Tag Archives: Connie Reguli

UA drug screens – not admissible – OBJECT

By Connie Reguli

Connie Reguli in Washing D.C. 2018.

DRUG SCREENS.

Connie,

No reports necessary. The information will be in the package insert for the drug test. Most say something similar to what the Redwood Toxicology Lab RediCup instert says:

•The RediCup® is used for Screening Only. Positive results obtained with this device are presumptive.

•Additional testing is necessary to confirm the presumptive positive results. Positive results should be “confirmed” by an alternate method such as GC/MS (GasChromatography/Mass Spectrometry) or LC/MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry).

•Professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly with preliminary positive results.

Positive point of care urine drug screens are only a presumptive positive and must be confirmed by lab testing. If a party wants to enter the results of a point of care drug screen into evidence, enter the package insert, as well.

I will add more on this later.

RECORD YOUR HEARINGS

By Connie Reguli

Connie Reguli in Washington D.C. – 2019. By Freedom Public Press

TENNESSEE FAMILIES – LET ME BE LOUD AND CLEAR ON THIS POINT. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO RECORD ALL COURT HEARINGS. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A COURT REPORTER AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIDEO TAPE THE HEARING.

RULE 115. RECORDING HEARINGS

All hearings, except ex parte hearings, shall be audio recorded by the clerk of the court and retained for a minimum of one year from the date of the final disposition of the case.

Advisory Commission Comments. In accordance with T.C.A. §§ 37-1-124(c) and 37-1-159(a), the juvenile court is a court of record. Under this rule, all juvenile courts must create and maintain an audio recording of all hearings in juvenile court, in addition to keeping and maintaining appropriate minutes of hearings. Alternative means of recording, e.g. audio-visual equipment, are acceptable. This rule does not preclude simultaneous recording by a court reporter or other means of recording by a party. This rule is not applicable to reviews conducted by a foster care review board.

In addition, the Tennessee Code provides the attorneys can record any proceeding.

20-9-104. Tape recording of proceedings.

It is lawful for attorneys representing parties in proceedings in any of the courts of this state to use tape recorders as an aid in making notes of the proceedings.

BAM 💥 2.7million kids in care worldwide. Told you so.

By Connie Reguli

pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271783/1-s2.0-S0145213417X00070/1-s2.0-S0145213416302873/main.pdf

Wrongful removal – Oklahoma – 2018

cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/16-7079/16-7079-2018-08-27.pdf

By Connie Reguli

In this case a minor child sued for wrongful removal and violation of substantive due Process rights.

One of the most difficult aspects of a civil rights case is overcoming immunity. In this case the social workers and law enforcement officers claimed qualified immunity for violating the child’s (fourth amendment rights) and substantive due process rights of familial integrity when the child was removed from school for a forensic interview and told by the law enforcement officer that they were going to find him a better home.

In this appeal the tenth circuit court said that the case could proceed on violations of fourth amendment violations. However the court dismissed the claims for substantive due process rights stating that it was not “clearly established” that the child had the right of family integrity in this situation, that is, the fact that the officials impugned his father and damaged his relationship with him was not enough.

Note – analysis of substantive due process – the courts consideration of (1) a fundamental liberty interest vs (2) shock the conscious conduct by state actors.

Good analysis of the reasonableness standard in a claim for fourth amendment violations.

Note. The child was not removed from his home and the Interview revealed no disclosures of abuse.

Here are some excerpts:

The court compares fundamental right to the shocks the conscience standard. –

What is conscious shocking conduct?

Court says that they have implicitly used that standard before.

What you must show for violations of the substantive due process violations of family integrity.

By Connie Reguli

When Parents Speak Out

By Connie Reguli

In many child welfare and child custody cases, the Parents want to reach out on social media. Sometimes for comfort and encouragement; sometimes to rant about the injustice; and sometimes to point out irregularities in the judicial process and express a legitimate concern.

Too often parents are “gagged” by the Courts who cite many reasons, most of which are nonsense. In my experience, most of the means to silence a parent are intended to prohibit them from making valid complaints about the process.

I have been an attorney for 25 years. The judicial process is flawed and the players are human. The fact that a judge gets mad at a parent or an attorney is unprepared happens. However, to the litigant/parent these things interfere with THEIR CASE. They have a right to be frustrated.

Judicial GAG orders are mostly unconstitutional.

Here is why:

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PRIOR RESTRAINTS

            The United States Supreme Court established a broad prohibition against prior restraints of speech in Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).  The First Amendment thus accords greater protection against prior restraints than it does against subsequent punishment for a particular speech.  A system or prior restraint is in many ways more inhibiting than a system of subsequent punishment.  It is likened to being under government scrutiny a far wider range of expression; it shuts off communication before it takes place; suppression by a stroke of the pen is more likely to be applied than suppression through a criminal process; the procedures do not require attention to the safeguards of the criminal process; the system allows less opportunity for public appraisal and criticism; the dynamics of the system drive toward excesses, as the history of all censorship shows.  It has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the First Amendment’s guaranty to prevent prior restraints upon publication. 

            The Nebraska Press case dealt with the Court’s attempts to suppress publication of events that happened in the courtroom and attempted to expand that limited exception to this prohibition.  The Supreme Court rejected this attempt to shut down reports of judicial proceedings, determining that the Courtroom was already in the public domain.

            In 2002, the Middle District Court of Tennessee considered the government’s role in prior restraint on speech in the context of controlling a non-profit’s ability to raise charitable donations.  A prior restraint exists when the exercise of a First Amendment right depends on the prior approval of public officials.  The term prior restraint describes administrative and judicial orders that block expressive activity before it can occur.  Under a system of prior restraint, the lawfulness of speech turns on the advance approval of government officials.  Although prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se, they come to court bearing a heavy presumption against their validity.  Feed the Children, Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville,  330 F. Supp. 2d 935, (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 21, 2002)  SEE ATTACHED. 

            The Tennessee Court of Appeals recognized the federal guidelines on prior restraint of speech in In re Conservatorship of Turner, M2013-01665-COA-R3-CV, (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2014).  It acknowledged that an impermissible prior restraint exists when the exercise of First Amendment rights depends upon prior approval  of public officials.  A system of prior restraints bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.  The Court did recognize the exception stated by the Sixth Circuit in which a person could be prohibited from repeating the same libelous and defamatory statements which have been judicially determined in proceedings to be false and libelous. 

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A REVIEW.

https://www.fivestarreviewssite.com/connie-reguli/

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CRIMINAL SEDITION

            In 1984, the United States Supreme Court entered an opinion in Garrison v. La., 379 U.S. 64, (1964) in which discussed a dispute between the district attorney and a judge.  The attorney held a press conference where he issued a statement disparaging judicial conduct.  The district attorney was arrested under the criminal sedition laws of New York.  The court stated that where the criticism is of public officials and their conduct of public business, the interest in private reputation is overborne by the larger public interest secured by the constitution, in the dissemination of truth.  Even where the utterance is false, the great principles of the Unites States Constitution which secure freedom of expression in this area preclude attaching adverse consequences to any except the knowing or reckless falsehood. Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.  Since an erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need to survive, only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions.  For speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression, it is the essence of self-government.  The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. 

IS CPS OVERREACH GONE TOO FAR?

Is CPS overreach a racial issue? I think not. The stats show that about the same percentage of children in care are “white” as are “black”.
However it is a great op-ed on the government’s intrusion into family life.
Connie Reguli

Posted by Connie Reguli

SHARING THE BLISS OF FAMILY LAW IN TENNESSEE

JULY 26, 2017 – Connie Reguli

I had lunch today with one of my favorite members of the Davidson County Bar who also suffers through juvenile court on a regular basis like I do. We both like to challenge the perspectives of the Juvenile Court judges, we both stand up for clients in difficult situations, and we both have watched judges in the Courtrooms do some strange things.

We always share what has been going on in our cases from the legal perspective. How we challenge the government is one our favorite topics.

Topics of discussion today:

Evidence – Rule 803(25) – the hearsay exception on allowing children's statements though other persons. The rule specifically allows this in dependency, termination, and custody proceedings. Therefore, if you are in a administrative hearing contesting an child abuse indication, this hearsay exception does not APPLY.

Termination of parental rights and Adoption – We discussed how the Court of Appeals decided this year that foster parents have the right to file for termination of parental rights and adoption. EVEN though 37-1-129 give DCS total control over placement once the child is in DCS custody and 37-1-130 gives DCS the authority to return a child to the parents. It begs the question that if foster parents file for termination why DCS doesn't go get the child and move him/her. A termination and adoption proceeding is NOT a custody proceeding. Therefore, the tpr/adoption court does NOT have jurisdiction to award custody.
In 2015, the Court of Appeals ruled that "former foster parents" have NO standing to seek termination of parental rights and adoption against a parent. But in 2016, the Court ruled that current foster parents DO have standing to file a contest termination and adoption petition against DCS.
Put this back to back with the rule that grandparents have NO standing (right) to intervene in a termination proceeding filed by DCS when children are in foster care. The Court of Appeals in Tennessee has ruled that the only relief that can be granted in a TPR is termination of parental rights and guardianship, therefore, grandparents can not intervene. Of course they do not discuss that the grandparents could be awarded guardianship in that same proceeding.
Okay, so one more twist to this. I represented a Mother who lived in Texas and the children lived in Tennessee with their Father. Father dropped dead suddenly. Stepmother rushed to Juvenile Court and got an ex parte custody order saying the Mother abandoned the children. Then, she ran over the Chancery Court and filed to termination and adoption, so she could get the survivor benefits of Social Security. Mom came to Tennessee to fight for her children. Under the abandonment statute, the stepmother was going to show that Mom did not pay child support so therefore, there were grounds for termination. I wrote three briefs that the stepmother lacked standing at the request of the Sumner County Chancery Court. The judge made us come back three times just to argue the legal standard. Finally, he agreed with me and dismissed stepmother's petition. Even after he FULLY dismissed her petition, he refused to give the kids back immediately. He said the kids needed time to say goodbye and gave the stepmother two more weeks to turn the kids over. I asked him put the exact date and time in the order. Sure enough, stepmother did not show up. At least the Mother had a court order and she was able to get law enforcement to help get them back.

ICPC – Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children. First of all, this document created by a third party is total HEARSAY. Several years ago, guardian ad litems used to file reports with the court. In Toms v. Toms, the Tennessee Supreme Court finally said that these are HEARSAY and cannot be admitted in the court file. HOWEVER, DCS and CASA continue to file ex parte hearsay reports with the juvenile court ALL THE TIME. And the ICPC report it total hearsay. Well it doesn't matter much if your client PASSES the ICPC. But if your client FAILS the ICPC, you are flat out of luck. I had a client/Mother who moved to Kentucky and her case was in Tennessee. DCS told her she had to get an ICPC passed before she could get her kids back. Okay, we say, bring it on. A Kentucky social worker shows up at her home. I told Mother to record everything. So she recorded the entire 20 minute visit by the social worker. As she walked out the door, the social worker was asked, Is everything Okay? "Y'all have nothing to worry about." She said. Then the client failed the ICPC in the report because she did not have central air conditioning and they said her boyfriend was "too controlling." I filed a petition for custody and the Juvenile Court judge in Sumner County would not even let us be heard. DCS said that the Mother did not even have the right to a hearing if she did not pass the ICPC. In 2016, the Court of Appeals told my client, a father who never harmed or abused his child, that since he failed the ICPC (because he lived with his mother) that he was not entitled to seek custody. They also said that since he was not married to the Mother, he NEVER had any custodial rights. In 2015, the Court of Appeals said the relatives who failed the ICPC were NOT entitled to seek custody even after the judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that it was in the best interest of the child to go with the relatives. Recently, the Court of Appeals has ruled that a parent does not have to comply with ICPC, but only if there are no allegations against that parent.

CHILD AS A PARTY / CHILD AS A WITNESS – Is the child a party to a dependency and neglect action in Juvenile Court under 37-1-103? Children, especially, those over 12 years old, are often the reporters of abuse and neglect against their parents. They may or may not be legitimate claims. If the child is going to testify in a hearing, the parents' attorneys should have access to the child for deposition testimony. Now how does that occur. Most Courts will allow the testimony of the child in chambers or outside of the presence of the parents. However, the attorneys and the court reporter are allowed to participate. There is no direct authority on whether or not the parents should be allowed to participate in the child's deposition. I have had the parents across the table from child for purposes of deposition without objection. I understand that Williamson County Juvenile Judge Guffee denied counsel the right to depose the minor accuser/witness.

VANDERBILT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND DR. DEBORAH LOWEN – For those who don't know, Dr. Lowen is the child abuse expert at Vanderbilt – the go-to hospital for child abuse referrals. We both agreed that this doctor is the ultimate profession henchman for DCS. Everything she sees "could have only happened from abuse." I have dealt with her inflexible and unwavering opinions regarding her "medical diagnosis" of "child abuse." We also discussed the legal standard for a "reasonable degree of medical certainty." Attorney John Day recently reported that the Third Restatement on Torts has rejected the "reasonable degree of medical certainty" standard because "the reasonable-certainty standard provides no assurance of the quality of the expert’s qualifications, expertise, investigation, methodology, or reasoning."
Added to the complexity of this cliche legal standard is the contrast between the preponderance of the evidence standard and the clear and convincing standard required in a dependency proceedings.
In all cases, parents' attorneys should be requiring "child abuse experts" to provide the medial research, literature, case studies, and review articles that support their opinion. Remember that most medical opinions are formed from "medical literature" and NOT medical RESEARCH. Know the difference. Literature is just an opinion. Medical literature changes over time and so do medical opinions. It takes substantial preparation on the part of the defense attorney to understand how to defeat these medical experts.

MANY MANY PARENTS find themselves in the abyss of the family court system. And often they wonder why we can not give them black and white answers on questions related to parental rights.

The system needs a major overhaul.