By Connie Reguli – June 9, 2020

Please share this horrid story out of East Tennessee.

Two children adopted out of foster care were murdered and buried in the yard by the foster-to-adopt parents.

They continued to collect adoption assistance.  In my public presentations, I tell the public that I feared that adopted children were killed or trafficked and here ya’ go.

The statements of the Tennessee Commissioner are telling.  She says that after adoption the state has no right to “check-up” on adopted children.

This ignores the fact that the State approves this parents, does their home study, and continues to provide money to them.

This system is broken.

Oxygen story – June 9, 2020.

Posted: May 27, 2020 / 02:22 PM EDT / Updated: May 27, 2020 / 02:22 PM EDT

News Channel 11 – May 27, 2020 – KINGSTON, Tenn. (AP) — Arrest warrants in a Tennessee couple’s abuse case describe a hellish existence for four children in their legal custody, a nightmare that finally ended after a little boy was spotted walking alone along a Roane County road.

Passersby called 911, and a responding officer began asking questions. The boy’s legal guardian soon confessed, the warrants said, to burying the remains of a little girl in a barn and locking a 15-year-old boy in the basement for four years.

The two other children spent time in a wire dog cage, while all were supposedly homeschooled and appeared to be “stunted in growth,” the warrants said.

Michael Anthony Gray Sr., 63, and his wife, Shirley Ann Gray, 60, were arrested Monday on charges of aggravated child abuse, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated child neglect and abuse of a corpse, authorities said.

The surviving children, ages 11 to 15, were removed from their custody by the state Department of Children’s Services.

The oldest had been locked in the partially flooded, unfinished basement for stealing food shortly after the family moved to the home in June 2016, authorities said, “and had no contact with anyone outside the basement, only given small amounts of food, being white bread and some water,” the warrants state.

Michael Gray told authorities that the girl was about 10 when she died in 2017, a few months after she too was locked in the basement, and that he buried her inside a barn in the backyard, the warrants said. Investigators found her skeletal remains on Saturday, the day after the 911 call, according to 9th Judicial District Attorney General Russell Johnson.

The Grays also built a tiny concrete room under the stairs for punishment, the warrants said. Authorities who liberated the older boy on Friday said he was surrounded by feces, garbage and mold.

The warrants say Shirley Gray claimed all four children were keeping up with their homeschooling requirements, but two of them “appear to have no formal education,” and “were, in fact, amazed by what a refrigerator does when they observed one in their foster home.”

The Grays remained in custody on Wednesday. It wasn’t immediately clear whether they have an attorney.

cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/100897313_1177169635959152_8142646505837166592_n.pdf/URGENT-ACTION-MASS-1.pdf

By Connie Reguli

Many times, families are silenced by the Courts to prevent them from publishing their frustrations about Court proceedings. This type of restraint should not be allowed nor tolerated in our country. There are many cases prohibiting “prior restraint” when it come to our First Amendment freedoms.

In Federal Court, the implement “rules” against public dissemination of information about the case, presumably because it could affect the right of both parties to a fair and impartial jury. However, does social media really have such a broad reach to audiences that it would have a detrimental effect on a jury. And really, could this not be resolved in voir dire.

Recently, I was threatened on this very issue. I participate in social media platforms that are critical of the government and sometimes, challenge the operation of the Courts. In a pending Federal lawsuit, I made a disclosure about defendants regarding the corruption uncovered in this rural Tennessee county.

Within days, I received threatening letters claiming that Local Rule 83.04 prohibited such comments in social media.

So I found the reference below. In Ohio, the Federal Court has found this restriction to be unconstitutional………..Nice to Know.

Trial judges, the government, the lawyers and the public must tolerate robust and at times acrimonious or even silly public debate about litigation. The courts are public institutions funded with public revenues for the purpose of resolving public disputes, and the right of publicity concerning their operations goes to the heart of their function under our system of civil liberty. The courts have available other less restrictive approaches for insuring a fair trial. They may, for example, consider a change of venue or the sequestration of the jury or a searching voir dire examination of the jury.

The Court hereby finds that DR 7-107(G) is facially unconstitutional because it violates the over breadth doctrine as DR 7-107(G) is capable of being applied to punish attorneys for constitutionally protected speech or conduct and therefore, in the Court’s view, “reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Leonardson, 896 F.2d at 195. DR 7-107(G) has a chilling effect in that it prohibits attorney speech in civil litigation that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds that DR 7-107(G) is over broad because it does not aim specifically at certain evils, but it sweeps within its reach other speech that is constitutionally protected. See Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 97.

The Court also finds that DR 7-107(G) is facially unconstitutional pursuant to the vagueness doctrine. DR 7-107(G) is void for vagueness since its provisions do not provide adequate warnings to all regarding what is permitted and what is proscribed by law. See Richardson v. City of South Euclid, 904 F.2d 1050, 1056 (6th Cir. 1990) (Merritt, C.J., dissenting); Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108. Thus, like Rule 177 as construed in Gentile, DR 7-107(G) with its somewhat ambiguous categories “creates a trap for the wary as well as the unwary.” Gentile, 111 S. Ct. at 1132. Moreover, DR 7-107(G) gives the disciplinary board considerable discretion in determining who will be disciplined and who will not be disciplined. Accordingly, DR 7-107(G) is void pursuant to the vagueness doctrine.

Wachsman v. Disciplinary Counsel Supreme Court

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

September 30, 1991, Filed Case C-2-90-335

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a civil litigant’s First Amendment rights were violated when a U.S. district court judge ordered him to stop writing letters to shareholders of a bank that had sued him. Sept 2019. Bank of Hope v. Chon.

By Connie Reguli

March 22, 2020, Arizona Supreme Court decided that where TPR is sought for nonabused children as well as an abused child, the court must find risk of harm to the nonabused children by clear and convincing evidence in the substantive grounds phase, not merely in the best interests phase.

“Thus, a juvenile court may terminate a parent’s rights to non-abused children under § 8-533(B)(2) only if the extrapolation of unfitness—the risk of harm to such children—is proven by clear and convincing evidence. No application of the statute may circumvent this fundamental constitutional requirement.”

“ In sum, a juvenile court’s extrapolation of parental unfitness will not pass constitutional muster under Santosky unless the risk of harm to non-abused children is proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

SANDRA R., SERGIO C., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, M.R., F.M., J.M., Appellees., No. CV-19-0057-PR, 2020 WL 1161588, at *6 (Ariz. Mar. 11, 2020).

Contributors from Family Forward Project Ginnie Todd and Patty Hansen

Follow us on Family Forward Project on Facebook

Karabeika dismissed a juvenile case that had placed DHS as Kylee Dixon’s legal guardian. She will now be permitted to return to her mother’s care.

Kylee Dixon had surgery on Jan. 14 to remove a cancerous tumor from her liver. DHS said she is now cancer-free. The surgery, and the dismissal of the case, capped a months-long dispute between DHS and Christina Dixon over how to treat Kylee Dixon’s cancer diagnosis.

This is an important case for every American parent. You may be one hospital visit and one differing opinion away from the state intruding in what parental rights you think you have. Harming a child is NEVER okay but being forced into treatment is not the job of any government. What is the point of requiring patients to consent to treatment and acknowledge the risks and benefits, IF hospitals can force you into treatment under threat of removing your child and forcing you through a legal process that is not only secretive (confidential) but lacks due process and accountability. That battle will cost you upwards of $50,000 – 100,000 to defend your decision to get another opinion, or take a different treatment path, or simply honor your child’s wishes to not subject themselves to chemo or some other care. The system seems to have forgotten the practice of medicine makes no guarantees.

Feb 3 2020 Kylee Dixon returned to mother’s custody, judge dismisses DHS case. https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2020/02/kylee-dixon-returned-to-mothers-custody-judge-dismisses-dhs-case.html

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_essence_of_evil_sex_with_children_has_become_big_business_in_america

familyjusticeinitiative.org/iv-e-funding/

2020 June update – see Trump executive order

By Connie Reguli

“This bill simply closes the loophole in prohibiting foster parents from having inappropriate sexual contact with their foster kids.” GA state rep Ed Setzler.

On multiple occasions I have seen cases where kids in foster care are either victims of sexual assault or allowed to have sex with other kids in foster care. These kids are traumatized by abrupt removals from their homes.

2020 GA house bill 911.

HB 911 

Crimes and offenses; offenses of improper sexual conduct by a foster parent in the first and second degrees; provide

Current Status: House Passed/Adopted By Substitute

Official Summary: A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 6 of Title 16, Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 35, Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 42, and Article 1 of Chapter 2 of Title 49 of the O.C.G.A., relating to sexual offenses, the Georgia Crime Information Center, conditions of detention generally, and general provisions regarding the Department of Human Services, respectively, so as to provide for the offenses of improper sexual conduct by a foster parent in the first and second degrees; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

By Connie Reguli

Here’s some caselaw should you want to add it to your list:

Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S

lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Texas 2019-02 Public Policy Doc on Reforming the Use of Child Abuse Pediatric Teams in CPS.pdf