by: Rose French
A Virginia man claims he was sexually abused nearly 40 years ago by a former deacon and prominent Minnesota child welfare advocate, according to his attorneys.
At a news conference on Tuesday in St. Paul, attorneys for the man who lived in St. Cloud as a child plan to announce a lawsuit against the Diocese of St. Cloud and Michael Weber.
The lawsuit, to be filed in Hennepin County District Court, addresses alleged sex abuse suffered when the man was 6 years old, while he vacationed with his family at a Minnesota lake, according to a statement from St. Paul attorney Jeff Anderson.
The victim, identified in the complaint as “John Doe HT," wishes to keep his identity confidential but will read a statement and answer questions by phone during the news conference.
It’s the first lawsuit to be filed against Weber, 67, since allegations emerged last month that he molested two boys around the same time he served as deacon at Church of the Holy Spirit in St. Cloud from 1969-70.
Two men, both of St. Cloud, were 11 years old at the time of the alleged abuse and reported the incidents to law enforcement authorities last month. Criminal charges are not likely because the statute of limitations has expired, authorities say.
Minneapolis attorney Francis Rondoni, who represents Weber, has said it’s “very difficult” for Weber to respond “to purported allegations that are more than 40 years old." Weber “has been a leader in the community here for many decades and has a spotless reputation. And this is very concerning to him.”
On Dec. 5, the St. Cloud diocese held a “listening session” at the church to air out the allegations and offer other potential abuse victims the opportunity to come forward.
Since the listening session was announced in mid-November, Weber has resigned from the board of the Greater Twin Cities United Way and stepped down from other prominent positions.
Four alleged victims attended the listening session (which was not open to the media) and recounted abuse by Weber, according to Jane Marrin, a spokeswoman for the diocese. A fifth purported victim was represented by someone else at the meeting and a sixth wrote a letter claiming abuse that was noted at the meeting.
Source http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135469628.html
CPS corruption hurts and destroys families worldwide. Please use caution posting about CPS here or anyplace on the internet. For your protection, using your full, real name and precise location is not advised. CPS has eyes everywhere and CPS is notorious for taking what people say, twisting it, embellishing on it and then using it against them in CPS "investigations" and at court proceedings.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Judge sides with Godboldo, won't reinstate criminal charges
by Doug Guthrie
Detroit— Two judges in different Wayne County courtrooms sided Monday with a mother who resisted police forcing their way into her home last March to take her teenage daughter during a dispute with a Child Protective Services worker over medications.
A Family Court judge Monday afternoon accepted positive medical and education reports, and over the objections of an assistant state attorney general representing the Department of Health and Human Services, dismissed jurisdiction that had for nine months come between now 14-year-old Arianna Godboldo and her family.
Earlier Monday, a Wayne County Circuit judge refused to reinstate criminal charges, dismissed in August by a 36th District Court judge, that alleged the mother, Maryanne Godboldo, illegally resisted and assaulted police by allegedly firing a shot at them.
Family members hugged and issued thanks to the judges in both courtrooms, but authorities aren't done pursuing the Godboldos.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's office issued a statement Monday, vowing to make a third appeal to reinstate criminal charges.
And, Family Court Judge Lynne Pierce told Assistant Attorney General Deborah Carley, who complained it appears the girl has never received anything other than homeschooling her entire life, she is not barred from pursuing criminal truancy charges if she feels the parents are flouting state law that required the education of children.
"There may be some more evaluation to be done, but I don't see any more need of this court's continued involvement," Pierce said.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Gregory Bill ruled in the morning against claims by the prosecutor that 36th District Judge Ronald Giles committed judicial error in August when he threw out the criminal charges. Bill said Giles was correct in concluding there was insufficient evidence to order Godboldo to trial.
"It is clear to me that he (Giles) doesn't think the defendant shot at anybody," Bill said, concluding if a shot was fired inside the house, it was fired at the ceiling and perhaps not by the mother.
"Did the child get a hold of the gun? I don't know," Bill said. "There are so many statements that are conflicting evidence, and Judge Giles went out of his way to allow the prosecutor to clear this up."
Godboldo's lawyers have said all along this was about parental rights to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, and the government abused its authority in obtaining an order to take the child without a court hearing. They also said the improper action created a conflict with police that resulted in criminal charges.
"It is absurd," Godboldo lawyer Byron Pitts said about the possibility of another appeal. "Four different judges have said they believe this family did nothing wrong. This includes another District Court judge, Judge (Paula) Humphries, who ruled earlier on some matters. It has been clear to these judges that this all stems from one overzealous caseworker, and continued appeals now border on persecution."
Acting on a call from Wayne County Child Protective Services worker Mia Wenk — who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect — Detroit police officers on March 24 accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them inside. It took hours to talk Godboldo out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.
Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don't normally enforce civil court orders, but they had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.
Bill said his opinion should not be considered as a criticism of Detroit police, but he raised questions about the behavior of the social worker, whom he described as "young." Bill hinted Wenk was impatient, filled out a legal order that was woefully inadequate, broke with established policy by calling 911 to have Detroit police enforce it rather then confront the woman herself, and then misrepresented the meaning of the order to police.
Pierce had ruled in September against the government's claims the mother had committed medical abuse by withholding a controversial anti-psychotic medication. The girl was being treated for a sudden onset of psychotic behavior the mother believes was caused by a bad reaction to immunizations.
Pierce determined Godboldo was within her rights to terminate the voluntary treatment program. The judge ordered the girl returned to the mother's home Sept. 29. A hearing to finalize the juvenile case also is scheduled for later Monday.
Godboldo said Monday she and her daughter had a difficult Sunday night because of heightened anxiety over the coming hearing. She said she hopes authorities will this time accept a judge's assessment of the situation and not appeal again.
"I hope they understand they are affecting people's lives," she said. "They should know of the damage they have done to my daughter because they broke the law."
Godboldo said her daughter had been doing better, but she was continuing to be home schooled because psychiatric troubles continue that she attributes to "effects from the immunizations." She said the girl, who wears a prosthetic leg, continues to enjoy studying dance and music, and playing her conga drums.
"She is coming along," Godboldo said. "She is doing better because she is at home where she belongs."
Source http://www.detnews.com/article/20111212/METRO01/112120383/1409/metro08
Detroit— Two judges in different Wayne County courtrooms sided Monday with a mother who resisted police forcing their way into her home last March to take her teenage daughter during a dispute with a Child Protective Services worker over medications.
A Family Court judge Monday afternoon accepted positive medical and education reports, and over the objections of an assistant state attorney general representing the Department of Health and Human Services, dismissed jurisdiction that had for nine months come between now 14-year-old Arianna Godboldo and her family.
Earlier Monday, a Wayne County Circuit judge refused to reinstate criminal charges, dismissed in August by a 36th District Court judge, that alleged the mother, Maryanne Godboldo, illegally resisted and assaulted police by allegedly firing a shot at them.
Family members hugged and issued thanks to the judges in both courtrooms, but authorities aren't done pursuing the Godboldos.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy's office issued a statement Monday, vowing to make a third appeal to reinstate criminal charges.
And, Family Court Judge Lynne Pierce told Assistant Attorney General Deborah Carley, who complained it appears the girl has never received anything other than homeschooling her entire life, she is not barred from pursuing criminal truancy charges if she feels the parents are flouting state law that required the education of children.
"There may be some more evaluation to be done, but I don't see any more need of this court's continued involvement," Pierce said.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Gregory Bill ruled in the morning against claims by the prosecutor that 36th District Judge Ronald Giles committed judicial error in August when he threw out the criminal charges. Bill said Giles was correct in concluding there was insufficient evidence to order Godboldo to trial.
"It is clear to me that he (Giles) doesn't think the defendant shot at anybody," Bill said, concluding if a shot was fired inside the house, it was fired at the ceiling and perhaps not by the mother.
"Did the child get a hold of the gun? I don't know," Bill said. "There are so many statements that are conflicting evidence, and Judge Giles went out of his way to allow the prosecutor to clear this up."
Godboldo's lawyers have said all along this was about parental rights to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, and the government abused its authority in obtaining an order to take the child without a court hearing. They also said the improper action created a conflict with police that resulted in criminal charges.
"It is absurd," Godboldo lawyer Byron Pitts said about the possibility of another appeal. "Four different judges have said they believe this family did nothing wrong. This includes another District Court judge, Judge (Paula) Humphries, who ruled earlier on some matters. It has been clear to these judges that this all stems from one overzealous caseworker, and continued appeals now border on persecution."
Acting on a call from Wayne County Child Protective Services worker Mia Wenk — who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect — Detroit police officers on March 24 accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them inside. It took hours to talk Godboldo out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.
Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don't normally enforce civil court orders, but they had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.
Bill said his opinion should not be considered as a criticism of Detroit police, but he raised questions about the behavior of the social worker, whom he described as "young." Bill hinted Wenk was impatient, filled out a legal order that was woefully inadequate, broke with established policy by calling 911 to have Detroit police enforce it rather then confront the woman herself, and then misrepresented the meaning of the order to police.
Pierce had ruled in September against the government's claims the mother had committed medical abuse by withholding a controversial anti-psychotic medication. The girl was being treated for a sudden onset of psychotic behavior the mother believes was caused by a bad reaction to immunizations.
Pierce determined Godboldo was within her rights to terminate the voluntary treatment program. The judge ordered the girl returned to the mother's home Sept. 29. A hearing to finalize the juvenile case also is scheduled for later Monday.
Godboldo said Monday she and her daughter had a difficult Sunday night because of heightened anxiety over the coming hearing. She said she hopes authorities will this time accept a judge's assessment of the situation and not appeal again.
"I hope they understand they are affecting people's lives," she said. "They should know of the damage they have done to my daughter because they broke the law."
Godboldo said her daughter had been doing better, but she was continuing to be home schooled because psychiatric troubles continue that she attributes to "effects from the immunizations." She said the girl, who wears a prosthetic leg, continues to enjoy studying dance and music, and playing her conga drums.
"She is coming along," Godboldo said. "She is doing better because she is at home where she belongs."
Source http://www.detnews.com/article/20111212/METRO01/112120383/1409/metro08
Social workers fired in Marlboro County CPS case - concerning Edna Hunt
by Tonya Brown
NewsChannel 15 has learned two Marlboro County Department of Social Services employees were fired in connection with the child abuse case of Edna Hunt.
State DSS officials will only say they let the employees go after an evaluation of their work in the Hunt investigation and other cases they've handled.
Last week, we learned DSS was conducting a child protective services investigation prior to Hunt's death.
We have requested more information through the Freedom of Information Act to find out if the employees violated any procedures, according to state and federal policy, for child protective investigations.
In October, Hunt died following cardiac arrest in Bennettsville.
Hunt's mother and her mother's boyfriend are charged with homicide by child abuse.
Police say Hunt had bruises and burns all over her body.
Officers say a post mortem examination showed she had been abused for some time.
DSS officials say the Director of the Marlboro County DSS resigned shortly after the child's death, but they aren't saying if his resignation had anything to do with their internal investigation.
Marlboro County Coroner, Tim Brown, says he's expecting final autopsy results on Hunt to be in sometime this week.
He will release those results when they come in.
Source http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=696491
NewsChannel 15 has learned two Marlboro County Department of Social Services employees were fired in connection with the child abuse case of Edna Hunt.
State DSS officials will only say they let the employees go after an evaluation of their work in the Hunt investigation and other cases they've handled.
Last week, we learned DSS was conducting a child protective services investigation prior to Hunt's death.
We have requested more information through the Freedom of Information Act to find out if the employees violated any procedures, according to state and federal policy, for child protective investigations.
In October, Hunt died following cardiac arrest in Bennettsville.
Hunt's mother and her mother's boyfriend are charged with homicide by child abuse.
Police say Hunt had bruises and burns all over her body.
Officers say a post mortem examination showed she had been abused for some time.
DSS officials say the Director of the Marlboro County DSS resigned shortly after the child's death, but they aren't saying if his resignation had anything to do with their internal investigation.
Marlboro County Coroner, Tim Brown, says he's expecting final autopsy results on Hunt to be in sometime this week.
He will release those results when they come in.
Source http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=696491
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Supreme Court Approached on ICWA Issue - Cherokee Nation
By Carol Berry
The Cherokee Nation and one of its members have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide issues raised by a ruling of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that disputed the right of tribes to define tribal membership in Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases.
Specifically, the high court will be asked to consider whether a federally recognized Indian tribe’s membership criteria determine whether a child is a “member” of that tribe for ICWA purposes.
Tribes may have the exclusive right to determine their membership for tribal purposes, but not if they seek to define membership in order to expand a federal (ICWA) statute, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled last April.
The current petitioners charge that the federal appeals court erred in distinguishing between membership for tribal and federal statutory purposes, because “tribal membership is bound up in the tribe’s sovereign self-determination—as it is in ICWA, where the statutory focus on tribal membership is designed to ‘promote the safety and security of Indian tribes.’”
The issues arose when, in 2007, Britney Jane Little Dove Nielson, then 17, relinquished her parenting rights for her day-old son, C.D.K. and consented to his adoption, but later sought a District Court ruling to invalidate the relinquishment, citing ICWA safeguards against removing Indian children from their families. Nielson herself became a Cherokee tribal member within the next year.
The Cherokee Nation intervened on Nielson’s behalf, arguing that C.D.K. was an Indian child under ICWA because of a section of the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act which provides that every newborn “who is a direct descendant of an original enrollee shall be automatically admitted as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation for a period of 240 days following the birth of the child.”
Nielson also argued that the termination was invalid because it violated an ICWA provision that imposes a 10-day period before a parent can consent to the termination of parenting rights over an Indian child, and the District Court agreed, tossing out the termination
A subsequent appeal to the 10th Circuit turned on “whether C.D.K. is an ‘Indian child’ within the meaning of ICWA,” the court said, noting that the ICWA definition of “Indian child” applies to an unmarried person under age 18 who is a tribal member and C.D.K. “was thus an Indian child at the time of the relinquishment hearing if, and only if, he was a member of the Cherokee Nation at that time.”
He was a member if the Citizenship Act applied to him at the time of the hearing as a direct descendant of an original enrollee, which the federal appeals court accepted, and if the Act could permissibly extend him citizenship in the ICWA context, a conclusion with which the court disagreed.
ICWA does not apply to the 240-day citizenship awarded by the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act, the court said. “We find that Congress did not intend the ICWA to authorize this sort of gamesmanship on the part of a tribe—e.g., to authorize a temporary and nonjurisdictional citizenship upon a nonconsenting person in order to invoke ICWA protections.”
Petitioners to the Supreme Court disagree with the “gamesmanship” argument that “a child may not be a ‘member’ of a tribe for ICWA purposes even though he or she is a member for internal tribal purposes,” because the distinction would undermine fundamental purposes of tribal sovereignty.
In BIA guidelines for implementing ICWA, “the determination by a tribe that a child is or is not a member of that tribe…is conclusive,” state the current petitioners, who also charge that the federal appeals court has ignored congressional intent in ICWA “to preserve tribal sovereignty and safeguard Indian children.”
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/10/supreme-court-approached-on-icwa-issue-66774
The Cherokee Nation and one of its members have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide issues raised by a ruling of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that disputed the right of tribes to define tribal membership in Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases.
Specifically, the high court will be asked to consider whether a federally recognized Indian tribe’s membership criteria determine whether a child is a “member” of that tribe for ICWA purposes.
Tribes may have the exclusive right to determine their membership for tribal purposes, but not if they seek to define membership in order to expand a federal (ICWA) statute, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled last April.
The current petitioners charge that the federal appeals court erred in distinguishing between membership for tribal and federal statutory purposes, because “tribal membership is bound up in the tribe’s sovereign self-determination—as it is in ICWA, where the statutory focus on tribal membership is designed to ‘promote the safety and security of Indian tribes.’”
The issues arose when, in 2007, Britney Jane Little Dove Nielson, then 17, relinquished her parenting rights for her day-old son, C.D.K. and consented to his adoption, but later sought a District Court ruling to invalidate the relinquishment, citing ICWA safeguards against removing Indian children from their families. Nielson herself became a Cherokee tribal member within the next year.
The Cherokee Nation intervened on Nielson’s behalf, arguing that C.D.K. was an Indian child under ICWA because of a section of the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act which provides that every newborn “who is a direct descendant of an original enrollee shall be automatically admitted as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation for a period of 240 days following the birth of the child.”
Nielson also argued that the termination was invalid because it violated an ICWA provision that imposes a 10-day period before a parent can consent to the termination of parenting rights over an Indian child, and the District Court agreed, tossing out the termination
A subsequent appeal to the 10th Circuit turned on “whether C.D.K. is an ‘Indian child’ within the meaning of ICWA,” the court said, noting that the ICWA definition of “Indian child” applies to an unmarried person under age 18 who is a tribal member and C.D.K. “was thus an Indian child at the time of the relinquishment hearing if, and only if, he was a member of the Cherokee Nation at that time.”
He was a member if the Citizenship Act applied to him at the time of the hearing as a direct descendant of an original enrollee, which the federal appeals court accepted, and if the Act could permissibly extend him citizenship in the ICWA context, a conclusion with which the court disagreed.
ICWA does not apply to the 240-day citizenship awarded by the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Act, the court said. “We find that Congress did not intend the ICWA to authorize this sort of gamesmanship on the part of a tribe—e.g., to authorize a temporary and nonjurisdictional citizenship upon a nonconsenting person in order to invoke ICWA protections.”
Petitioners to the Supreme Court disagree with the “gamesmanship” argument that “a child may not be a ‘member’ of a tribe for ICWA purposes even though he or she is a member for internal tribal purposes,” because the distinction would undermine fundamental purposes of tribal sovereignty.
In BIA guidelines for implementing ICWA, “the determination by a tribe that a child is or is not a member of that tribe…is conclusive,” state the current petitioners, who also charge that the federal appeals court has ignored congressional intent in ICWA “to preserve tribal sovereignty and safeguard Indian children.”
Source http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/10/supreme-court-approached-on-icwa-issue-66774
Mother who won't give up faces prison - California
By JON CASSIDY
SANTA ANA – The state took Niveen Ismail's son and gave him to somebody else.
Now authorities are trying to lock her up, charging her with going too far to get him back.
Ismail, of Newport Beach, went to trial in Orange County Superior Court this week on a single charge of solicitation to kidnap - the result of a December 2009 meeting with a private investigator and an undercover police officer who was wearing a wire. The charge carries three years.
In the meantime, she is waging her own battle in federal court with civil rights lawsuits that question why California is the only state not to follow a Supreme Court ruling on how to terminate parental rights.
In the criminal case, the prosecution says Ismail asked the investigator to kidnap her then 7-year-old son, Anthony, from his foster family and take him to Mexico or France, where Ismail would pick him up and return to her native Egypt.
But in a videotape of the meeting played in court Thursday, Ismail never appeared to instruct anyone to kidnap her son, although the audio is garbled at times. A potential kidnapping plan is discussed, but Ismail says on tape at least seven times that she just wants to go with another plan: surveillance on her son's foster family in hopes of digging up or manufacturing dirt.
After she insists on Plan A – surveillance – the undercover officer encourages her to give him $2,000 to get a fake passport for Anthony, so that they can at least get started with Plan B, kidnapping, according to the tape. She agrees and emails him a photo of Anthony to use, but then backs out, agreeing only to give him $500 to start surveillance, according to the tape.
As she left that December meeting to go to the bank, she was arrested by Newport Beach police, who had been listening in, according to court records.
The meeting with the private investigator and undercover officer came just a few weeks after Ismail got word that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied her appeal of the legal proceedings that took her son away. (Later, in 2010 and 2011, she filed civil rights lawsuits against most of the agencies involved, which are pending.)
Deputy District Attorney Beth Costello said that Ismail "resorted to the illegal" after her appeals over the adoption case were exhausted.
Ismail's son was taken by the Orange County Social Services Agency in 2005 after she left him home alone, according to court records. Huntington Beach police found her preschool-age son alone in his crib after a neighbor heard him crying.
Social workers came in to take the boy. Ismail, a single mother, had gone to work even though her child care arrangement fell through that day, her attorney, Ann Cunningham said.
In supervised visits, Ismail failed to set boundaries – not giving Anthony time-outs, allowing him a cookie when he didn't finish his meal, social workers reported, court records said.
A fair-haired boy with almond eyes and a winsome smile, Anthony was placed with a "fost-adopt" family in Lake Forest, three months after he was taken from Ismail, and has been with them ever since.
In her lawsuit, Ismail accuses the social workers of deciding early on to adopt her son out to another family and thwart any chance at reunification by incessant fault-finding, such as:
She fed him a tuna fish sandwich during a bowling outing, and tuna got on the ball return.
Her toilet water was blue.
She ordered him an IHOP International Breakfast meal rather than something from the Kids Menu.
At Dave and Busters, on a mid-week afternoon, she allowed her son to use the men's room by himself, while she and a social worker waited by the door.
That last incident was cited by the judge in deciding to terminate reunification efforts, according to Ismail and Cunningham. Taking her son to an establishment with a bar was said to be evidence of bad judgment.
Ismail is arguing that the way California severs parental rights is unconstitutional.
In California, a parent's rights can be effectively terminated before anyone has to present "clear and convincing" evidence that they should be, according to a law journal article that she cites in her lawsuits.
The other 49 states follow a Supreme Court precedent that requires a court to find "clear and convincing evidence" of a parent's unfitness before terminating his or her rights. California follows a looser "preponderance of the evidence" standard. That means a mother loses her child if the court rules it's more likely than not she's a bad one.
The California Supreme Court has decided that the U.S. Supreme Court standard doesn't apply here. By the time a California court considers a mother's rights, they are outweighed by the child's bonds with a new family.
Ismail argues that point in her lawsuits, but first she has her kidnapping case, which continues on Monday.
In November 2009, Ismail called several private investigators, prosecutors allege. One of them, Robert Young, had a history as a police informant.
Young testified Thursday that Ismail approached him with a plan either to dig up dirt on the foster couple or to plant something incriminating. At the end of the meeting, she mentioned a Plan B: kidnapping her son and taking him abroad, he said. Young said he'd have to talk to his partner. Then he called the police, and set up another meeting with Ismail, bringing Newport Beach police officer Neal Schuster, who was posing as his partner.
On tape, the "investigators" say they'd be willing to help her get her son back.
"It's not like we haven't done stuff like this in the past," one says.
"Seriously, can you do Plan B," Ismail asks early on. "What if I ask you to fly him to Libya, or France," she asks later.
Otherwise, she continually steers the conversation back to Plan A, saying she'd need a few more weeks to decide about Plan B.
"I think we're going to go with the first one," Ismail tells him. "If A fails.... I was hoping to do A.... Go with A.... I was hoping A would work.... You don't think A would work?.... Maybe you can work on A for a couple weeks.... Why don't you think about Plan A first.... If you want B, that would take at least a month of preparation for me.... I'm really thinking I want to go with A.... We'll start off with A and if that doesn't work out for you.... A would be good.... I'm still debating what to do."
The prosecution needs to prove that kidnapping was actually requested, not just discussed, according to the state's jury instructions for the charge she is facing.
Source http://www.ocregister.com/news/ismail-330857-court-son.html
SANTA ANA – The state took Niveen Ismail's son and gave him to somebody else.
Now authorities are trying to lock her up, charging her with going too far to get him back.
Ismail, of Newport Beach, went to trial in Orange County Superior Court this week on a single charge of solicitation to kidnap - the result of a December 2009 meeting with a private investigator and an undercover police officer who was wearing a wire. The charge carries three years.
In the meantime, she is waging her own battle in federal court with civil rights lawsuits that question why California is the only state not to follow a Supreme Court ruling on how to terminate parental rights.
In the criminal case, the prosecution says Ismail asked the investigator to kidnap her then 7-year-old son, Anthony, from his foster family and take him to Mexico or France, where Ismail would pick him up and return to her native Egypt.
But in a videotape of the meeting played in court Thursday, Ismail never appeared to instruct anyone to kidnap her son, although the audio is garbled at times. A potential kidnapping plan is discussed, but Ismail says on tape at least seven times that she just wants to go with another plan: surveillance on her son's foster family in hopes of digging up or manufacturing dirt.
After she insists on Plan A – surveillance – the undercover officer encourages her to give him $2,000 to get a fake passport for Anthony, so that they can at least get started with Plan B, kidnapping, according to the tape. She agrees and emails him a photo of Anthony to use, but then backs out, agreeing only to give him $500 to start surveillance, according to the tape.
As she left that December meeting to go to the bank, she was arrested by Newport Beach police, who had been listening in, according to court records.
The meeting with the private investigator and undercover officer came just a few weeks after Ismail got word that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied her appeal of the legal proceedings that took her son away. (Later, in 2010 and 2011, she filed civil rights lawsuits against most of the agencies involved, which are pending.)
Deputy District Attorney Beth Costello said that Ismail "resorted to the illegal" after her appeals over the adoption case were exhausted.
Ismail's son was taken by the Orange County Social Services Agency in 2005 after she left him home alone, according to court records. Huntington Beach police found her preschool-age son alone in his crib after a neighbor heard him crying.
Social workers came in to take the boy. Ismail, a single mother, had gone to work even though her child care arrangement fell through that day, her attorney, Ann Cunningham said.
In supervised visits, Ismail failed to set boundaries – not giving Anthony time-outs, allowing him a cookie when he didn't finish his meal, social workers reported, court records said.
A fair-haired boy with almond eyes and a winsome smile, Anthony was placed with a "fost-adopt" family in Lake Forest, three months after he was taken from Ismail, and has been with them ever since.
In her lawsuit, Ismail accuses the social workers of deciding early on to adopt her son out to another family and thwart any chance at reunification by incessant fault-finding, such as:
She fed him a tuna fish sandwich during a bowling outing, and tuna got on the ball return.
Her toilet water was blue.
She ordered him an IHOP International Breakfast meal rather than something from the Kids Menu.
At Dave and Busters, on a mid-week afternoon, she allowed her son to use the men's room by himself, while she and a social worker waited by the door.
That last incident was cited by the judge in deciding to terminate reunification efforts, according to Ismail and Cunningham. Taking her son to an establishment with a bar was said to be evidence of bad judgment.
Ismail is arguing that the way California severs parental rights is unconstitutional.
In California, a parent's rights can be effectively terminated before anyone has to present "clear and convincing" evidence that they should be, according to a law journal article that she cites in her lawsuits.
The other 49 states follow a Supreme Court precedent that requires a court to find "clear and convincing evidence" of a parent's unfitness before terminating his or her rights. California follows a looser "preponderance of the evidence" standard. That means a mother loses her child if the court rules it's more likely than not she's a bad one.
The California Supreme Court has decided that the U.S. Supreme Court standard doesn't apply here. By the time a California court considers a mother's rights, they are outweighed by the child's bonds with a new family.
Ismail argues that point in her lawsuits, but first she has her kidnapping case, which continues on Monday.
In November 2009, Ismail called several private investigators, prosecutors allege. One of them, Robert Young, had a history as a police informant.
Young testified Thursday that Ismail approached him with a plan either to dig up dirt on the foster couple or to plant something incriminating. At the end of the meeting, she mentioned a Plan B: kidnapping her son and taking him abroad, he said. Young said he'd have to talk to his partner. Then he called the police, and set up another meeting with Ismail, bringing Newport Beach police officer Neal Schuster, who was posing as his partner.
On tape, the "investigators" say they'd be willing to help her get her son back.
"It's not like we haven't done stuff like this in the past," one says.
"Seriously, can you do Plan B," Ismail asks early on. "What if I ask you to fly him to Libya, or France," she asks later.
Otherwise, she continually steers the conversation back to Plan A, saying she'd need a few more weeks to decide about Plan B.
"I think we're going to go with the first one," Ismail tells him. "If A fails.... I was hoping to do A.... Go with A.... I was hoping A would work.... You don't think A would work?.... Maybe you can work on A for a couple weeks.... Why don't you think about Plan A first.... If you want B, that would take at least a month of preparation for me.... I'm really thinking I want to go with A.... We'll start off with A and if that doesn't work out for you.... A would be good.... I'm still debating what to do."
The prosecution needs to prove that kidnapping was actually requested, not just discussed, according to the state's jury instructions for the charge she is facing.
Source http://www.ocregister.com/news/ismail-330857-court-son.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)