Thank you so much for using JustAnswer.com. I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered. PLEASE use REPLY to EXPERT if you would like more information or if you feel something was not included in your answer.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO XXXXX CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
PLEASE NOTE WELL WE ARE DEALING WITH LAWS OF 50 STATES PLUS FEDERAL LAWS, AS WELL AS DEALING WITH OTHER CUSTOMERS, SO PLEASE BE PATIENT AND BE ASSURED YOU ARE NOT BEING IGNORED.
There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be taking a break.
You can always request me through my profile at http://www.justanswer.com/law/expert-paulmjd/ or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”
paul here just real fast download, media fire, review fast!(this is his good draft)imo as your agreeing he was really doing a great job,
so, here it is again!
remember the 1st amend-complaint judge/only dismiss without prejudice,your even agreeing a month ago,was "very generous"of him,when he had to feasibly
see "something there"'but was not clear enough" ya know.
title="Laughing"/>i recall your agreeing to that!and again she file "THEN"pro-se,so i see why she feel in fear some,but she is DEFINITELY utilizing 99% here,and just review this and then i want you,to be able to really comment,on if she should mention about how this happen in beginning,and that etc. because i know all about;
ROOKER V.FELDMAN,learn this in 1st year of attempting to procure paralegal degree
B.A. many years ago and working at law firms
so ok i await your response,and remember:
1. (the spanking yes was affirm,she admit to light spanking)but was not overturned. (however)this was clearly NOT the reason the child was not return.
2. the"thirty three!(add-ons,and lies,and horrific,"as cited by THREE appeals in 04,(when case began)and throughout 09,order dyfs to fully investigate,all 33 "serious allegations"that WOULD be a reason yes,to bar a mother or father from the kid,but again this was not properly at any time"investigated"until 2010,int january 2011,
and executive order,then finally said,
"We OVERTURN all 33 allegations"as appeal order them to do this though,etc. investigate,or substantiate 04,07,09.understand?
Hence, was telling her how,your able to make sense of all this for her.
i think she should mention the appeal ordered this SINCE yes day one.
was"never done"and had it been investigated,adherence by caseworker
when three appeals said,"do it..."and yet fail to adhere,if cps did the child would have;
1. been reunited with mom,in the home;and or a regular visitation and parenting time weekly schedule"until reasonable effort(As required)by cps was applied,to return child in due time.
2.would have not been naturally put into a "rape"situation;repeat sex abuse and torture in 10 group homes!(and hospitalize paul.)
i await your response.
She is i think scared,because as your seeing atty.was wording it right
but she do not know how,and i am trying to help her with great answers
again as much as feasible,thank you.
oh! and lastly:
as your reviewing the attorney lawsuit,he institute for her,(well started to)
I am fairly certain,"After"i've review her past complaint,by her pro-se and
the DYFS D.A.G.(*deputy atty.gen.)the lawyer opposition mention this paul;
a third district as "other districts"preclude such suit of"this kind"because
your only able to file against a caseworker(s)etc. and or its agency itself
managerial etc;supervisory etc; IF "a wrong has been i.e. conviction was
later overturned,and or the state "Admit its wrongdoing"then your able to proceed,and he cite few case law(s) so if i am correct,a executive order
from the "same office"out of nj,whereas,attorney general cite,all of the
"un-investigated" 04-07 allegations,"After"1 spanking affirmation is now
OVERTURNED;listed as unfounded,against the mother.We now close your case january 2011.
isn't this supportive of her claim from (the beginning)of her case,if she decide to go this route,or at least"it should allow suit"on THIS claim to move forward,(this,meaning the mom claim on the fact,IF when she was cleared paul,officially,2010-2011,then there was"no reason"at all the child should have
NOT been reunited,with mother in home,of the mom understand?
Instead,cps left her homeless,at times(verify by dr. report and was lost int he system,supporting"homelessness"and as a result,(u know the rest)
awaiting your response thank you.
download "bob"draft,again thx.(link is above)
I think the complaint is fine as it is, Bob did a good job with it and it does not really need any more playing with it as a notice pleading is sufficient.As far as her addressing all of the other issues, not in the complaint, she can address them later in the case, including the 33 counts that were overturned. Putting that information in the complaint just allows them to argue the res judicata issue. If she wants to argue that she never committed anything worth having the child kept from her, that is for a later time as the trial progresses. But for now, just make her focus on the issues regarding the abuse the child suffered at the hands of CPS concealing it and the emotional distress she suffered because she kept trying to get CPS to do something and all CPS did was cover it up.
i think i edit/add later check again!
way up top thx i am my self reading it over.
or click below thx!
ok got it!
i know just a "few"clean-up wording is warranted,premise on the last five! (he sent her five last emails)prior to ditching her,wrongfully.and was saying how,"oh "WE" need to both work on a few area(s)meaning the fact that he did "say in a email"(if your agreeing paul)its going in,because he was about to encompass the fact,"whereas;it talk about in i think your seeing count five cause of action etc.and whereas he was going to edit,the part,adaging that
"Not all facts,were naturally known at such time,UNTIL 2010,and jan.2011 and this is when"mom still in court fighting to bring child home,to"avoid"any more rapes,abuse to her child etc,learning state knew all along,and "she did not know this in 08 the first wrongful removal claim,naturally.he was going to add,"33"allegations see exhibit ______
proving state did eventually"clear her"of the allegations,that were the sole reason,(not 1 spanking)but the 33 allegations,were eventually overturned
paul,he was surely going to encompass this exhibit.so would you do that
I think it is significant,at the least,sir,to demonstrate to the fed,ct.that
"ok" mom is cleared,(of the allegations never investigated as cited in the first few pages,about"how there were always allegations of serious nature never even investigated,yet,"were used"as truth,barring mom from her own child,for years..."when state finally did clear her"the damage was already done,(rapes,sexua abuse in foster care etc.)bob email sounding
as if he was goin to"go there"and encompass the doc at"the least"it should be marked in the general sufficient complaint,paul you think?
because it show,as "bob"say in emails insofar,as
a.)at least it show mom was indeed,cleared for "the allegations"33, in total,that were used as a basis to keep child out of mother home,but
as soon, as she was cleared,"child could have at least during this point been returned."The appeal section excerpt adaging three times,ordering cps to "investigate"premise on if not investigated,it will continue to affect mom"parental constitutional right", this appeal in 04,07 do say this paul
so again,she should not attach this,or she should?just want your feedback
Judge(the fed.ct.magistrate himself)mention how,he was letting mom
cure its deficiencies,i.e. he cites,in quote"parent is alleging has exhibit"
a proof(s)from the office of atty.general "clearing her name"from the add'l
33 allegations,that at such time,she was"cleared"of such wrongdoing,by
state office,during 2010-but "state"still failed to reunite mom at this time.
State,knew child was being abused,lost in the"system"mom says,but yet
state,even though parent was"available,working"nice house,and cleared
at least by 2010,state office,fail to work with her,to have child home.
so again judge mention this right before he say,"without prejudice"that
let her get to at least,this point sir,so just want your feedback,on this thx.
I personally think,as i can see bob was in emails,"he was at the least"goin to attach just as a simple,yet somewhat strong factual exhibit
whereas;state clear parent,at least in 2010,but yet failed to even allow the child to go home,KNOWING she was suffering immensely,raped in a foster home,and sex abuse in multiple foster /group homes
your awesome thx again paul.
i am just helping her,she is feeling"Better"reading your answers. i am also goin to share just the "edit 1st part;section with her late night"so just check it out,i think that is fine,just review the 1st part.I just think she want it in as the parent being"cleared"and again i did read the decision,whereas; judge did
comment on this,prior to allowing her to include such"allege proof"of such
in her new complaint,so it can only help,the dyfs will fail in a argument for
res judi,on this since again"there was no way paul a parent would know years ago,if he or she was cleared,of additional allegations etc. if it was not "decided"by attorney gen. until YEARS later.
your the best thank you paul. i just read this tonight.and sending now again "to tina" she is so much more happier,suing cps self file,without a lawyer and i am going to help her,see,remain empower enough to know she has as your agreeing a claim there,as i know personally,she do as well,so glad your answers,are always thorough,and help me (even if i know as your aware much of it)but what i am not sure i not only double but triple-check with you and just answers legal experts,so thank you again,i ACCEPT.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).