Maternal Parent's Violation In The CW Caseworker

The respondent is very unreasonable and combative. See EXHIBIT 4, text messages at 6:32 p.m. on 12/6/16, in a simply communication by respondent to petitioner and the children, she explains to petitioner "…you might have to get the kids…" the petitioner inquires as to "…why can't you…" pick up the kids, she begins with arguing by stating "Since your dad is making a big deal…". This is her common reaction to things. Our son Ryan replies with "No one is making a big deal" and "He was just asking a question". See EXHIBIT 5, a string of emails on 11/4/16, 11/17/16 and 11/30/16 to respondent's attorney asking for responses to requests for repsondent's Employee Plan Information, Joinder, Preliminary Declaration of Disclosures, proposed "Parenting

Within the South Carolina Department of Social Services there are systems within place to encourage the smooth flow of the day to day. During all daily tasks these systems are in constant interaction with each other. The microsystems includes the caseworker interactions with the individual clients. Foster care caseworker work daily with the children, their families, and treatment providers to make decisions for children in care that in their best interest and decisions that promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of the individual children. Interactions by foster care caseworkers are individualistic at the core but there are constant interactions at the mezzo-level. Case-planning for children in care is a team effort and the support

complaint with respect to their child’s IEP or FAPE, and 6) attend an impartial due process

This is what I would like to have filled against the County clerks office the Justice Department in support of Father Rights when this is a Sexist Discrimination. I was not able to find a layer to help me in anyway , I was told If I had been the Father there was plenty of help.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) sent shock waves through the United States as it slowly peeled back the layers of Roe. To recap, Webster deemed it was constitutional for the Missouri legislative chamber to include in a bill that the “life of each human being begins at conception” despite this being a debated fact among the pro-life and pro-choice crowds. Another interesting distinction that was upheld, and helped to light the fire for other states to enact this, was that abortions could not occur at public hospitals or any state owned property. Essentially, what Missouri said was “abortion may be legal, but we don’t have to outright endorse it”. This issue was not addressed at all in Roe, but it clearly was a massive blow to

DR4 Complaint For Custody Petition is a form intended to request the custody of a child due to various reasons not favorable to the child/ren. The petitioner must specify his/her relationship with the child and seek custody of the child based on the options provided in DR4 form. Attaching the most recent orders by the court/s is indispensable as an evidentiary proof of the cases mentioned in section 5 and 6 of DR4 form. You have to be very specific for mentioning the cause of the petition for the custody of the child/ren along with your choices of interactions of the child/ren with the other parties involved in some or the other way. The document DR4 also has the provision for seeking insurance and financial support for the child/ren through the court order. File form DR4, Complaint for Custody before the honorable judge of the Circuit Court in your county.

This paper will detail a number of aspects regarding the case provided of Jerri and her parents specifically with his stepfather Jimmie. Jerri is 13 years old and lives with her mother and stepfather. Since the school calendar year started she has been caught severally, in this case three times sneaking from her room at nigh so that she can be with her friends. According to her, nothing illegal happens and they only hangout in the neighborhood. However, this concerns her parents who are afraid of her engaging in sexual or drugs activities at her age. The first time she was caught, her parents cancelled a trip that they had allowed her to take with a friend. In the second instance, they grounded her for a week. When she was caught the third time, she was grounded for a week and her parents withheld her allowances. A week after she was released from the long month grounding, during a school nigh she was by Jimmie her stepfather crawling through a window into a hallway that would lead to her bedroom. She threatened to crawl back out of the window and threatened to escape and never to return. When this was happening, her mother and the rest of the children were watching. Jimmie was exasperated that the previous punishments that they had subjected her to were not working and Jerri had only become more belligerent and defiant. This resulted into him grabbing her pulling her back into the window and slapped her into the face. According to Jimmie, when he was slapping her she

That's enough, I shouted in the court room. Your honor, he needs to be in a foster care, he's going to foster care you hear me, he's going to foster care, DFCS attorney said. You don't make the decision here i do. So don't you ever try to make an demand in my court room ever again or I'll have you awaiting in jail so long your great great great great grandchildren will need a lawyer now sit down, I said in an outrageous livid way. Now back to you defendant i have thought this over and I've made an decision. My decision is that you go to live with your brothers they are good hard working young men and take great care of you,but if i ever see you in here again you will be put in foster care. Now this case is dismissed.

I called the constituent, she said that she is the paternal GM to Alicia Buck. She wanted to complain about CW Midtown Caseworker Eric and she also asked who to contact to change CW policy because the CW caseworker are overwhelmed with too many cases that they are assigned and they cannot do a better job because their high caseload. I asked her to be more specific please. She said that she was informed that Eric cannot return her call because he has 25 other cases, so believes he got too many cases.

Mr Steiner originally contacted the GAO on 02/03/2017 to file a complaint against the CW Salem Caseworker and Supervisor because they were not letting him to have a quality visits with her daughter, who is in DHS custody.

The Defendant has attempted several times attempted to contact the Plaintiff concerning reunification therapy and the status of his daughter. The Plaintiff has refused to return any of his phone calls and has refused to inform him about anything concerning his daughter.

The constituent wanted to have her case reviewed to check if there is something wrong how her case is handled. She stated her 2 year-old daughter, Briana, is in foster care for about two years and now she is getting used to her foster mother and developing a strong relationship.

Here, Ms. Ocampo was mistaken as to the date, type and form of response commanded by the various papers delivered to her daughters nurse during an overwhelming hectic, emotionally and physically draining period of illness for her infant daughter. Ms. Ocampo mistake was compounded by her neglect to read the papers carefully, and developed a faulty understanding of the facts that lead her to erroneous believe that she needed to show up to the court date set for the case management conference in order to contest the allegations. The default was not entered against Ms. Ocampo because she agreed with the allegations or desired that to be the process by which the matter should be resolved, indeed Ms. Ocampo contests the allegation of the complaint and desires to present the facts supporting her defense. The default here occurred because Ms. Ocampo failed to file a proper written and timely response due to her misapprehension of the facts and an erroneous belief resulted in the taking of the default against her in this matter, a result she did not desire and did not understand she would suffered based upon her erroneous conviction.

Taylor stated she did not have a testimony. She stated she reached out to the DHR over the years; sent all her personal information, affidavits, and certified paperwork; never heard back from DHR. She stated her communication was strictly with the state of Texas because the Morgan County DHR told her that she could not talk with a caseworker and they could not provide any information to her. She continued to reach out to Texas. Therefore, at this time, her son is 19 years old, going on 20, in college, and he is taking care of himself. They do not need the child support now. Ms. Taylor stated she feels that she was failed by both, Morgan County DHR and the state of Texas because they did not do what the law expect them to do to which is to pursue child support for a minor child. This has been going on for so many years. Ms. Taylor stated she never got any resolutions, she never got answers, and she never got documentation that she requested. She stated that at this time we can adjourn the administrative hearing, she can move on with her life, this process has been time wasted for

The non-custodial parent (NCP), Mr. Walker’s testimony revealed that he pleaded his case through documentation. He stated he was trying to get a clarification and understanding of the amounts he owed and what he is expected to pay; where did it come from when money is being deducted from his paycheck. That is all.