This is a MUST READ and SAVE article (and our notes). Here it is in a nutshell- exactly the gospel we preach 7/24/365 about how parents MUST react to a child snatching if they want appealable issues in the future.
Woman's
appeal denied
Jeff Lehr
Joplin Globe Staff Writer
4/1/04
A Newton County woman has lost her attempt to get the Missouri Supreme Court to
strike down as unconstitutional two statutes governing how the state's
child-welfare system operates.
The state's high court has upheld the Newton County Circuit Court's termination
of the parental rights of Gloria Owens, 48, in November 2002 with respect to her
two youngest daughters, now 13 and 11.
The Children's Services Division of Missouri's Department of Social Services,
then known as the Division of Family Services, had removed the five youngest of
Owens' nine children in September 1999, alleging that Owens had neglected to
provide the care and support necessary for their well-being. More specifically,
the state alleged that her trailer home on Jaguar Road was dirty, that some of
the children had chronic head lice, and that they were not all properly
immunized and enrolled in school.
The oldest of the five children, a daughter then 17, was returned to Owens' care
almost immediately after the removal because the state lacked jurisdiction. But
the other four were placed in foster care, and the state eventually terminated
her parental rights with respect to the two youngest. The state said Owens had
failed to schedule visits with her children or to provide support for them while
they were in foster care, and that she had failed to take the steps necessary to
obtain living conditions in which they might be reunited with her.
Owens appealed the termination to the Missouri Supreme Court last year, and oral
arguments were heard in December. Her attorney, Sherrie Hansen of Pineville,
argued that two Missouri laws - providing for removal of children from their
homes if an "emergency" exists and for the initiation of termination
proceedings if a child remains in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22
months - should be struck down as unconstitutional.
The high court unanimously rejected those arguments in an opinion handed down
this week.
"We're pleased that the court determined that we acted in the best interest
of the children," said Deb Hendricks, public-information coordinator for
the Department of Social Services. Oh
such sickening sanctimony
Hendricks declined further comment on the case.
Owens could not be reached for comment. But Hansen said her client, who has not
seen either of the two girls in question since February 2001, was extremely
disappointed with the ruling. Hansen said she has not yet decided if she will
file a motion for a rehearing before the state's high court or possibly seek
redress in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In ruling that the state acted properly in terminating Owens' parental rights,
the state court reiterated an opinion it handed down in January in an Audrain
County case that also challenged the constitutionality of the "15-of-22
rule." The court held in both cases that no constitutional issue exists
because the statute is not a legal ground for termination of parental rights but
merely the trigger for the filing of a termination petition.
The court also declined to address Owens' challenge of the statute empowering
social workers and juvenile officers to remove children when an
"emergency" exists, a challenge that had some potential to alter
substantially how Missouri's child-welfare system operates.
Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. wrote in the opinion summary: "The mother voluntarily
consented to the court's jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily
transferred their custody to the division and never
challenged the circumstances of their removal. Accordingly,
she cannot now challenge whether an 'emergency' existed to justify removal of
the children under (the statute in question) and this court need not address
such a challenge."
And there is the gospel we preach 24/7/365. If you don't get your version of history ON THE RECORD, you have no appealable issues.
(See Opinion Supreme Court of Missouri In the Interest of:
P.L.O. and S.K.O.,
minor children. SC85120 3/30/2004)
Hansen said the effect of the opinion
will be to allow the state's child-welfare system to continue operating in
"too subjective" a manner, unnecessarily removing some children
"at the whim of social workers and juvenile officers."
"The division and juvenile offices
can continue defining 'emergency' to fit the circumstances," Hansen
said.
She said the consent to which the court referred was a document that was never
brought out in court until the Missouri attorney general's office brought it up
in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The document was a consent to
temporary custody of the children, and Owens
claims she did not understand it when she signed it.
"Gloria was told if she signed, it would give DFS the right to get
medical treatment for her children while they were in (the state's) care,"
Hansen said.
She said Owens did not realize the full legal effect of the consent she signed.
The high court used the consent to
decline to consider various due-process claims Owens had made about the
initiation of termination proceedings, including her claim that she had gone two
years without a court hearing in the case.
Limbaugh wrote: "Regardless, although this Court in no way condones the
failure to comply with the various statutes and regulations, such a failure does
not deprive a court (the circuit court) of jurisdiction, nor is there any
statutory consequence for failure to comply."
Hansen said the decision sends a clear
warning to Missouri parents whose children have been removed from their care.
"Don't sign
anything," she said. "Get an attorney immediately. And
help your attorney And request a hearing
immediately."
And Document, document, document. File it all in Sworn Affidavits with the court clerk to get YOUR VERSION of history ON THE RECORD. Anything they FORCE you to sign, sign it "Under Duress"