Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
HUFF resolution strongly denouncing CPS
Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom (HUFF) met on April 16 with a homeless couple who had their adorable daughter, 8-month old Baby I, removed from them by the Santa Cruz County Child Protective Services, and placed in foster care.
Baby I, who had just been seen by County doctors at their Emeline Clinic on April 14Th for her well-baby check, passed all tests with flying colors, being right on track developmentally, physically & socially.
Her intact family had been living in their van, until a car accident put them on the streets. Without money or jobs, they were living day to day on donations from kind-hearted strangers mostly in motel rooms.
Applying for help at the Homeless Services Center, the couple were told that the 3 programs they qualified for, 1 in Watsonville, the Mary, Joseph & Jesus program, & New Life Community Services were all full so they signed up on the waiting list.
They made plans to apply the following week for services at the Rowland Rebele Family Shelter but were approached by a CPS worker who said she had received calls concerned about the family.
Since Baby I's father, who has been the mother's partner for the past 12 years has been struggling with drug and alcohol addiction, CPS assigned the mother a service plan.
At the well-baby check, a CPS worker told the mother a removal hearing was to be held in a Watsonville court at 9AM a scant 12 hours later.
The mother told the CPS worker they had been able to find shelter at a private home in the Live Oak area of Santa Cruz, and had been housed for the past three days.
Despite that the CPS worker "forgot" to give her bus passes as she had promised, the mother was left to find her own way to the hearing.
Court documents claimed among other things that the couple had been offered housing but refused it.
At the hearing, Judge John Gallagher ordered Baby I removed from her parents and placed in foster care pending a hearing.
When the mother surrendered Baby I to authorities, the CPS worker told her she would need to find "different housing" as her current housing would not be acceptable. When she asked why, she was told the information was "confidential."
Based on this and other findings, HUFF passed a resolution "strongly condemning the removal of Baby I from her parents by CPS because of their homeless status absent any abuse or neglect."
Those wishing more information can contact Attorney Ed Frey at 831 479-8911 , Keith McHenry of Food Not Bombs at 831 515-8234 or Becky Johnson at becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/
Her intact family had been living in their van, until a car accident put them on the streets. Without money or jobs, they were living day to day on donations from kind-hearted strangers mostly in motel rooms.
Applying for help at the Homeless Services Center, the couple were told that the 3 programs they qualified for, 1 in Watsonville, the Mary, Joseph & Jesus program, & New Life Community Services were all full so they signed up on the waiting list.
They made plans to apply the following week for services at the Rowland Rebele Family Shelter but were approached by a CPS worker who said she had received calls concerned about the family.
Since Baby I's father, who has been the mother's partner for the past 12 years has been struggling with drug and alcohol addiction, CPS assigned the mother a service plan.
At the well-baby check, a CPS worker told the mother a removal hearing was to be held in a Watsonville court at 9AM a scant 12 hours later.
The mother told the CPS worker they had been able to find shelter at a private home in the Live Oak area of Santa Cruz, and had been housed for the past three days.
Despite that the CPS worker "forgot" to give her bus passes as she had promised, the mother was left to find her own way to the hearing.
Court documents claimed among other things that the couple had been offered housing but refused it.
At the hearing, Judge John Gallagher ordered Baby I removed from her parents and placed in foster care pending a hearing.
When the mother surrendered Baby I to authorities, the CPS worker told her she would need to find "different housing" as her current housing would not be acceptable. When she asked why, she was told the information was "confidential."
Based on this and other findings, HUFF passed a resolution "strongly condemning the removal of Baby I from her parents by CPS because of their homeless status absent any abuse or neglect."
Those wishing more information can contact Attorney Ed Frey at 831 479-8911 , Keith McHenry of Food Not Bombs at 831 515-8234 or Becky Johnson at becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The parents' housing obviously had legal issues. Children can not be placed in a home where any resident has a history of child abuse/endangerment or significant criminal history. This is state law and CPS can't waive this.
I wish the parents luck. However, if they're addicts and have a history of "resisting treatment" the odds of getting their child back (given its age) absent a change in circumstances is slim. Again, state law mandates that the child be removed and a permanent plan developed. Permanent placement options include with a relative willing to take the child or adoption.
I wish the parents luck. However, if they're addicts and have a history of "resisting treatment" the odds of getting their child back (given its age) absent a change in circumstances is slim. Again, state law mandates that the child be removed and a permanent plan developed. Permanent placement options include with a relative willing to take the child or adoption.
There is a baby, living on the streets, with a drug addicted parent.....and you want me to worry about that parent's rights being infringed on because the baby was taken away to protect it?
I say thank god for the Judge. And I say Huff has let it's political agenda take precedence over the safety and well being of an infant.
I say thank god for the Judge. And I say Huff has let it's political agenda take precedence over the safety and well being of an infant.
i am sure there was a relative available to take in the child. if the father was a junkie a restraining order against him would have been better for the child then tossing the child into foster care.
we don't know because the people at the trial have been threatened with contempt charges for even talking about what happened at trial.
the government can steal your child with lies and intimidation and you can't even tell anyone how they did it.
i recomend that mother go by freedom forum, those folks there are actually organizing against child protective services.
we don't know because the people at the trial have been threatened with contempt charges for even talking about what happened at trial.
the government can steal your child with lies and intimidation and you can't even tell anyone how they did it.
i recomend that mother go by freedom forum, those folks there are actually organizing against child protective services.
Thank-you all for your comments. Many parents ARE drug-addicted. To tranquilizers, pain pills, mood elevators, anti-depression medications.. Also, alcohol, caffeine, marijuana, and tobacco. Addiction is a medical condition that must be managed or the person goes into withdrawal. It is a difficult process to end addiction, hard to do by oneself, and nearly impossible to do if one is living day to day on the streets.
Let me remind you that they didn't start out that way. They were on their way in their van towards a possible job in San Diego from Pennsylvania, where the family is from. While in Santa Cruz their child had a medical emergency. While speeding towards Dominican's emergency room they got into a car accident and lost their vehicle.
Yes the father has a history of alcohol and drug use. But no allegation has been made that he ever hurt the child, intended to hurt the child, or was in imminent danger of hurting her. She was removed because CPS worried that he might hurt her. No allegations of drug use or abuse by the mother have been made other than their claim that she refused to take a drug test which I know, for sure, is not true.
They were targeted because they have a beautiful, healthy, happy, well-adjusted, bright baby girl who they were itching to get their hands on. She is sooooooo adoptable!!
So to forestall possible future harm, CPS committed the ACTUAL harm of dismembering this tiny, intact family for their lack of housing. Baby I had never spent a single night away from her family and there is no doubt that she is now experiencing abandonment while the parent-child bond is being systematically destroyed by agents of the State who enrich themselves, have thus-far provided zero housing, but now have careers based on using this child for job security.
To my knowledge, neither parent has any current charges for drug possession, use, or sales.
and have now announced that the housing they managed to procure on their without any County help is "not adequate" for secret reasons.
Get a clue what's going on here people!
Homeleess baby = county CPS department gravy train
Let me remind you that they didn't start out that way. They were on their way in their van towards a possible job in San Diego from Pennsylvania, where the family is from. While in Santa Cruz their child had a medical emergency. While speeding towards Dominican's emergency room they got into a car accident and lost their vehicle.
Yes the father has a history of alcohol and drug use. But no allegation has been made that he ever hurt the child, intended to hurt the child, or was in imminent danger of hurting her. She was removed because CPS worried that he might hurt her. No allegations of drug use or abuse by the mother have been made other than their claim that she refused to take a drug test which I know, for sure, is not true.
They were targeted because they have a beautiful, healthy, happy, well-adjusted, bright baby girl who they were itching to get their hands on. She is sooooooo adoptable!!
So to forestall possible future harm, CPS committed the ACTUAL harm of dismembering this tiny, intact family for their lack of housing. Baby I had never spent a single night away from her family and there is no doubt that she is now experiencing abandonment while the parent-child bond is being systematically destroyed by agents of the State who enrich themselves, have thus-far provided zero housing, but now have careers based on using this child for job security.
To my knowledge, neither parent has any current charges for drug possession, use, or sales.
and have now announced that the housing they managed to procure on their without any County help is "not adequate" for secret reasons.
Get a clue what's going on here people!
Homeleess baby = county CPS department gravy train
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
No, not that TBSC perp. A 1%er...
WILMINGTON, Del. -- A judge who sentenced a wealthy du Pont heir to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter noted in her order that he "will not fare well" in prison and needed treatment instead of time behind bars, court records show.
So, apparently, if one is wealthy or connected, judges are scared to protect society, even from baby rapers. If one is poor, homeless, or unconnected, stolen babies are a real threat. That threat is not unique to the parents of Baby I. It's well known, in threatened circles, that CPS steals babies. It's a tradition of colonizers, even in the USA and Canada, where native babies, handed to rich or well connected 'upstanding citizens', are separated from their real familes.
That some would defend CPS baby theft just goes to show how lacking 'upstanding citizens' are, when it comes to morals or conscience. Repent, Gallagher, repent.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
I have already written a letter to Judge Gallagher outlining the false statements made in court by CPS staff. I cannot divulge what went on in court due to confidentiality requirements of Juvenile proceedings, but I can report that I personally witnessed one CPS staff member give a knowingly false statement to Judge Gallagher. That statement was used to obtain the removal order. Given the testimony by these CPS staff members, Judge Gallagher was forced to issue the order to remove. Had he known the truth, he might have ruled differently.
So now I'm to believe that CPS likes to take kids in that are "sooo adoptable" and they "target" such kids accordingly? And why would that be? They make a profit off of babies they can get adopted? NOT!
Seriously, these Huff protestations, accusations, and protestations of conspiracy are merely further reinforcing my belief that the facts don't matter as long as you can build a case to fit your agenda. "Government is evil, so they must be taking a baby away from drug addicted, homeless parents for evil intent, and not for the babies safety". If CPS didn't take this kid in and the kid died while living unhoused or as a result of the dad's drug issues, Huff would just as likely be trumpeting that CPS didn't save the baby because it doesn't care enough about homeless people to help.
Seriously, these Huff protestations, accusations, and protestations of conspiracy are merely further reinforcing my belief that the facts don't matter as long as you can build a case to fit your agenda. "Government is evil, so they must be taking a baby away from drug addicted, homeless parents for evil intent, and not for the babies safety". If CPS didn't take this kid in and the kid died while living unhoused or as a result of the dad's drug issues, Huff would just as likely be trumpeting that CPS didn't save the baby because it doesn't care enough about homeless people to help.
So let me see if I've got this straight?
The parents have no house, and no vehicle. The father is drug and alcohol addicted. The mother can't even make it to a hearing unless she's given free bus passes,which implies she can't afford a $1.50 bus ticket.
And yet, someone thinks this is still a set of parents capable of caring for an infant? No. Sorry. No.
It doesn't matter how kind the parents are, or how caring, or how much they love the baby. They don't have the means to care for and feed that child. No roof over it's head, no food, no way.
Loving a kid to death is not an excuse for loving a kid to death.
The parents have no house, and no vehicle. The father is drug and alcohol addicted. The mother can't even make it to a hearing unless she's given free bus passes,which implies she can't afford a $1.50 bus ticket.
And yet, someone thinks this is still a set of parents capable of caring for an infant? No. Sorry. No.
It doesn't matter how kind the parents are, or how caring, or how much they love the baby. They don't have the means to care for and feed that child. No roof over it's head, no food, no way.
Loving a kid to death is not an excuse for loving a kid to death.
The parents have no house, and no vehicle.
BECKY: no vehicle since mid-February
The father is drug and alcohol addicted.
BECKY: Father has STRUGGLED with alcohol & drug addiction. He is currently in remission from alcohol (his biggest problem) but had an incident in March in which he suffered an OD in a motel room. This incident triggered the CPS investigation which is reasonable.
The mother can't even make it to a hearing unless she's given free bus passes,which implies she can't afford a $1.50 bus ticket.
BECKY; But she DID make the hearing despite the fact that the CPS worker promised her a bus pass but "forgot" to give it to her. Oh, and a bus pass costs $2 now, genius.
And yet, someone thinks this is still a set of parents capable of caring for an infant? No. Sorry. No.
BECKY: Except that they WERE taking excellent care of her. Her well-baby check on April 14th confirms this.
It doesn't matter how kind the parents are, or how caring, or how much they love the baby. They don't have the means to care for and feed that child. No roof over it's head, no food, no way.
BECKY: So its okay to STEAL their babies? No way!! They need HELP with housing, transportation, drug treatment. We, as a caring society should give it.
Loving a kid to death is not an excuse for loving a kid to death.
BECKY: You think foster care is safe???? Slightly more than 50% of foster homes are adequate. that means a significant percentage are NOT!
This guy was a foster parent for CPS for 16 YEARS! see: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/former-foster-parent-suspected-molesting-4th-child/ndSTg/ Years ago, CPS placed an infant into foster care in Felton. They baked the baby to death in a hot van!
Children are statistically safer with their biological parents. CPS interfers too much and they happen to provide themselves with a lot of well-paid job security in the process.
BECKY: no vehicle since mid-February
The father is drug and alcohol addicted.
BECKY: Father has STRUGGLED with alcohol & drug addiction. He is currently in remission from alcohol (his biggest problem) but had an incident in March in which he suffered an OD in a motel room. This incident triggered the CPS investigation which is reasonable.
The mother can't even make it to a hearing unless she's given free bus passes,which implies she can't afford a $1.50 bus ticket.
BECKY; But she DID make the hearing despite the fact that the CPS worker promised her a bus pass but "forgot" to give it to her. Oh, and a bus pass costs $2 now, genius.
And yet, someone thinks this is still a set of parents capable of caring for an infant? No. Sorry. No.
BECKY: Except that they WERE taking excellent care of her. Her well-baby check on April 14th confirms this.
It doesn't matter how kind the parents are, or how caring, or how much they love the baby. They don't have the means to care for and feed that child. No roof over it's head, no food, no way.
BECKY: So its okay to STEAL their babies? No way!! They need HELP with housing, transportation, drug treatment. We, as a caring society should give it.
Loving a kid to death is not an excuse for loving a kid to death.
BECKY: You think foster care is safe???? Slightly more than 50% of foster homes are adequate. that means a significant percentage are NOT!
This guy was a foster parent for CPS for 16 YEARS! see: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/former-foster-parent-suspected-molesting-4th-child/ndSTg/ Years ago, CPS placed an infant into foster care in Felton. They baked the baby to death in a hot van!
Children are statistically safer with their biological parents. CPS interfers too much and they happen to provide themselves with a lot of well-paid job security in the process.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network