Monthly Archives: June 2017

Why Family Courts and CPS Target Fit Parents, by Patricia Mitchell

By Patricia Mitchell

Rich, poor, middle class – no child in America is safe. These words of award-winning investigative journalist Keith Harmon Snow (author of The Worst Interests of the Child) refer to the abusive practices that regularly occur within the Family Courts and Child Protective Services (CPS) Courts. On their watch, each year hundreds of thousands of children suffer from abuse (including rape and prolonged torture) that would not have happened without this court system’s initial invasion and subsequent entrapment.

Removing children from their homes, separating children from parents, and creating conflict within the family unit is good business for the judicial officials and has become what the Family and CPS Courts do best.

Court officials heavily profit from these induced conflicts. They have learned how to milk the system for financial gain, by targeting the protective (fit) parent instead of the abusive (unfit) parent, resulting in children getting placed with pedophiles, sadistic sociopaths, and narcissists, in life-threatening environments. Although “the State” will pay the court officials if a low income or poor family is involved, the system forces protective parents who are middle class or wealthier to foot the bills for all court services. Either way, rich or poor, court officials have made a big business out of family conflicts, using children as currency.

Why would the courts target a fit parent instead of an unfit parent? Because there is no money to be made off of the unfit one. The Family and CPS Courts require one parent willing to participate with them, to care about the child’s well being and, most importantly, to make a commitment to the courts. Protective parents will do anything and everything the courts demand of them. Whereas abusive parents are more likely to give in after the court system’s first hurdle, demand, or when he/she sees the bills, simply saying, “Fine, take the child.”  Why Family Courts and CPS Target Fit Parents

April Parks-262+ indictment for being a “professional guardian”. Count 1 is racketeering.

I want to than DF for sending this along about April Parks and her overbilling, over charging, invading and draining Trust assets, selling homes, throwing homes into foreclosure, forcing seniors into nursing homes against their will.

You all know the routine:  target, guardianize, medicate, drain the estate, then narcotize to death and cremate.

Well, April Parks just went down big time.

Here is the 262 count indictment

The charges range from Racketeering (RICO), Theft, Exploitation of an Elderly Person, Exploitation of a Vulnerable Person, Offering False Evidence for Filing or Recording, Perjury, etc.

You can and should read this 125 page, over 200 count indictment, but it’s the same pattern Ken and I were finding everywhere–target, guardianize, medicate, drain the estate and then narcotize to death when the money runs out.

The amazing thing is, it involved so many people and yet there is no end in sight.


View original post 17 more words

Learning to live with the heartbreak of family betrayal

“But it’s hard to feel happy about being abused — and it’s even harder to feel good about watching people you’ve known forever literally turn their backs on you when and if you out an Abuser.

Suggest something as outlandish as having all the family members come together to stop enabling a Cluster B family member, or to watch while you sit back feeling powerless to defend yourself from smear campaigns started by an angry, socially toxic con artist who is actively preying on you or your family member(s) and LOOK OUT.”

From J. Ketelhut–9th circuit case says Social Workers have NO immunity for lying

Hardick v. Vreeken

Some great excerpts from this case:

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, on summary judgment, of absolute and qualified immunity to social workers who plaintiff alleged maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure plaintiff’s removal from her mother, and that this abuse of state power violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to her familial relationship with her mother. The panel held that the social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure plaintiff’s removal. The panel held that plaintiff’s complaint targeted conduct well outside of the social workers’ legitimate role as quasi-prosecutorial advocates in presenting the case. The panel held that defendants’ case for qualified immunity was not supported by the law or the record. The panel determined that plaintiff produced more than sufficient admissible evidence to create a…

View original post 1,021 more words