age of 10. “They [CPS] were ready for adoption day one. They didn’t help us in any way.”
“I have 30 days to appeal,” said Powell, a former Chili’s cook who entered the CPS system when the cleanliness of his house declined, due to a health episode at work that led to his firing. Powell said his manager, who is an illegal immigrant, chose to fire him rather than file an official report that might have led to the manager’s deportation.
“I looked at Trump’s law about returning kids to their families, compared to Bill Clinton’s law. Trump’s law is on our side,” Powell said.
“The law should be stretched out for people in poverty because they only give you three months. … Even if you make it by the 90-day mark, they still ignore because you’re too poor to carry on. The jurors, the lawyers, everything. There has to be an extension of time for poor people to catch up,” Powell said.
“One of our kids has already been through six different fosters. They say they care about the children. They’re torturing them! As long as CPS can get a child’s parents to the 15-month line, they get a kickback for the kid,” Powell said. “It’s like the kids are cattle.”
“One of my reports said because I have a problem with the church, my kids shouldn’t be returned. So I have no First Amendment rights. I don’t know why I’m still in America, because I have to pay these taxes and I don’t have any family or any rights,” Powell said.
A National Issue
Powell’s story is similar to traumas suffered by parents all over the United States.
“I have at least 200 cases on file with evidence from people all over the nation,” Audra Terry of Texas told The Epoch Times, referring to whistleblowers who sent their stories to Terry through her RicoCPS.com database, which put out an open call for CPS abuse cases. “There are 10 people alleging sexual abuse.”
The RicoCPS website demands “solid evidence” be presented. Its goal is to “demand a federal RICO investigation to investigate every CPS agency nationwide for the purpose of transparency and justice.”
Terry is planning to give her information to Texas state senator Bob Hall, who is leading a push to reform CPS, and to Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael, at an upcoming event.
“The incentive money is the bonus check that goes to the state. They have different classifications for it. It is strictly a bonus check. It is really hard to track,” parental rights advocate Connie Reguli told The Epoch Times, referring to the checks that the federal government sends to states for each foster care adoption. Reguli practices family law in Tennessee and is the founder of the Family Forward Project.
“The Adoption and Safe Families Act originally established incentive payments equal to $4,000 for each foster child whose adoption was finalized over a certain base level and $6,000 for each special needs adoption above the base level,” according to a 2004 Congressional Research Service report.
In fiscal year 2016, the federal government paid 47 states a total of $55.2 million in adoption incentive payments under the ASFA, according to congressional budget records. As of April 2018, the federal government had paid states a total of $613.9 million in ASFA incentive money.
Foster parents who adopt their foster children are also entitled to checks, courtesy of the ASFA.
Perjury
The parents and their advocates see these financial incentives as distorting the entire system.
“They have social workers in place whose main objective is to commit perjury in the courtroom, to create a rationale for why to take the children and get paid. It’s almost like perjury is part of their job description,” Andrea Packwood, president of California Family Advocacy, told The Epoch Times, noting social workers’ proclivity to coach children about what to say in cases.
“If, for example, you have a neighbor who doesn’t like you or your politics, their allegations against you don’t even have to be substantiated. You could be the perfect parent, but if your garbageman doesn’t like you, that gets submitted as evidence,” Packwood said. “There’s a movement of people like Antifa who are using this for political motivations.”
In October 2016, lawyers for officials in California’s Orange County argued in a civil case that social workers whose lies resulted in the removal of children from their parents had the right to commit perjury in the case and were entitled to immunity. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument.
Experts
Expert opinion has begun to validate the parents’ complaints that there’s something wrong with ASFA’s incentives.
DeLeith Gossett, a law professor at Texas Tech University, said in a 2018 Memphis Law Review article: “The act’s financial incentives have disrupted families permanently by the speedy termination of parental rights, without the accompanying move from foster care to adoptive homes. The programs that the Adoption and Safe Families Act govern thwart its very purpose as children continue to languish in foster care waiting for permanent adoptive homes, often until they age out of the system into negative life outcomes.”
Cassie Statuto Bevan helped draft the ASFA. She told the Chronicle of Social Change: “ASFA was blamed for leaving a lot of children as orphans, and that certainly wasn’t the intention of ASFA. There has been concern we moved to permanency, but didn’t pay attention to the parents’ needs.”
The ideology of the Clinton bureaucrats who worked on the law might explain its focus.
“What happens to children depends not only on what happens in the homes, but what happens in the outside world,” Mary Jo Bane, who served as the Clinton administration Department of Health and Human Services’ assistant secretary of children and families, said in a 1977 interview.
“We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. It’s a dilemma. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
Calls for Reform
Thousands of parents are expected to attend a rally at the California state capitol in Sacramento on Oct. 4 calling for CPS reform, the same day the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families holds a meeting in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss its response to the child sex trafficking crisis.
The Epoch Times recently uncovered multiple cases of alleged child sex abuse in the Contra Costa County foster care system in California. The State Department’s 2019 human trafficking report confirms that the foster care system is a breeding ground of human trafficking.
President Trump’s Family First Prevention Services Act fights back against the financial incentives that move children quickly to foster care, but parents are unsure whether Trump’s law will be enough to reverse the systemic damage.
With the Family First Prevention Services Act, states, territories, and tribes with an approved Title IV-E plan have the option to use these funds for prevention services that would allow ‘candidates for foster care’ to stay with parents or relatives. “States will be reimbursed for prevention services for up to 12 months,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“The Family First Prevention Services Act also seeks to curtail the use of congregate or group care for children and instead places a new emphasis on family foster homes. With limited exceptions, the federal government will not reimburse states for children placed in group care settings for more than two weeks,” the National Council of State Legislatures states.
“Approved settings, known as qualified residential treatment programs, must use a trauma-informed treatment model and employ registered or licensed nursing staff and other licensed clinical staff. The child must be formally assessed within 30 days of placement to determine if his or her needs can be met by family members, in a family foster home or another approved setting.”
Family Court Whistleblower Complaint Filed To House Oversight Committee - The Court Allegedly Doctored Transcripts Swami -- Saturday, 9-Jan-2021 07:27:40
