Nehmo - Blaze - Susan
Nehmo Sergheyev
In the Interest of:
BLAZE A. SERGHEYEV
Petition No. TROI - 00061
Life Number: 140811
Sex: Male Born: October 2, 1998
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT FOR
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
On the 12th day of December 2002. The above-entitled case came on for review
pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §211.477.4(2), and for evidentiary hearing on the
joint motion of the Guardian Ad Litem and the Division of Family Services
(DFS) for Modification of Court Order, filed on October 17, 2002 and for
Termination of Parental Rights, filed on October 29, 2002.
The proceedings were had and made of record before the HONORABLE W. STEPHEN
NIXON, Judge of Division 5 of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri,
at the Family Justice Center, 625 East 26'" Street, Kansas City, Missouri.
KIMBERLY A. CARRINGTON, ESQ., appeared on behalf of Petitioner Division of
Family Services. The child, BLAZE A. SERGHEYEV, appeared in person and
through
his Guardian ad Litem, KATHY RODGERS, KATE HANSEN, ESQ. and LAURIE V. SNELL,
ESQ,. appeared with and on behalf of the child's natural father, NEHMO
SERGHEYEV.
On June 13, 2002, following trial of this case, the Court found that the
Petitioner proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the child
had
been in foster care for at least fifteen of the most recent twenty-two
months
as required by Mo.Rev.Stat. § 21.447.2(1). However, the Court ruled that
termination of the father's parental rights was not in the best interests of
the child at that time because the child would benefit from the continued
parent-child relationship. The Court therefore retained Jurisdiction of this
case pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §211.447.4(2) and set an evidentiary hearing
for
July 11,2002 to determine `the residual rights and responsibilities of the
father and the DFS, and a reunification plan. The Court entered a separate
judgment on June 20, 2002, which terminated the parental rights of the
natural
mother, SUSAN SERGHEYEV.
On July 11 and 19, 2002, the Court again heard testimony and reviewed
evidence
concerning the matter and entered its order dated September 10, 2002. The
order set out specific rights and responsibilities f the Division of Family
Services as well as of the father, NEHMO SERGHEYEV. The matter was set for
further review on December 12, 2002, pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. §211.447.4(2).
NOW, on this 20th day of December, 2002, the Court again takes up the
matter.
Having considered all the pleadings filed in this action, evidence adduced
by
the parties, exhibits, testimony and court file number JV98-01480, the Court
makes the following findings of fact and conclusion of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
BLAZE A. SERGHEYEV is a male, minor child, born October 2, 1998, who
presently
resides in the state of Georgia with his foster parents. At the time of the
filing of the petition for termination of parental rights, the child resided
in Jackson County, Missouri.
BLAZE A. SERGHEYEV came under the jurisdiction of this Court on April 20,
1999
in case number JV98-01480, pursuant to a Second Amended Petition filed by
the
Juvenile Officer on March 24, 1999. The child is placed in the legal custody
of the Missouri Division of Family Services for physical placement in foster
care.
The child's natural father is NEHMO SERGHEYEV, whose date of birth is
February
21, 1952, social security number ***-**-****, and who resides at 717 Monroe,
Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.
The Petitioner has proved by clear, cogent and convincing evidence `hat the
child has been in foster care for at least fifteen of the most recent
twenty-two months as required by Mo.Rev.Stat. §211.447.2(1). Petitioner has
failed to prove by clear cogent and convincing evidence the remaining
statutory grounds for termination alleged in the petition against the
father,
Respondent NEHMO SERGHEYEV.
The Court further finds by the preponderance of the evidence that
termination
or the parental rights of the father, NEHMO SERGHEYEV, is in the best
interest
of the child. As to the factors specified in Mo.Rev.Stat. §211.447.6, the
Court makes the following findings as required by In Re K.C.M, WL 31010990
(Mo.App.W.D. 2002):
(1) The emotional ties to the birth parent:
The preponderance of credible evidence establishes that visitation between
the
father and the child has been without serious incident, but that there is no
strong emotional tie between the father and the child. The child has bonded
well with his foster parents, with whom he has resided almost since his
birth.
(2) The extent to which the parent has maintained regular visitation or
other contact with the child:
The father has participated in his regularly-scheduled visitation, which the
Court ordered to be facilitated by DFS. However, the evidence establishes
that
such visitation has not resulted in a substantial bond between the father
and
the child.
(3) The extent of payment by the parent for the cost of care and
maintenance of the child when financially able to do so including the time
that the child is in the custody of the division or other child-placing
agency:
The Court specifically ordered the father to pay the amount of $308.00 per
month as and for child support, effective Friday, July 19, 2002 and
continuing
on the 1st day of each month thereafter, to be paid directly to the Child
Support Enforcement Center. The Father, as established by his own testimony,
has only made one payment, and that payment was made at the time of evidence
being presented on the issue of whether or not to terminate Parental rights.
Father has failed and refused, without a justifiable cause, to pay another
child support payment as ordered. Father testified as to his belief that he
should not have to pay child support, although ordered by the Court, as long
as the child is in DFS custody.
(1) Whether additional services would be likely to bring about lasting
parental adjustment enabling a return of the child to the parent within an
ascertainable period of time:
The Court specifically ordered, on September 10, 2002, that the father.
NEHMO
SERGHEYEV, shall promptly admit the DFS home caseworker to his home for
unannounced home visits without his attorney being present, said home visits
to be conducted by Pamela Ford if possible. The order was designed to
determine whether or not the home was a fit and proper place for the child
to
reside on a continuous basis. The Father failed and refused to permit a
single
unannounced home visit and did not permit the caseworker entry to his house.
The Court further Ordered on September 10, 2002 that there shall be no
contact
between BLAZE SERGHEYEV and the mother, SUSAN SERGHEYEV, whether in person,
by
telephone or email, by correspondence, through third parties, or otherwise.
SUSAN SERGHEYEV'S parental rights were terminated by this Court's separate
judgment on June 20, 2002. The Court found that SUSAN SERGHEYEV represented
a
clear and present danger to the health and safety of the child. The Court
made
it very clear to the Father that it was a very important issue in the
Court's
mind that SUSAN SERGHEYEV not be permitted to have contact with, or
influence
on the child. Father testified at that time that he did not know where SUSAN
SERGHEYEV was, and that his relationship with her was ended. This was a
major
consideration in the Court's earlier decision that that the best Interest of
the child did not support terminating Fathers rights at the time of earlier
judgments. Father stipulated at the December 12, 2002 hearing that SUSAN
SERGHEYEV is back in the home ands living with him. Clearly this living
arrangement does not permit reunification of the child to the Father.
Father has failed to comply and cooperate with the Courts previous Orders
which were designed to effectuate his goal of reunification. His deliberate
refusal to comply with the Court's specific Orders for services indicates
that
additional services would be unlikely to bring about lasting parental
adjustment within an ascertainable period of time.
(5) The parent's disinterest in or lack of commitment to the child:
NEHMO SERGHEYEV'S failure and refusal to pay child support and to allow
unannounced home visits as ordered indicate his lack of willingness to
protect
the child and a lack of commitment to the child. In addition, since the
Court
has ordered that SUSAN SERGHEYEV have no absolutely no contact with the
child,
NEHMO SERGHEYEV'S decision to permit her to move back into the home
demonstrates his unwillingness to protect the child and his willingness to
expose the child to harm. SUSAN SERGHEYEV has also recently given birth to
another child, which NEHMO SERGHEYEV admits he may have fathered, in another
state. That child is in that state's protective custody because it was born
drug-exposed. When questioned about why he believed the baby had been taken
away from SUSAN SERGHEYEV, the father testified that it was because she was
not a very good liar, was too open, and revealed
too much information. The Court finds that his testimony as to his interest
and commitment to the child to be not credible.
(6) The conviction of the parent of a felony offense that the court finds
is of such a nature that the child will be deprived of a stable home for a
period of years; provided, however, that incarceration in and of itself
shall
not be grounds for termination of parental rights:
There was no evidence adduced regarding this factor.
(7) Deliberate acts of the parent or acts of another of which the parent
knew or should have known that subject the child to a substantial risk of
physical or mental harm:
The Court Ordered on September 10, 2002 that there shall be no contact
between
BLAZE SERGHEYEV and the mother, SUSAN SERGHEYEV, whether in person, by
telephone or email, by correspondence, through third parties, or otherwise.
SUSAN SERGHEYEV'S parental rights were terminated by this Court's separate
judgment on June 20, 2002, NEHMO SERGHEYEV stipulated at the December 12,
2002
hearing that SUSAN SERGHEYEV is back in the home and is living with him. His
deliberate act of moving SUSAN SERGHEYEV back in with him after the Court
had
found contact between SUSAN SERGHEYEV and the child to be a danger is a
deliberate act of NEHMO SERGHEYEV which he knew or should have known would
subject the child to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner has established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence a
statutory ground for termination in that the child had been in foster care
for
at least fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, as required by
Mo.Rev.Stat. § 211.447.2(1).
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
termination
of NEHMO SERGHEYEV'S parental rights to the child, BLAZE A. SERGHEYEV, is in
the child's best interest.
JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all parental
rights
of NEHMO SERGHEYEV in and over BLAZE A SERGHEYEV are terminated and the
child's custody will remain as ordered in JV98-01480, until further order of
the Court.
Dated: December 20, 2002
W. Stephen Nixon
Judge
Certificate of Service
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed postage pre-paid
or
hand delivered to the following on this 20 day of December, 2002.
Copies to:
Kimberly A. Carrington
Contract Attorney for DLS P.O. Box 901244
Kansas City, Missouri 64190-1244
Seth Haney, Case Manager
Crittenton - Contract Agency for Division of Family Services 10918 Elm
Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64134
Kathy Rodgers - GAL
Family Justice Center
625 E. 26' Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Kate Hansen
Attorney for Father
1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106
Nehmo Sergheyev [816 483-4284]
717 Monroe
Kansas City, MO 64124
Sarah Johnston - Attorney for the Juvenile Officer Family Justice Center
625 E. 26th Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
-----------------------------------------------
--
*******************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*******************
http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/Susan_Talks.htm
Dan Sullivan
I'm very sorry to hear of this.
I wish there was something I could say to make you feel better.
You will all be in my prayers.
Best, Dan
Doug
I am sorry, my friend.
I hope you understand that you are not alone on the eve of this tragic
injustice.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do.
"Nehmo Sergheyev" <neh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bCBT9.9623$nT1.2...@twister.kc.rr.com...
Robert T McQuaid
> (snip)
>
> Father stipulated at the December 12, 2002 hearing that
> SUSAN SERGHEYEV is back in the home ands living with
> him. Clearly this living arrangement does not permit
> reunification of the child to the Father. Father has
> failed to comply and cooperate with the Courts previous
> Orders which were designed to effectuate his goal of
> reunification. His deliberate refusal to comply with
> the Court's specific Orders for services indicates that
> additional services would be unlikely to bring about
> lasting parental adjustment within an ascertainable
> period of time.
>
> (5) The parent's disinterest in or lack of commitment to
> the child: NEHMO SERGHEYEV'S failure and refusal to pay
> child support and to allow unannounced home visits as
> ordered indicate his lack of willingness to protect the
> child and a lack of commitment to the child. In
> addition, since the Court has ordered that SUSAN
> SERGHEYEV have no absolutely no contact with the child,
> NEHMO SERGHEYEV'S decision to permit her to move back
> into the home demonstrates his unwillingness to protect
> the child and his willingness to expose the child to
> harm.
>
> (snip)
How is that for logic? Father and mother reconciling is
a reason to take a child away.
Robert T McQuaid
Orangeville Ontario Canada
Decriminalize motherhood
Ron
Well now, let's see Robert.
1. Failed to pay court ordered child support.
2. Refused to allow court ordred residence inspections.
3. Refused to participate in court ordered assistance programs.
4. Allowed contact with an individual who had been determined by the
court to be a danger to the child.
5. Allowed said individual to actually move into his home.
6. Said individual being the mother of another child which was
"drug-exposed" at birth.
7. Said "drug-exposed" child now being in care in another state, and
with Nehmo saying that he "may" be the father of that child as well.
8. The child has been in care more than 4 years.
Sounds like the judge made the very best decision for the child. If
dad wants to play kneal'ish games with the court, thats his decision,
he gets what he deserves. At least now the child has a chance at a
life.
Feel free to be sad for the parent, but be happy for the child.
Ron
Ric Werme
>http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/Susan_Talks.htm
Good to hear from you, even though you bring ill news.
For other readers, Nehmo's case started when his wife gave birth to Blaze.
Susan was on Methadone, the doctors knew it, were comfortable with it, and
stopping Methadone during a pregnancy can kill the fetus. After birth it's
an easy process to get the baby clean.
CPS got wind of this and flipped on the drug-exposed-baby routine that has
lead to the recent decision and four years of CPS hell. At one point, a
judge ordered Nehmo to explain why the Methadone exposure was not
abuse/neglect (or something to that effect), his reply was a WWW page
that remains the best page ever written on the subject, see
http://worldzone.net/health/nehmo/RisksofMethadoneinPregnancy.htm
-Ric
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Ric Werme http://ewerme.home.attbi.com/ | ewe...@xxxxx.com
see also http://dcyf.home.attbi.com/ | Change xxxxx to attbi
Ron
people in this news group.
Greg, Destroy, Neal, its time to read the writing on the wall people. You
can chalk up another shattered family to your type of advice.
Congratulations. If you learn from this, great, but if you don't then you
are everything we have been telling you that you are.
Ron
PS: Ric, there far more to this story then is being presented here. You
know this as well as I. So does your wife, if she is as good an attorney as
you say she is. Read between the lines sir, you should see the same things
that I do unless you are blinded by your own prejudice.
"Nehmo Sergheyev" <neh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bCBT9.9623$nT1.2...@twister.kc.rr.com...
Robert T McQuaid
> Well now, let's see Robert.
>
> 1. Failed to pay court ordered child support.
> 2. Refused to allow court ordred residence inspections.
> 3. Refused to participate in court ordered assistance
> programs.
> 4. Allowed contact with an individual who had been
> determined by the court to be a danger to the child.
> 5. Allowed said individual to actually move into his
> home.
> 6. Said individual being the mother of another child
> which was "drug-exposed" at birth.
> 7. Said "drug-exposed" child now being in care in
> another state, and with Nehmo saying that he "may"
> be the father of that child as well.
> 8. The child has been in care more than 4 years.
>
> Sounds like the judge made the very best decision for
> the child. If dad wants to play kneal'ish games with
> the court, thats his decision, he gets what he deserves.
> At least now the child has a chance at a life.
>
> Feel free to be sad for the parent, but be happy for the
> child.
Ron:
The judge weaved his logic about as you do. The trouble
here is that there is no abuse by Nemo. None of the
points show that Nemo has abused his daughter, or is
dispososed to abuse her in the future. The judge is
construing failure to cooperate with child snatchers as
child abuse.
Robert T McQuaid
Orangeville Ontario Canada
Anti-social worker
Destroycps!
> The judge weaved his logic about as you do. The trouble
> here is that there is no abuse by Nemo.
Nehmo
That's "Nehmo" with an "h".
Robert T McQuaid
> None of the
> points show that Nemo has abused his daughter,
Nehmo
Actually, Blaze is our son.
Robert T McQuaid
> or is
> dispososed to abuse her in the future. The judge is
> construing failure to cooperate with child snatchers as
> child abuse.
Nehmo
I'm still mulling this over, and I probably should wait until I've recovered
a bit before I venture some conclusions. But some things are obvious, and
I'm not reluctant to say them now.
When W. Stephen Nixon started his rotation as the judge over Jackson County
family court, the widely held belief was that he would be pro-family. In his
early rulings (denying some contested TPR petitions), it seemed he would be.
But appearances should not be confused with results. The judge has been on
this bench for a year now, and I don't know of any kid that has gone home
from his courtroom. His style is to TPR slowly - but TPR nonetheless.
Yes, Robert, there never was any abuse. CPS never even
alleged that. That irony may qualify as a persuasion for your average
person, but in family court abuse or no abuse doesn't really matter.
What matters? What matters is who owns the guns. In family court, CPS owns
the guns. Therefore, CPS wins.
Dan Sullivan
When was Blaze removed into FC?
And how long did it take the court to rule that you did not maltreat Blaze
and that you should be reunited??
How many visits a month did you have with your son? And how long were they?
Wasn't he flown in and while he was still suffering from jet lag and lack of
sleep you had your visits together?
How could the judge expect any serious bonding between you two when the
child was wiped out from the flight?
And how could the judge expect your bond with your son to even compare with
the FPs who had him everyday?
Just putting it into perspective.
Best, Dan
Destroycps!
Dan Sullivan
> When was Blaze removed into FC?
Nehmo
Basically, at birth. We were never allowed to take him home.
Dan
> And how long did it take the court to rule that you did not maltreat Blaze
> and that you should be reunited??
Nehmo
There never was actually was an allegation of maltreatment. How could there
have been? He had never been home. The original (and the amended) petition
for jurisdiction in April '99 alleged Blaze was without "proper care,
custody, and support".
The four-day TPR hearing was in February, 2002. The written order came out
in June. It appeared to rule for reunification, but apparently the judge
wasn't sincere, considering his subsequent order to keep Blaze in Georgia
(I'm in Missouri).
Dan
> How many visits a month did you have with your son? And how long were
they?
Nehmo
After DFS sent Blaze to Georgia, originally, one visit per month. Later, two
visits of three days each.
Dan
> Wasn't he flown in and while he was still suffering from jet lag and lack
of
> sleep you had your visits together?
Nehmo
In the first series of visits that came after (and I mean *just* after) a
flight, yes, he was tired. Sometimes he slept through most of the visit.
In the next series of visits that came after a flight, we had three days
together. He would be fine on the later days of the visits. And eventually,
he actually acclimated himself to the flights. They didn't bother him after
a while.
Dan
> How could the judge expect any serious bonding between you two when the
> child was wiped out from the flight?
Nehmo
A fundamental rule of family court is that if it's logical, it doesn't
belong there.
Dan
> And how could the judge expect your bond with your son to even compare
with
> the FPs who had him everyday?
Nehmo
I always wanted a direct contrast between me and the foster (only the female
foster, Chris Collins, ever showed up for a hearing). But these hearings
don't allow that. That's not the issue up for consideration.
An interesting item came out at the TPR hearing. Once, when Blaze had
misbehaved by spilling some juice on the carpet, the male foster, Greg
Collins, yanked Blaze's elbow (not his shoulder) out of its socket. Several
hours later, the social worker happened to call (as I understand it). The
social worker told them to take Blaze to the hospital. This happened
apparently during a period when I was refused visits.
The foster cell number is (678) 923-1231
Greg Collins works at
RBM of Atlanta, Inc
http://www.atlanta.mercedescenter.com/mbcenter/b/index.jhtml
7640 Roswell Rd
Atlanta, GA 30350-4839
Chuck Reynoles General Manager
John Ellis owner
You can write them care of
Steven G. Kleinschmidt (probably an accountant)
(770) 390 - 0700
sgk...@aol.com
I'll get their home address soon.
Ron
"Robert T McQuaid" <rt...@stn.net> wrote in message
news:e2057782.03011...@posting.google.com...
Sorry Rob, but you seem to be the one missing the point.
He allowed the childs mother, the one that DID abuse, to live with him, to
return home. Now, were you expecting the child and the mother to never have
contact in that home while they both lived there? He also refused to move
her back out again. And in case you didn't notice, it was not "failure to
cooperate" but "refusal to cooperate" sir.
Placing a child knowingly into a position where there is a high chance of
intentional abuse, is in itself abusive. It does not matter if he EVER
raised a hand against the child or not, he knowingly chose to put that child
into that position, and therefore IS an abusive parent. He refused to
provide for his child. He refused to help the state ensure that the child
was going into an appropriate environment (just because his father lives
there does not make it appropriate). Basically Rob, he chose to play the
"Do not cooperate under circumstances" game that kneal, boob, destroy, greg,
and a few others here advocate for. He got the natural consequences of that
action.
The weave of the logic is straight and clear. The judge made the most
appropriate decision based on the situation as we know it.
Ron
Dan Sullivan
"Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:sTBU9.44194$Hc1....@news1.central.cox.net...
> Sorry Rob, but you seem to be the one missing the point.
>
> He allowed the childs mother, the one that DID abuse, to live with him, to
> return home. Now, were you expecting the child and the mother to never
have
> contact in that home while they both lived there? He also refused to move
> her back out again. And in case you didn't notice, it was not "failure to
> cooperate" but "refusal to cooperate" sir.
>
> Placing a child knowingly into a position where there is a high chance of
> intentional abuse, is in itself abusive. It does not matter if he EVER
> raised a hand against the child or not, he knowingly chose to put that
child
> into that position, and therefore IS an abusive parent. He refused to
> provide for his child. He refused to help the state ensure that the child
> was going into an appropriate environment (just because his father lives
> there does not make it appropriate). Basically Rob, he chose to play the
> "Do not cooperate under circumstances" game that kneal, boob, destroy,
greg,
> and a few others here advocate for. He got the natural consequences of
that
> action.
>
> The weave of the logic is straight and clear. The judge made the most
> appropriate decision based on the situation as we know it.
>
> Ron
Hey Ron,
Susan never abused Blaze.
The worst that could be said about her was that she was on a methadone
program when she gave birth to her and Nehmo's son.
A program run by the government BTW.
Best, Dan
Fern5827
to come and live with you--I cannot see how you could be stripped of custody.
Also, why the child was placed out of state.
Supposedly, ICPC agreements (Interstate Compact on Placement of Children) drag
on FOREVER.
I hope this can be appealed.
Best wishes, Nehmo. (And to Blaze, too)
Ron
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fxCU9.112318$FT6.22...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
So, then what was the reasons given for TPR? Methadone useage is not
enough.
Ron
Dan Sullivan
From Nehmo,
There never was actually was an allegation of maltreatment. How could there
have been? He had never been home. The original (and the amended) petition
for jurisdiction in April '99 alleged Blaze was without "proper care,
custody, and support."
Hey Nehmo,
Could you elaborate?
And/or post the original and amended petition?
Thanks, Dan
Greg Hanson
Condolences.
Was Susan on any new drugs when 2nd baby was born?
Was 2nd baby removed for the Methadone again?
I saw your science information long ago about how
keeping her ON Methadone was a good idea when she
was pregnant with Blaze. The "abuse" of Blaze
is indeed a complete crock. Wasn't she even kept
ON Methadone by the pediatricians themselves??
While the 2nd one worries me, Don't the same science
arguments apply?
Welcome to the anti-family world of CPS reality.
George Orwell and Franz Kafka would be amazed.
This is scarier than the stuff they wrote.
Greg in Iowa
Nehmo Sergheyev
> > > The worst that could be said about her was that she was on a methadone
> > > program when she gave birth to her and Nehmo's son.
> > >
> > > A program run by the government BTW.
Nehmo
There are programs ran by agencies of the federal and state governments,
but Susan was (and currently is) on a "private" program. Private programs
are not funded by the government, but otherwize they are pretty much the
same. All methadone programs are regulated by the federal government.
Dan Sullivan
> > So, then what was the reasons given for TPR? Methadone useage is not
> > enough.
Nehmo
Anything is enough for DFS to take a kid into custody. I repeat: anything.
http://nehmo.angelcities.com/OriginalReason.htm
I should be clear here:
An order to remove - is when DFS initially takes a kid
An order for jurisdiction - is when the court "officially" has control over
the case.
An order for TPR is, of course, when the court severs all relationships
between the parent and kid.
(The meaning of "jurisdiction" is Missouri is different than its meaning in
other states.)
The "reason" for TPR was default for Susan. The "reason" for TPR for me was
outlined in the ruling I posted on 1-10-2003.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bCBT9.9623%24nT1.272077%40twister.kc.rr
.com
> From Nehmo,
> There never was actually was an allegation of maltreatment. How could
there
> have been? He had never been home. The original (and the amended) petition
> for jurisdiction in April '99 alleged Blaze was without "proper care,
> custody, and support."
Dan
> Could you elaborate?
Nehmo
"The child is without proper care, custody, and support" is simply a line
used to begin (usually) Juvenile-Officer [1] petitions for jurisdiction. I
believe it's a legal way of saying that the parents can't care for their
kid.
Dan
> And/or post the original and amended petition?
Nehmo
It is very common for the Juvenile Office to produce an original petition
and an amended petition. The original will have arbitrarily extreme, untrue,
and even nonsensical language: "The parent starved and beat the child for
several months", for example. The parent will read this and insist on not
stipulating. The JO then removes the offensive language, and then the parent
feels as though he or she has made a victory of sorts. The parent stipulates
to the amended petition. It doesn't really matter. If you stipulate to
jurisdiction, you stipulate to jurisdiction. An analogy to a criminal case
would be plea bargaining from guilty to no-contest.
[1] Before '98 in Missouri, only the JO could file a petition for TPR; after
that, DFS could file on its own. In my case, the JO declined to file, so DFS
did. In the end. it didn't make any difference.
Ron
You did everything but answer his question. What DID she do, or what DID
she FAIL to do, that caused the initial TPR?
You beat around the bush quite well sir, but you never hit the point. A
court cannot and will not TPR without specific's, not in any state in the
land.
Now, if you are the typical angry bio parent that has lost a child to the
system you will continue to beat around the bush (and quite frankly this is
what I expect), but if you are not then you will state specifics without
bias. Your choice, but remember that some here will not buy quibbling and
bush beating.
Ron
Nehmo Sergheyev
> Condolences.
> Was Susan on any new drugs when 2nd baby was born?
Nehmo
No illegal drugs. It was a caesarian, so I suppose she was on some
anesthesia.
Greg Hanson
> Was 2nd baby removed for the Methadone again?
Nehmo
DSS in North Carolina called it a "dependent child". This newsgroup has got
to get over the notion that a kid is "removed" for some "reason". Since
there are no statutory limits on the "reason" why a kid may be at risk,
anything will do. There is no predetermined list of crimes or behaviors that
would result in a removal.
Greg Hanson
> I saw your science information long ago about how
> keeping her ON Methadone was a good idea when she
> was pregnant with Blaze. The "abuse" of Blaze
> is indeed a complete crock. Wasn't she even kept
> ON Methadone by the pediatricians themselves??
Nehmo
http://worldzone.net/health/nehmo/RisksofMethadoneinPregnancy.htm
This is old material. Yes, no medical professional (including all doctors)
wanted to take Susan off methadone. DFS decided it was a problem. (Actually
since Blaze was born in Kansas, SRS hotlined him to DFS, if that matters.)
Greg Hanson
> While the 2nd one worries me, Don't the same science
> arguments apply?
Nehmo
Prior to the cesarean, Susan became talkative when the social worker
interrogated her. Susan told the social worker about Blaze. I believe
Susan's prior history of a termination was the primary justification NC used
to take Piper (that's his name).
I never saw any of the North Carolina documents, so I'm not sure exactly
what they say.
Nehmo Sergheyev
> Since you have NOT been charged with anything, except allowing your loved
one
> to come and live with you--I cannot see how you could be stripped of
custody.
Nehmo
Unfortunately, you're not the judge.
Fern5827
> Also, why the child was placed out of state.
Nehmo
DFS put Blaze in Georgia because that's where the fosters were moving. DFS
wanted to use the "status quo" argument at the TPR hearing, and it wouldn't
be able to do that if it let the fosters go without Blaze. It's worth
mentioning that D. Scott Forrester, the GAL, and Seth Haney, the case
manager, assured me that Blaze wouldn't go to Georgia.
Fern5827
> Supposedly, ICPC agreements (Interstate Compact on Placement of Children)
drag
> on FOREVER.
Nehmo
The order of the commissioner court
was that the move was to be in compliance with the Interstate Compact
http://icpc.aphsa.org/. It wasn't. DFS didn't do a prior home study, and
didn't get approval from the receiving state (and there also was some other
missing paperwork). Nonetheless, DFS moved Blaze. DFS never is held
accountable for anything it does.
Fern5827
> I hope this can be appealed.
Nehmo
I'm hoping too, but I was depressed after I left the meeting with my
attorneys.
Dan Sullivan
> You did everything but answer his question. What DID she do, or what DID
> she FAIL to do, that caused the initial TPR?
>
> You beat around the bush quite well sir, but you never hit the point. A
> court cannot and will not TPR without specific's, not in any state in the
> land.
I may have posted this a while back.
One of our local family court judges was used by CPS to sign the paperwork
that started the TPR process.
He'd sign his name to whatever CPS put in front of him relying on CPS to
correctly determine who should have their parental rights terminated.
An attny friend of mine was in court while this judge was signing a bunch of
TPR papers when the judge came across the name of a woman he was familiar
with.
The judge told the person from CPS who was waiting for the papers to be
signed that he knew this particular woman came out on the LIRR from NYC
every other week for family visitation and that there was no way he was
gonna continue to sign TPR papers if that's the type of parent having their
rights terminated.
CPS had to find a new dupe.
Dan
ricky thompson
We don't know if we got rid of their dupe here or not but we are
definately working on educating people on getting their case files, their
rights and making their Public Pretender/Defenders do their job here.
Hey Dan do you think New Jersey just may be a sign that Americans are
waking up to what CPS and its minions are really about. Pity those who wake
the sleeping giant.
>
>
>
>
Ron
>
> "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:bT4V9.2364$rR1....@news1.central.cox.net...
>
> > You did everything but answer his question. What DID she do, or what
DID
> > she FAIL to do, that caused the initial TPR?
> >
> > You beat around the bush quite well sir, but you never hit the point. A
> > court cannot and will not TPR without specific's, not in any state in
the
> > land.
>
> I may have posted this a while back.
>
> One of our local family court judges was used by CPS to sign the paperwork
> that started the TPR process.
Start, Dan, is not TPR. A motion is really nothing more than a request, and
that, from what you have said, is what happened. To actually DO a TPR,
specifics are required.
Ron
Dan Sullivan
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:NEcV9.167133$FT6.30...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:bT4V9.2364$rR1....@news1.central.cox.net...
> >
> > > You did everything but answer his question. What DID she do, or what
> DID
> > > she FAIL to do, that caused the initial TPR?
> > >
> > > You beat around the bush quite well sir, but you never hit the point.
A
> > > court cannot and will not TPR without specific's, not in any state in
> the
> > > land.
> >
> > I may have posted this a while back.
> >
> > One of our local family court judges was used by CPS to sign the
paperwork
> > that started the TPR process.
>
> Start, Dan, is not TPR. A motion is really nothing more than a request,
and
> that, from what you have said, is what happened. To actually DO a TPR,
> specifics are required.
>
> Ron
Hey Ron,
What is the percentage of TPRs to TPR petitions?
Any idea?
Dan
Greg Hanson
> to get over the notion that a kid is "removed"
> for some "reason". Since there are no statutory
> limits on the "reason" why a kid may be at risk,
> anything will do. There is no predetermined list
> of crimes or behaviors that would result in a removal.
I agree, though I suspect there are supposed to
be certain guidelines or STANDARDS as to what
comprises abuse or neglect.
I have asked a lot about what the STANDARDS are.
CPS caseworkers often make up their own
standards, and so asking about standards for
imminent danger and clutter have gone nowhere
for us so far.
In practice, a caseworkers attitude is all it takes.
I hope Federal Judges begin correcting this with
more consent decrees and settlements.
I was really after what your caseworkers were
USING AS AN EXCUSE for what they did.
I hope you intend to keep fighting, Nehmo.
Dan Sullivan
>
> We don't know if we got rid of their dupe here or not but we are
> definately working on educating people on getting their case files, their
> rights and making their Public Pretender/Defenders do their job here.
Sounds good to me!
> Hey Dan do you think New Jersey just may be a sign that Americans are
> waking up to what CPS and its minions are really about.
Unfortunately the public only becomes aware of the outrageous blunders
of CPS when the media brings it to their attention.
Otherwise if you don't have CPS knocking at your door, you have no
idea.
> Pity those who wake the sleeping giant.
Not so much wake the giant but expose him for his incompetence.
I know my activism has been held against me and my children.
Best, Dan
Greg Hanson
Which time around?
You realize that they write their own stats,
just like the number of admin appeals where they reverse.
It looks bad for the case twits if they reverse a lot,
so to support their "troops" they try not to decide
against their fellow state employees.
Ron mentioned specifics.
I've seen some of their lame-o specifics.
Half are flat out irrelevent, half are downright stupid.
That's what you get for allowing such an uneducated,
politically inbred bunch of activists hold such power.
Ric Werme
>> The judge weaved his logic about as you do. The trouble
>> here is that there is no abuse by Nehmo. None of the
>> points show that Nehmo has abused his daughter, or is
>> dispososed to abuse her in the future. The judge is
>> construing failure to cooperate with child snatchers as
>> child abuse.
>>
>> Robert T McQuaid
>> Orangeville Ontario Canada
>> Anti-social worker
>Sorry Rob, but you seem to be the one missing the point.
>He allowed the child's mother, the one that DID abuse,
She abused drugs, not children, and was using prescribed Methadone
for years before Blaze was born. While not being on opiates would
be best, I don't see abuse here.
to live with him, to
>return home.
Yeah, that's a problem. Nehmo should have have capitulated and let CPS
to split his family three ways. They seem to have gotten their way.
So like why wasn't Blaze returned to Nehmo the after Susan moved
out? Would he have been returned if Susan moved out again?
Now, were you expecting the child and the mother to never have
>contact in that home while they both lived there? He also refused to move
>her back out again. And in case you didn't notice, it was not "failure to
>cooperate" but "refusal to cooperate" sir.
>Placing a child knowingly into a position where there is a high chance of
>intentional abuse, is in itself abusive.
Intentional abuse? Mom going for methadone treatment and bringing infant
son along is abuse? That was the only thing I'd expect there would be
a high chance of. There were no risk factors for physical abuse other
than past drug use.
He refused to
>provide for his child. He refused to help the state ensure that the child
>was going into an appropriate environment (just because his father lives
>there does not make it appropriate).
Are you saying people on Methadone should be sterilized? Segregated by
gender so they can't become parents?
Basically Rob, he chose to play the
>"Do not cooperate under circumstances" game that kneal, boob, destroy, greg,
>and a few others here advocate for. He got the natural consequences of that
>action.
Nehmo's case is one of the oldest ones here, and one of the simplest.
Nehmo is also one of the most intelligent people to come through here.
The key thing to learn from from this case is the amazing power that
CPS can wield, how they wield it, and when they wield it. The only
problem was Susan's Methadone use - and the obstetricians did not have
a problem with it. There was no physical abuse, only a prescribed
medication that CPS took issue with.
>The weave of the logic is straight and clear. The judge made the most
>appropriate decision based on the situation as we know it.
As you know it perhaps, I still see no reason for this family to have been
torn asunder. All in all, a terrible thing to do to a really cute kid.
It's certainly a good deal for CPS.
Ron
No clue. I know that the initial motions for TPR must be made within
the guidelines of the ASFA, and I know of at least one case where the
child has been in care for more than 9 years, TPR has been pending for
more than 8.
ASFA only says that proceedings must be started. That can be as small
an action as making the motion in court to as big as a full fledged
series of hearings and an order from the judge. Either way the ASFA
requirements are met. If they take the least of possible actions,
reunification is still a possibility and may be actively sought.
ASFA put some restrictions on the nations HHS system, but there are
enough loopholes to allow the unusual or unique some room.
Ron