EVIDENCE: JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD

Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.

Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:

Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding (of abuse or neglect) may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."

(In the judge's bench guide, family judges are told to make a finding of abuse or neglect harming the parents and children even though no evidence was presented so DCF can get their funding. So judge's rulings are funding driven, not whether some is guilty or not. When money determines the outcome of a case in favor of DCF, that's called corruption. DCF's funding should NEVER play a factor in a judges ruling. Judges are no longer impartial they have become corrupted. Connecticut DCF Watch)

The full text of JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociology center.com/ EvidenceBooks/ Bench%20Guides% 20SmallFile. pdf (35.1Mb)

A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:

Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.


Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seek