yes i am still checking in this case,family i will be consulting with tomorrow and helping the family find a lawyer.(if not the family will sue as many smart now are doing pro-se...(self file. . .)
and what i have learn however when asking this newer query is the parent i think,'did bring it up during a appeal,at time of the 1 incident substantiated
yes,but"not everything" i.e. the "appeal ok,the 2 panel judge,did indeed paul affirm the 1 incident,against the parent,"however"as in the other case your helping me with this week,is..."The appeal court"has no clue and or i should say "had no clue' since it is close now,they did not know at all,how 'at the time'the appeal was deciding such fraud on the court"i learn the appellate division,had no clue,"the parent"child was "after"the 1 substantiated incident,was "not at all"where the state,said she was,and how caseworkers,lied cover up,for a long time paul,the child was not well
nor functioning,in "cps care,and under cps supervision"so i am thinking
not sure,but i know your goin to know being a lawyer,'the family i am now thinking,by case law research,will be able to sue,for "the claim feasibly"
1.Lieing to the "appeal"court about no harm,was happening to child in state care,and or"since being taken from parent"-how child was just"fine.
2. The almost 18 y.o.son,was being harmed,and how"state"as always knew this,but told even appeal at the time(after the 1 substantiated)incident,had said,how the child is'doing better out of the parent care,and how there was no reason to"return child to the parents."
just trying to see how the fam,are able to file,a claim here,because my research demonstrate,and your past wonderful help,exhibit ok,that maybe
the family "can't sue for the fraud on the court involving removal"if the ct.
already "affirm that"sir,but can sue for everything else"that flowed"from that i just share with you right?always welcome your answer,so i am clear
and last note:
NEW CLAIM IS:
Parent just learn during father's day weekend(2011) and rush to put state on a notice, at least 3 to 4 cps caseworkers,and 1 supervisor knew on a document that,"the child was place in harm's way,with a alcoholic and a heroine user ex con!"Judge told them clearly,"Do not at any time leave a child in such conditions,UNTIL it was proven the family member was a clean,and responsible man,to"be around the child alone."
The doc firmly establish verbatim:
"Judge and the mother,can't know at all about this going on,because if it get out to the judge, "trouble will and or may come"and we really don't want to "risk father from procuring custody/"of the kids,do we?
Caseworker respond; nope,but i will not say anything.your right.
Can't have the other parent not get custody,by us"not"following the judge "court order"...
Supervisor,is not mentioning to stay quiet,but come on.If i m a jury or trier of fact,on this suit i would be the first to say conspiracy.
to deprive; etc.
but PAUL am i missing something here???THIS can be made a claim am i right?
CROOKED CPS caseworkers agenda,is clear here,premise on the fact
the supervisor,and workers,(should be infer)the conspiracy,even from the inception of this horrid case,the workers had "1"agenda and it was not to return/work with the primary caretaker,but to just"leave child in harms way
even AFTER a judge cited,in written court order,clearly expressing what
he did NOT WANT to happen,and it was going on for months paul..."
but yet cps came to court month later adaging,"Kid is fine"no risk judge.