Governor Rick Scott Why our Are Children Being Used For Research?

Tricky Ricky I am not a crook? lol

                                                    
I was online and came across this DCF article that goes into the correct procedures to use our children as human research subjects, even to manipulate the environment they are in,

I need to know, we the human race needs to know why in God’s name are you using CHILDREN as guinea pigs?

I call on each and every one who reads this to please Stop this madness!

Call upon our Governor Rick Scott and the First Lady Ann Scott who is the child advocate for Florida to Stop this, please notice the schools and companies listed on the link, how are they benefiting and how is the state of Florida benefiting? http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/policies/215-8.pdf

Even if you are not from Florida please let Rick Scott know that you are not interested in living in a state that uses children as research and if you planned on visiting tell him you will not spend your tourist dollars to help pay for this barbaric practice.

God Bless everyone who will not tolerate this form of abuse. Please pray for our children, and for our Governor Rick Scott and Ann Scott to have an open mind and not be hard hearted, that they will do the right thing.

CFOP 215-8

This operating procedure supersedes CFOP 215-8 dated March 11, 2008.

OPR: PDMH

DISTRIBUTION: B

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF

CF OPERATING PROCEDURE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

NO. 215-8 TALLAHASSEE, June 11, 2010

Safety

INSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT OF HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH

AND INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD DESIGNATION

1. Purpose. The intent of this operating procedure is to provide a structured framework within which

Department staff and contracted providers proposing or conducting research can ensure that the rights

of the individuals that the Department serves, and its employees, are protected. It is the policy of the

Department of Children and Families to uphold its assurance as filed with the federal Department of

Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).

2. Scope. This policy is applicable to all Department and contracted provider staff that engage in, plan

to engage in, or are asked to authorize or support research using human subjects within the

Department’s areas of responsibility.

3. References.

a. 45 Code of Federal Regulations Subparts 46, 160, 162, and 164.

b. 21 CFR Subparts 50, 56, 312 and 812.

c. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

d. Terms of Assurance, Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and

Human Services (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/assurance/filasurt.htm).

e. The Belmont Report, 1978 (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm).

4. Definitions. For the purposes of this operating procedure, the following definitions shall apply:

a. Agents. Agents of the Department include all individuals performing institutionally

designated activities or exercising institutionally delegated authority or responsibility.

b. Assent. The affirmative agreement to participate in research. Assent is required even if the

individual’s parent (of child) or legally authorized representative (for child or adult) provides consent.

Failure to voice objection to participate in research does not qualify as assent.

c. Assurance. An agreement that establishes standards for human subjects’ research as

approved by the Office for Human Research Protections.

d. Belmont Report. A report that was issued in 1978 by the National Commission for Protection

of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to explain the fundamental ethical

principles that should guide the conduct of research involving human subjects.

e. Child. As per s. 39.01 (12), Florida Statutes, a child or youth means an unmarried person

under the age of 18 years old who has not been emancipated by order of the court.

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

2

f. Department. Department of Children and Families.

g. Dissent. An individual’s negative expressions, verbal and/or non-verbal, that he/she objects

to participation in the research or research activities.

h. Human Subject.

(1) An individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student)

conducting research obtains:

(a) Data (of any kind) through intervention or interaction with the individual; or,

(b) Private identifiable information (see definition below) even in the absence of

intervention or interaction with the individual.

(2) For purposes of this operating procedure, human subjects also include any

Department employees, or persons being served by the Department or by one or more of its contracted

providers, whose relevance to the research is based on his or her connection with the Department or

who is otherwise within the Department’s areas of responsibility and authority.

i. Intervention. Physical procedures by which data are gathered and/or manipulations of the

subject or the subject’s environment that are performed for research purposes.

j. Interaction. Communication or interpersonal contact between investigator(s) and the

research participant, or review of their private identifiable information.

k. Institutional Review Board (IRB). A review body established or designated by an

organization to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects recruited to participate in biomedical or

behavioral/social science research. To be used by a project covered in this operating procedure, an

IRB must be in good standing with the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

l. Legally Authorized Representative. An individual authorized under applicable law to grant

permission for services, treatment, benefits or other activities as determined by the court on behalf of

another person.

m. Memorandum of Understanding. A formal written agreement between the Department of

Children and Families and another institution.

n. Private Identifiable Information. This includes any information that may be linked to the

identity of the subject as defined by HIPAA (e.g., Social Security Number, birth date, agency case

number, address, health plan number, other demographic information, etc.). For the purposes of

human subject research, it also includes information about any behavior that occurs in a setting in

which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place.

o. Provider. Any service provider that contracts with the Department to provide services to

populations of individuals or families on behalf of the Department. A contracted provider is an agent of

the Department for the purposes of this operating procedure.

p. Research. A systematic investigation, including research development, testing and

evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

3

5. General.

a. Institutional Commitments.

(1) The Department shall safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects in

research by ensuring that all human subject research receives approval through a federally approved

Institutional Review Board(s), consistent with general policy established in Florida Public Law 381.86

and 45 CFR 46, 160, 162 and 164.

(2) The Department shall safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects in clinical

research (of Food and Drug Administration regulated products, including drugs, devices, or biologics)

through rule set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Human Subject Regulations (21 CFR

50, 56, 312, 812) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

(3) The Department shall uphold the ethical principles of the Belmont Report found at

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm and apply Health and Human Services

regulations (45 CFR 46, including subparts A, B, C and D) to all proposed research which is funded or

supported by the Department of Health and Human Services or any other funding source. The ethical

principles set forth in the Belmont Report are summarized as follows:

(a) Respect for Individuals. Recognition of the personal dignity and autonomy of

individuals and the special protection of those persons with diminished autonomy or vulnerability.

(b) Beneficence. The term is often understood to cover acts of kindness or

charity that go beyond strict obligation. Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting

their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being.

Such treatment falls under the principle of beneficence.

(c) Justice. Persons are treated with fairness in the distribution of research

benefits and burdens. For example, the selection of research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order

to determine whether some classes (e.g., recipients of financial assistance, racial and ethnic minorities,

or persons confined to institutions) are being systematically selected simply because of their easy

availability, their compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to

the problem being studied. Finally, whenever research supported by public funds leads to the

development of therapeutic devices and procedures, justice demands that these not provide

advantages only to those who can afford them, and that such research should not unduly involve

persons from groups unlikely to be among the beneficiaries of subsequent applications of the research.

(4) The Department shall offer annual training free of charge for Department employees

and provider staff who engage in research. The training certification is required annually for

investigators and is offered through the Collaborative Institutional Review Board Initiative (CITI) on-line

course hosted by the University of Miami at http://www.miami.edu/citireg/.

b. Human Subject Research/Non-Research Determinations.

(1) The Department’s Human Protections Administrator has the authority to determine

whether activity represents “human subject research” or not in accordance with federal regulation.

(2) Investigators do not have the authority to make an independent determination of

what activity qualifies as not being human subject research. Investigators shall submit a request in

writing to the Department’s Human Protections Administrator to make this determination.

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

4

c. Enrollment of Vulnerable Populations in Research (specifically, children, pregnant women,

individuals with mental illness or mental retardation, or prisoners).

(1) Consistent with federal regulations in 45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR 50 and 56, all

research involving vulnerable populations as listed above require special assurances. The Institutional

Review Board is required to ensure that these special assurances are met.

(2) Children will only be enrolled in research with the signed consent of parents or a

legally authorized representative, such as a guardian or the court. Where appropriate, there must also

be an indication of the child’s own assent to participate (when the child is capable of providing such

assent). A waiver of assent can only be granted by the Institutional Review Board.

(3) At no time shall a child in the custody of the Department be allowed to participate in

a clinical trial that is designed to develop new psychotropic medications or evaluate the suitability of

providing medications previously approved for adults to children. This paragraph does not preclude

research that evaluates the consequences of administration of psychotropic medications to children in

state care.

(4) Adults who have a legally authorized representative will only be enrolled in research

with signed consent from the legally authorized representative and assent from the individual. A waiver

of assent can only be granted by the Institutional Review Board.

(5) It is the responsibility of any Department employee or provider agency aware of

proposed research involving children or adults in any way to alert the appropriate Department program

office and the Department’s Human Protections Administrator as soon as it is known. The intent is to

ensure that the investigator(s) are aware of policy and Institutional Review Board requirements, and

that research does not begin until approval is received from the Institutional Review Board and the

Department’s Human Protections Review Committee, as described below.

d. Florida Statewide Advocacy Council.

(1) The Florida Statewide Advocacy Council has access to Institutional Review Board

meetings and to the Department’s Human Protections Review Committee for all research proposed

involving any adult or child served by the Department or its providers, per Section 402.166(7)(d),

Florida Statutes. If the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council has any concerns, the Council may

express those concerns to the Human Protections Administrator or to the Institutional Review Board

directly.

(2) The Human Protections Administrator will serve to resolve any issues that the

Florida Statewide Advocacy Council may have with the proposal concerning constitutional or human

rights.

6. Procedures.

a. Maintenance of a Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA).

(1) The Department’s Federal-Wide Assurance # FWA00004629 shall be maintained by

the Deputy Secretary who is the signatory official for the Department and registered with the Office for

Human Research Protections.

(2) The Deputy Secretary shall appoint a Department employee to function as the

Human Protections Administrator. The primary role of the Human Protections Administrator is to

ensure that Department employees, providers, and anyone acting as an agent of the Department

comply with the Assurance and this operating procedure.

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

5

(3) The Human Protections Administrator shall renew the FWA every three years and

ensure that any Memoranda of Understanding (or interagency agreement(s)), when warranted, are

maintained.

(4) The Signatory Official and Human Protections Administrator shall complete the

OHRP Training Modules (see http://137.187.172.153/CBTs/Assurance/login.asp).

b. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Designation.

(1) In lieu of its own IRB, the Department shall agree with and designate one or more

Institutional Review Boards outside of the Department that have valid designations as active

Institutional Review Boards with the Office of Human Research Protections. These IRBs shall be listed

on the Department’s Federal-Wide Assurance (FWA). Current agreements are listed in Appendix A to

this operating procedure.

(2) The Department requires that any person or entity that wants to conduct research

involving individuals who are receiving services from, or on behalf of, the Department, or involves

Department employees, have written approval from an IRB and must provide a copy of the approval

notification to the Department’s Human Protections Administrator.

(3) In addition to IRB approval, the investigator must also have Department approval to

conduct human subject research. While both approvals are required, the investigator should consider

obtaining the Department’s approval before proceeding with an IRB application (see paragraph 6.c.

below regarding Department approval process), as the Department is not obligated to allow IRB

approved research.

(4) A contracted provider is considered to be an agent of the Department, and as such,

is covered under the Department’s Federal-Wide Assurance.

(5) When a contracted provider receives federal funding for research as a result of a

grant from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either through a contract with the

Department of Children and Families, or directly from HHS, the investigator is required to seek approval

from an IRB listed on the Department’s FWA. However, if the provider has their own IRB (and thus,

has their own FWA) in good standing with the Office of Human Research Protections, the investigator

may seek IRB approval through the provider’s designated IRB. If this designated IRB is not listed on

the Department’s FWA, the investigator must work with the Human Subjects Administrator to ensure its

addition to the FWA.

(6) When the research is unfunded or funded by any source other than the Federal

government, the investigator may use any IRB as long as the institution has a valid and active IRB

designation by the OHRP.

(7) If the investigator is not an employee or agent of the Department, he/she shall

complete an Individual Investigator Agreement (Appendix B to this operating procedure) prior to

approval from the Department’s Human Protections Review Committee (see paragraph 6.c. below). If

the investigator does not have access to an IRB through his or her own institution, the Department has

an agreement with Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) which enables any DCF-approved

investigation to be reviewed for the relevant fee. Information about WIRB, including instructions for

submission of proposals, may be found on their web site at http://www.wirb.com/. The Department’s

Human Subjects Administrator can provide additional information. .

(8) The investigator is responsible for any fees charged by an IRB unless the research

project is specifically requested or designed by the Department. In this case, the Department will pay

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

6

the fees through contract or agreement with the IRB, or through a payment mechanism with the

investigator, such as a contract or Direct Order.

(9) Investigators must comply with the principles established in the Belmont Report, this

operating procedure, the policies and procedures of the Institutional Review Board, and all references

herein.

(10) The Department shall execute a Memorandum of Understanding with each

Institutional Review Board listed in its FWA.

c. Establishment of the Department’s Human Protections Review Committee (HPRC) and

Submission of Research Proposals for Department Review.

(1) The HPRC shall be established by the Department’s signatory official to review and

approve all human subject research activity prior to the research beginning to ensure that the scope of

the research falls within the mission of the Department. This committee is not an Institutional Review

Board and does not replace the need for IRB approval; however, its permission to conduct the

proposed research is required. This committee shall include appropriate program office personnel

designated to serve on the committee by the Deputy Secretary of the Department. At a minimum, the

HPRC shall include the Assistant Secretary for Programs, or his or her designee authorized to approve

research proposals, and the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, or his or her

designee authorized to approve research proposals.

(2) The HPRC shall be chaired and coordinated by the Human Protections

Administrator. The HPRC shall meet as needed to review all research proposals submitted.

(3) This internal review serves the purpose of alerting the appropriate program office of

the proposed research and giving the appropriate personnel the opportunity to express support,

withhold support, and discuss concerns. The concerns will be communicated to the investigator

through the Human Protections Administrator as soon as possible following the meeting. The

Department shall provide the investigator with a written statement of approval or disapproval within 5

days of the HPRC meeting, or following the resolution of any concerns.

(4) The Department reserves the right to disallow any research proposal, regardless of

IRB approval. However, all research must receive HPRC and IRB approval prior to commencement.

Program offices of the Department may require additional review and approval processes, but

authorization is subject to final decision by the Human Protections Review Committee.

(5) All research proposals, regardless of funding source and IRB approval, must be

electronically submitted via email to the Department’s Human Protections Administrator. The contact

information for the Human Protections Administrator can be found on the Department’s website at

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/publications/humanResearch.shtml.

(6) The research proposal submitted to the Human Protections Administrator by the

investigator shall include a narrative description that includes the following:

(a) The name, address, email addresses, and phone numbers of all investigators

involved in the proposed research;

(b) The name of the organization(s) involved in the research project;

(c) The funding source(s) for the research;

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

7

(d) The specific subject population served by, or working for, the Department

and a list of the specific locations where the research will take place;

(e) A description of the research proposal and its purpose;

(f) A discussion of the level of risk associated with the research and how the

risks will be minimized;

(g) Name and FWA number of Institutional Review Board that applies to this

research project; and,

(h) Any other relevant documentation related to the research project that is

requested by the Department.

(7) Once received, the IRB approval letter shall be sent to the Human Protections

Administrator prior to commencement of the research.

(8) The investigator may submit a copy of the research proposal and application that the

investigator plans to submit to the designated IRB in lieu of the above narrative description as long as

the aforementioned documents contain all of the information described above in paragraph 6.c.(6).

f. Reporting of Adverse Events. The Human Protections Administrator will ensure prompt

reporting of the following events to the Department’s Deputy Secretary, the HRPC, the IRB who

approved the research project, and the Office of Human Research Protections:

(1) Unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others;

(2) Serious or continuing noncompliance with the federal regulations or the

requirements or determinations of the IRB; and,

(3) Suspension or termination of HRPC or IRB approval.

BY DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY:

(Signed original copy on file)

DON WINSTEAD

Deputy Secretary

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

Appendix A to CFOP 215-8

Institutional Review Boards

Listed on Department of Children and Families’

Federal-Wide Assurance

FWA # Institution Name

FWA00001669 University of South Florida 01A

Medical A, 02 Behavioral A, 01B

Medical A, 01C Medical A, 01D

Medical (IRB) (IRB00000362,

IRB00000363, IRB00001786,

IRB00001787, IRB00001884)

FWA00005790 University of Florida #1 A, #2 A, #3 A

(IRB00000335, IRB00000336,

IRB00000337)

FWA00003331 Research Triangle International #1A,

#2A, #3 A (IRB00000653, IRB00000654,

IRB00000655)

FWA00000340 Public/Private Ventures (IRB #1 A

(IRB00000830)

FWA00005897 Western IRB #1-8, #11-14, & #35 A

(IRB00000533)

FWA00004801 U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

IRB #8 – Behavioral A (IRB00000543)

FWA00005551 Westat Inc. #1A (IRB00000695)

Not applicable Independent Review Consulting, Inc.

(IRC) IRB #1 A ( IRB00000762)

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

Appendix B to CFOP 215-8

Individual Investigator Agreement

Name of Institution with the Federal-wide Assurance (FWA): Florida Department of Children

and Families

Applicable FWA #: FWA00004629

Individual Investigator’s Name:_______________________________________________________

Specify Research Covered by this Agreement:___________________________________________

Institutional Review Board:___________________________________________________________

(1) The above-named Individual Investigator has reviewed: a) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles

and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (or other internationally

recognized equivalent; see section B.1. of the Terms of the Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) for

International (Non-U.S.) Institutions); b) the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

regulations for the protection of human subjects at 45 CFR part 46 (or other procedural standards;

see section B.3. of the Terms of the FWA for International (Non-U.S.) Institutions); c) the FWA and

applicable Terms of the FWA for the institution referenced above; and d) the relevant institutional

policies and procedures for the protection of human subjects.

(2) The Investigator understands and hereby accepts the responsibility to comply with the standards and

requirements stipulated in the above documents and to protect the rights and welfare of human

subjects involved in research conducted under this Agreement.

(3) The Investigator will comply with all other applicable federal, international, state, and local laws,

regulations, and policies that may provide additional protection for human subjects participating in

research conducted under this agreement.

(4) The Investigator will abide by all determinations of the Institutional Review Board

(IRB)/Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) listed above and will accept the final authority and

decisions of the IRB/IEC, including but not limited to directives to terminate participation in

designated research activities.

(5) The Investigator will complete any educational training required by the Institution and/or the

IRB/IEC prior to initiating research covered under this Agreement.

(6) The Investigator will report promptly to the IRB/IEC any proposed changes in the research

conducted under this Agreement. The investigator will not initiate changes in the research without

prior IRB/IEC review and approval, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate

hazards to subjects.

(7) The Investigator will report immediately to the IRB/IEC any unanticipated problems involving risks

to subjects or others in research covered under this Agreement.

June 11, 2010 CFOP 215-8

B-2

(8) The Investigator, when responsible for enrolling subjects, will obtain, document, and maintain

records of informed consent for each such subject or each subject’s legally authorized representative

as required under HHS regulations at 45 CFR part 46 (or any other international or national

procedural standards selected on the FWA for the institution referenced above) and stipulated by the

IRB/IEC.

(9) The Investigator acknowledges and agrees to cooperate in the IRB/IEC’s responsibility for initial

and continuing review, record keeping, reporting, and certification for the research referenced

above. The Investigator will provide all information requested by the IRB/IEC in a timely fashion.

(10) The Investigator will not enroll subjects in research under this Agreement prior to its review and

approval by the IRB/IEC.

(11) Emergency medical care may be delivered without IRB/IEC review and approval to the extent

permitted under applicable federal regulations and state law.

(12) This Agreement does not preclude the Investigator from taking part in research not covered by this

Agreement.

(13) The Investigator acknowledges that he/she is primarily responsible for safeguarding the rights and

welfare of each research subject, and that the subject’s rights and welfare must take precedence over

the goals and requirements of the research.

Investigator Signature:____________________________________________ Date_____________

Name:______________________________________________________ Degree(s):_____________

(Last) (First) (Middle Initial)

Address:__________________________________________________ Phone #:________________

___________________________________________________

(City) (State/Province) (Zip/Country)

FWA Institutional Official (or Designee):_______________________________ Date___________

Name:______________________________________________ Institutional Title:_______________

(Last) (First) (Middle Initial)

Address: Department of Children and Families 1317 Winewood Blvd. Phone #:_______________

Tallahassee, FL. 32399, US

(City) (State/Province) (Zip/Country)

The kidnapping of my son(Ordered by the Los Angeles Co. DCFS office's Marijuana Supplier)

by Robert James Patterson on Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 9:34pm

Affidavit of facts

On December 24th of 2008, I received a call from this lady and this made me very uneasy, as it said LA County DCFS right on the caller ID and she also introduced herself as "Denise Sherman from Children's Protective Services". They then talked on the phone in Yiddish or Hebrew, both which I am not familiar with. Once they hung up, I immediately begin to question this friend whom explains to me that this is the woman who helps him bring his children from Chili over here every year. He tells me not to worry and that I would be meeting her shortly as she called to "score some weed". We got into the red truck that Mr. Carvajal's mother was renting for him as he could not rent one due to the fact that he has no drivers license due to several DUIs on his driving record. We went to Reseda Discount Caregivers where Mr. Carvajal went in to make a purchase with the money that Ms. Sherman had given to him in the cab of the truck. He came back out and gave her an eighth of marijuana he had purchased for her. We rushed off as she was late for the cruise she was taking that was leaving that day. They dropped us off at the friends that we were to spend Christmas Eve with and we said goodbye.

On January 16th of 2009 Ruben Carvajal had became a big abusive drunk and was causing undo hardship upon my family, so I kicked him out. Well, he left quick, but then took his time leaving collecting his belongings.
Between January 18th and February 16th of 2009Mr. Carvajal would come and remove a couple of items at a time. He then arrived one day and went through the closet and started to demand to know what we had done with "it". They it was an envelope that he claimed to have hidden, and not taken on his last to visits to collect his belongs, that supposedly contained 1500 dollars! He went on to ad that we were no responsible for it and that if we did not come up with his money, then "I will take what is yours". He then started to call and ask if we had come up with his money and every time would threaten to "call Children's Protective Services" on us. He sent one of his henchmen one time as well whom terrorized my wife as I was not at home and she refused to open the door without my presence in the house.
On February 19th of 2009 Ms. Denise Sherman was at the call box of my apartment complex. Having forgotten all about this woman, I rushed to let her in. We spent the whole day talking to her about Mr. Ruben D. Carvajal, showing her all of the personal information that he had left behind. My wife DID recognize her, although she was not from where, I on the other hand did not. She called her office and scheduled a TDM for the 25th so they could discuss services with us that would help us out with affordable housing and so forth.
On February 25th of 2009, At the Chatsworth DCFS office we went into a room and several other parties where present, the facilitator came in and was obviously agitated by the fact that we were having this meeting. Kept telling Ms. Sherman that she did not have enough to take us to court and asking her why she was doing this to this family, he even threw up his arms at one point declaring that he would not be part of this and stormed out of the room. Well, we agreed to random drug testing and counseling, all though the only thing found in our system was marijuana, which we had legal papers for. We fought off her and her supervisors character assassination attempts and they did not remove our beloved son .
On March 3rd of 2009, Tuesday Ms. Sherman made an appointment with me to come by in the morning and cancelled it in the afternoon. I said something to her that day on the phone while she was speaking, and she replied with a very stern and angry, "I was talking", which is what clicked in my memory. Later on I was riding the MTA and thinking what I could do to be a better father to my little 'Manny' and why Ruben was not up for false reports and it all came flooding back. I spoke while she was speaking in the cab of the truck on December 24th and received the same response. I remembered her now!
On March 4th of 2009, I called up my friend Mesha, who has had a few run ins with DCFS and told her of the situation. She advised me that all I had to do was call them and advise them that I knew the worker from outside of her relationship with DCFS. I did, but her supervisor was not available, so I spoke with the shift supervisor, Ms. Sonia Polain, and told her that I knew Ms. Denise Sherman from outside relations. She advised me that she was going to advise her that she was not to come out to my house as they were going to assign me to a new worker. She called me back and told me that she had been advised and that I was to call Mr. Tony Kade on the following day to be assigned a new worker.
On March 5th of 2009, Went to the courthouse to try and get a subpoena for the incoming calls to my phone on December 24th of 2008 so I had proof of Ms. Denise Sherman's under handed antics. Well, Ms. Lorain Ramirez called me on my cell and advised me that there was an emergency TDM and that I really need to be in attendance. I advised her that it would take me sometime to get out there as I had someone else's car that I had to return and catch a bus out there. While I was on the bus, I received a frantic call from my wife whom was very upset as the school administrator whom goes by the A.K.A. of Mr. T confronted her and stated that they just took our son away about fifteen minutes ago and demanded to know what it was all about (although the law clearly states that rather then taking time to inflict emotional harm, he should have been on the phone calling both of us while this was happening). I told my wife to get to the DCFS office as quick as possible and I would meet her there. I was now greatly distraught and unable to think clearly anymore and got off at the wrong bus stop. I contacted my wife on her cell and our neighbor was driving her from the DCFS office where they had requested another drug test. They picked me up and we went to the testing site, wrong move. They were closed by the time we were done and our child was in there custody. Ms. Sherman made a lot of false allegations against us and against our other family members so that the child was, instead of as the law now requires, placed into foster case as opposed to being placed with family.
On March 19th of 2009, I had another meeting with another Social Worker who is suppose to be of a different breed, although it has come to be known, she is as filthy as the rest, maybe even more so. Her name is Sheron Maitland and she, supposedly, is an officer of the courts. Well, I told her that I know Ms. Denise Sherman, that Ruben Carvajal had introduced her to me and that this was the vendetta that he had promised. She lied about our whole conversation, and outrageously at that. Stated that I had made claims of going to Las Vegas with Ms. Sherman, that I claimed she traveled to Chili to help Ruben bring his children to the states and then that me and my wife apologized for our statements concerning Ms. Denise Sherman and stated that we did not know her and that we made it all up. This woman is a master of all lies, and she has more power then a regular social worker as she is the one responsible for investigating if the social workers claims are valid! She tried to say that I said that the aunt was mentally unstable, but like the rest of the story that they told, it simply was not true. Even the statements I made regaurding the false statements were inaccurately record and just totally untrue.
On March 31st of 2009, Ms. Maitland visited Anatola Avenue Elementary School and had a conversation with our son. She wrote at "LAST MIUTE" INFORMATION report that is just really poor fiction! It is this paper that Ms. Maitland wrote that pushed me in the decision to appeal the case. That and the fact that it was this document in particular that made it so important that she make sure that my DUE PROCESS rights were totally violated so that these outrageous lies were entered into court as true and uncontested lest she perjure herself. She claims that Manny told her that I took Manny to outrageous parties where people were throwing champagne bottles against the wall until someone was injured. She then adds that she asked him how he knew that it was champagne and he said ( now get this, he is smart, but in first grade and spelling is not his top strength ) that he read it on the bottle and sounded it out. She then claims that he spelled out champagne to her and that he did it correctly. She then goes on to added that Manny, who has VERY rarely done anything to merit a swat on the behind with a hand, stated that when he is really bad, we beat him with a shoe or a belt. She also claimed that we smoke cigarettes and cigars in the house in his presence and suggests marijuana, which we never do any of the three in the house with him present. She also claimed that he stated that we fed him cereal four or five times a day, another lie. I am not saying that my son lied to the Dependency Investigator, the Dependency Investigator straight out lied about what my son had reported to her. I know this is a fact for several reasons, but the main one is directly from my son Manny. Upon his return home, I found it necessary to inquire about his care and wellbeing while out of the home. I asked him, "Were the foster parents nice to you, did anyone hurt you while you were there"? "No", he replied, "they were very nice to me, they really liked me". Then I asked him, "Were the social workers nice to you, did any of them threaten you in anyway"? He immediately replied "There is something wrong with them, they are so stupid they don't understand me and I had to keep telling them over and over, only with there hand". So now my son has been grilled, interrogated by the very people who are suppose to be protecting the children. What was the next step, water boarding? Now who do I report Ms. Maitland too for harassing my son?
On April 14th of 2009, we were all hyped up for our day in court, brought two witnesses, had Manny with us and we were anxiously awaiting or chance to testify and for the truth to finally be told. Again, Mr. Ben Curley had no interest in the truth being told, only concerned with a clean drug test. He had to call the labs to get them, as the Department of Children and Family Services were hiding them. We had been trying to get them ourselves as we knew we had to have two clean test by now and should have unmonitored visits. But our public defenders had to call to the labs to do what the social workers were supposed to have done. Not only that, but they were claiming that my wife had missed a drug test, but of course we had proof of all of the drug tests being attended, All of this was minor though, compared to the other proof that never got entered as evidence, the testimony that was kept out by the same kind of corruption that the good attorney Richard Fine was imprisoned for fighting. They kept offering us different deals with the prosecution; we kept refusing to deal with the prosecution and were waiting for our son to testify so that these lies were finally exposed. Ms. Maitland was noticeable nervous as were unwilling to deal, so they made a deal behind our backs. The only person to take the stand was me and the only thing I did there was enter three pictures of our apartment I had taken into evidence. So now that our right to due process was destroyed and we were in a trail not much different then the Jews found themselves in at the beginning of the holocaust, Ms. Maitland's bad fiction became a fact on the records.
On April 21st of 2009, we had another TDM, they could not push anything on us and they didn't. Ms. Maitland had to comment on how hard it was to get a deal for us so she could spare us from a trail.
Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services is committing federal offenses by;
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 - Fraud and False Statements
18 USC Sec. 1203TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I - CRIMESCHAPTER 55 – KIDNAPPING
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 - Pattern and Practice
My child had been wrongfully and unlawfully removed from my physical custody without Constitutional due process, or even the pretext of Reasonable Efforts having been offered as mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (15) and 672 (a) (15), which means that his removal meets the definition of KIDNAPPING according to 18 USC Sec. 1203. It was also obvious that the department was also acting in disregard to Amendment No.4909 of 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (the COATS (AND WYDEN) AMENDMENT) as the department also concocted stories to block the child from being placed with the maternal aunt. The Judge ordered that the allegations against the Aunt be investigated and if she was suitable to care for our son that he be placed there (Yaa, one small victory!)
On April 14th , Where was the justice????Mr. Curley spent the day coming out of the court room to offer me various deals from the prosecution and I kept telling him "no deals". He told me that my son said to the Dependency Worker that when he was really bad, we would beat him with a shoe or a belt and I told him that this was untrue. He said that the court was going to go on my son's testimony and I told him that this was good. We had our trail, but the only person to testify was me and all I did was enter three pictures into evidence. The Department of Children and Family claimed that Ms. Silva had missed a drug test, but she had the receipt for her attendance in her evidence book. . We also showed our defenders that we had evidence showing that we had a safety plan, that we had been calling the department and that they violated us intentionally, but they did not bring it up in court. They subpoenaed no evidence, no people, called no one to give testimony to their claims or anyone to challenge their claims although we did bring two witnesses to testify and our evidence book, none of it was used.
On June 8th of 2009, Ms. Silva received an email at 11:15pm asking if she would be available to work on a TV. She did not read it at the time it arrived as she had already retired for the evening.
On June 9th of 2009, Ms. Silva took her son to his physician Pejman Salimpour for an ear infection that had been causing him to miss school. She then went and filled the three prescriptions ordered by her sons physician. After that she returned home, cleaned and read her email. She was then visited by the Family Preservation worker named Suzi who helped her load her belongings in her sisters vehicle to go to the Van Nuys Flyaway.
On June 11th of 2009, Ms. Silva received a phone call shortly after arriving at LAX from Francisco Flores to inform her that she had a dirty test since she was a no show and that this would not look good to the judge. She was rather distraught by this statement and came home upset. I wrote Francisco Flores a letter and advised him on how to handle the situation professionally.
On June 12th Mr. Flores called Ms. Silva to advise her that she had to take her make-up test.
On June 25, 2009 Jonathan Cane called to advise Ms. Silva that he was to be her therapist and that he was calling to schedule an appointment. This is an attack on her 5th amendment rights.
On June 26th of 2009, I called Suzi Karapetyan's supervisor and advised her that thse actions were disrupting and detrimental to the functioning of the family unit and therefore was not incompliance with the wording of W.I.C. 300.0-304.7 as it clearly states that any services that the family is offered are to remain as unobtrusive to functioning of the family unit as possible. She was under the impression that the 'Family Preservation' services were court ordered so I faxed her a copy of the minute orders to show her otherwise. I also received a call from Mr. Nino of DCFS advising me that Fransico Flores was very busy and wanted to know if he could stop by this weekend to check on Manny. He is stopping by on Sunday at 10:30am which is very strange. That and the fact that he refused to email me concerning the issue, but I will be ready, video camera and Civil Rights Handbook in hand.
On June 27th of 2009, Mr. Nino refused to be video tapped while interviewing the minor child, so as I had an additional witness here, I did turn off the video camera. I have a bad feeling that I never should have done this, but now only time will tell. A lot of prayer is now needed.

CSB Policies Questioned In Ohio

By Ed Runyan
runyan@vindy.com
WARREN
About 10 members of the public attended a Trumbull County Children Services Board meeting Tuesday to question the board about policies that protect the rights of the parents of children who come into the CSB system.
Harold L. Smith of Massillon said he became involved in the project after talking with Ulanda Waiters of Canton, who rents an apartment off of him, about her problems with the Children Services Board in Stark County.
Waiters has been in contact with people in Trumbull County, mostly on Facebook, and that has led her and Smith to see a pattern of problems that they believe exist at CSB agencies throughout the region, Waiters said.
First, they believe Trumbull CSB isn’t following one of the Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure when a child is removed from a home over allegations of abuse or neglect.
Smith said he believes the rules require a judge or magistrate to rule on whether there is probable cause for a child to be removed from a home, but no judge is involved in such cases in Trumbull County.

Click on the link for the rest of the story.
http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/aug/17/csb-policies-questioned/

Need for a search warrant trips social workers

Ohio authorities not aware of Fourth Amendment protections

Erie County, OH   A home schooling family has settled its case against Erie County social workers and Vermilion police for the coerced entry into the family's home on Feb. 21, 2001.

Courts have settled this key issue in other jurisdictions, and now its settled in this jurisdiction.  Social workers cannot enter a home, willy-nilly, without a warrant,” said Gary McCaleb, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, the national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, that supported the case.

Paul and Linda Walsh filed a lawsuit after police and caseworkers entered their home without a warrant and without permission.  The social workers said they were acting on an anonymous tip about unspecified hazards in the home, and claimed they had a right to enter the home without a warrant.

The social workers threatened the family, saying that if they were not allowed in the home they would take the children away from the parents.  In papers filed with the court, the Walshes said that a social worker even blocked their driveway with her car when the family tried to leave to attend a church function that evening. 

The social worker summoned police, who frisked Mr. Walsh and threatened to arrest him on charges of obstructing official business if he did not allow the caseworkers into the home.  Walsh said that he then allowed the workers to enter the home rather than risk being jailed.

The caseworkers found nothing in the home that constituted an immediate hazard to the family.

Instead of tolerating this official abuse, the Walshes chose to sue the caseworkers, the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services, the Erie County Board of Commissioners, the City of Vermilion, Ohio; and three Vermilion police officers.

Defendants told the court that the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against illegal searches and seizures do not apply to them in such circumstances.  They asked the court to throw the case out, but the court refused.   The court said the facts supported the Walshes claims against the defendants for unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as for false imprisonment, assulat, battery, and infliction of emotional distress.

In a forceful opinion, US District Judge James G. Carr wrote: Despite the Defendants exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.  There is...no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.  ...Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority.

The court stated that because the Walshes refused consent, and because the anonymous complaint did not supply persuasive evidence of an emergency, the caseworkers had no option but to either leave the [Walshes] alone and in peace or seek a search warrant.

The court further ruled that the police did not have probable cause to detain, frisk, and threaten to arrest Walsh, since he was not breaking any law but merely asserting his “fundamental right to be left alone.

Kurt D. Anderson, a partner with the Elyria firm of Fauver, Keyse-Walker & Donovan, represents the Walshes.  Anderson, a graduate of Alliance Defense Fund's second National Litigation Academy, said the training gave him the background to help the Walshes when the opportunity arose.

ADF's training and resources really helped us confront an issue that, unfortunately, had apparently never been addressed in Ohio before, Anderson said.  As far as we could tell, nobody in Ohio had ever challenged a caseworker's home inspection for failure to get a warrant. As a home schooling parent myself, I really took the Walshes situation to heart.  I admire them for their courage to stand up for their rights, but it's a crying shame that it would even have to come to that.  Its just a reminder that we have to be vigilant and assertive about protecting our rights.  They can be trampled on even by well-meaning but uninformed government agents.

Anderson expects that as a result of the Walsh case, training policies will be revised for social workers not just in Erie County, but across the state of Ohio.  The caseworkers in the Walsh case admitted they had never been taught anything about the Fourth Amendment or search warrants.   The feedback I'm getting is that agencies across the state have gotten a wake-up call on this issue.

Anderson declined to reveal the specific amount of the settlement, which was not stated in the court record.

For more information about home schooling and the law, please contact the Home School Legal Defense Association, an ally of the Alliance Defense Fund.  HSLDA attorney Scott Somerville can be reached at (540) 338-5600.

The Alliance Defense Fund is a servant organization serving people of faith.   The Alliance Defense Fund provides strategy, training, and funding in the legal battle for religious liberty, sanctity of life, and traditional family values.

http://www.landrights.com/Search%20Warrant.htm

America's Shamful Adoption Incentive Awards

FY 2010 Adoption Incentive Awards Based on FY 2009 Earning Year
State	Award
Alabama	$1,477,397
Alaska	$719,213
Arizona	$584,582
Arkansas	$1,360,481
California	$0
Colorado	$0
Connecticut	$520,809
Delaware	$102,745
Dist of Columbia	$0
Florida	$5,718,271
Georgia	$364,921
Hawaii	$187,775
Idaho	$1,147,906
Illinois	$155,888
Indiana	$1,360,481
Iowa	$0
Kansas	$531,438
Kentucky	$1,371,110
Louisiana	$1,006,189
Maine	$113,373
Maryland	$173,603
Massachusetts	$0
Michigan	$3,511,033
Minnesota	$446,408
Mississippi	$38,972
Missouri	$510,180
Montana	$0
Nebraska	$637,726
Nevada	$467,665
New Hampshire	$49,601
New Jersey	$0
New Mexico	$658,983
New York	$0
North Carolina	$1,077,048
North Dakota	$0
Ohio	$0
Oklahoma	$1,204,593
Oregon	$637,726
Pennsylvania	$2,175,353
Rhode Island	$198,403
South Carolina	$655,440
South Dakota	$60,230
Tennessee	$0
Texas	$7,468,475
Utah	$432,236
Vermont	$0
Virginia	$14,172
Washington	$0
West Virginia	$1,030,990
Wisconsin	$276,348
Wyoming	$49,601
Puerto Rico	$382,635

Governor Scott,

Is this why I can not even get you to answer an email? Florida is the second highest state in Adoptive Incentives. Almost $6,000,000 is a pretty good incentive to take children out of healthy happy homes. Sad and embarrassing for Florida, I will be sharing this with everyone I can.

We the parents of any child in DCF care hold you responsible for any injury, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, over medication and death of any and all children as you have been made aware of the abuses and corruption in your state and refuse to do anything about it.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2010/fy10_adoption_incentive_awards.htm
THIS IS 2009 FISCAL YR PAY OUTS OF INCENTIVE BONUS' PR STATE..

Randy Kluge

Media Blitz To Fox News About Social Services Corruption

I am really proud and honored to call you guys my friends.
Thank you all for all of your support on our first of many
media blitzes.

Today's turn out was great. I was so happy to see the stories going up
and yet so heart broken. I am sorry for every ones pain and I do understand.
Now we have momentum let's use it! This is happening every Tuesday (and maybe more days if we need it!)

Why Tuesdays? Well the research shows that more people spend time on emails and FB etc on Tuesdays and Thursdays when they are at work. We also want to keep it in a 24 hour period to make a bigger impact.We are starting with News Organizations but do not plan on stopping with them. We want to contact governments agencies,
representatives and more.

We even need to contact everyone who is running for office a bit closer to the election and let them know that our vote and our support, who we will campaign for, who we ask our friends and families to vote for depends on how they feel about the corruption that is rampant and what they plan to do about it. All the way up to the white house. For the people by the people and we are the people.

We will be the change we believe in.

So this week we target Anderson Cooper, watch out here we come! We will send out an event page.

What can you do?

1. Share your story, post links, petitions, opinions, and concerns.
2. Share the word, your best friend has not lost a child, they can still write say they saw your life destroyed. Your mom can say her child was abused when their child was kidnapped, that she lost her grandchild, you understand what I am saying, pass it on.
3.Re-post, send messages, email links, get involved.
4.Send your suggestion, comments, etc to us.
5.Help us to help everyone, help us to help our children. No one person can do this on their own.

Once again thank you and bless you one and all.

Anderson Cooper watch out we have a voice and as our children's voice WE WILL BE HEARD!

Randy

Kidnapped By DCF IN Springfield, Massachusetts

• To Whom It May Concern: My Grand Daughter, Crystal, was Legally Kidnapped by DCF in Springfield, Massachusetts on July 23rd 2009, which was on a Thursday. The DCF worker LIED! These people have DESTROYED our Family. They claim there was abuse and neglect, however, the ONLY ABUSE AND NEGLECT came from the workers and the foster home my Grand Daughter was in. On September 3rd of 2009, I went to my scheduled visit with my Grand Daughter, which was on a Thursday. Crystal had BRUISES over and under BOTH eyes and BRUISES on BOTH cheeks, on Crystal's right cheek was a right-handed thumb imprint. I almost dropped to my knees and cried when I SAW the foster mother carry Crystal in. The foster mother said, "Crystal walked into her sofa." I didn't even ask. I'm NOT ALLOWED to. I took pictures and video of Crystal and I did ask Crystal if, "she had anymore boo boos?" Crystal showed me her legs which had a couple of small bruises and bug bites. I called the area director and wrote to the Governor, Patrick, and they wrote back saying, "Although, they share my concerns, they will not intervened." My visits were taken away from me, Because I made the call and wrote the letter. The worker was going to tell me in front of Crystal, that this was my last visit. I had to sit with Crystal with bruises on her face and SMILE for an hour. EVERY TIME I had to leave after our time, I had to hear my baby SCREAM AND CRY for her ME~MA. That is what Crystal calls me, "ME~MA." We were the ONLY family Crystal KNEW when they KIDNAPPED her on FALSE PRETENSES. There was NO reason why Crystal could NOT stay in her own home! She (DCF WORKER) even told me to "get a 209a" against my daughter, Crystal's mother and Crystal will be "back here on Monday." Guess what? It NEVER happened! That worker LIED, LIED, AND LIED SOME MORE, while she was on the witness stand at a hearing for me, to get Crystal home and OUT of the system! It's been OVER 2 years since Crystal (Bear is her nickname) WAS KIDNAPPED! My daughter has gone through over 3 service plans. I mean they even told her to get a learner's permit. REALLY!? Like there are NO buses or I can't give her a ride? A learner's permit. OH and the reason we're on, is because, I wouldn't allow my children to hang around this pill popping, drug addict, drunk. Who ALWAYS had guys, of ALL sorts, hanging around her and girls were ALWAYS threatening her, BECAUSE she is a TROUBLE MAKER, and she had her children taken away. DCF KNEW WHO was calling and also knew the allegations were NOT TRUE! This person had EVERYBODY call in FALSE ALLEGATIONS. One time the DCF worker was sitting in my home when she called and started harassing me and threatened to call DCF AGAIN! and she DID! I have a letter from DCF stating she has harassed my family and threatened us. The problem is with DCF and how they ABUSE their POWER! DCF told me to back off for 6 months so the worker could pull on my daughter's strings, like she was a puppet. I am Crystal's ME~MA, why would I BACK OFF? I and my daughter have ALTO MORE. I am asking you to, "CHECK OUT what we are saying, PLEASE!" My Grand Daughter's life DEPENDS ON IT! OH, I also have another Grand Daughter, who lives here in the SAME home, where 1 DCF worker said was unfit BUT another DCF worker finds NOTHING WRONG with my home! PLEASE, I'm willing to tell the truth about what we are going through, all we are asking is for you to PLEASE check it out! There are 1000s like us. They (DCF) take the children that DON'T need to be and place them in ABUSIVE homes and at times are MURDERED! The ones who NEED to be saved ARE left to be ABUSED and at times MURDERED! Thank You for your time. I assure you, I did NOT WASTE IT! Sincerely yours,
• Lynn Marie Gilligan; Crystal,s ME~MA