Comment #: OR160
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Case brief: Child removal. CPS came to testify on behalf of parent. D.A. requested the testimony not be recorded and parent wait in the hallway. Parent attorney stated the CPS worker testified on behalf of the parent and then left courtroom. D.A. demanded removal of child. Judge Hill granted the D.A.'s request. The director of CPS conducted investigation herself, as in 25 years of experience, no judge had disregarded CPS recommendations. Conclusion, Director of CPS submitted plain spoken letter, the harm being caused to the child was inflicted by the state forced separation, and the child's reunification with the parent needed to happen immediately to protect the child's well being. CPS director informed judge Hill if put on the stand, her testimony would unequivocally support the parent. Turns out the evidence the D.A. used was manufactured. No disciplinary action was ever subscribed to the D.A. for their blatant disregard for a child's rights and parent's rights. The rights of children to parental care are specifically protected in children’s rights treaties and governs the obligations of states to ensure children are not separated from the parents without a due judicial process, and to provide support for the parent and family unit. Provisions governing maternity rights no doubt stem from the basic principle that the fundamental bond between mother and child should be supported. Not even an apology letter was submitted to the mother and child. The child Is my child. It has been 3.5 years since this happened. The scars in my child's psyche are still present. She does not trust police nor the court system. In fact, she is terrified of them. This parent does not drink, do drug, nor do I use physical punishment to correct my child. I am Native. Removing my child from me, would be second generation of removal by the government. In my opinion, this was a racially motivated case.