Family finds creative solution to homelessness - State says otherwise and takes kids away

Originally posted by summer5
As the parent of 6 children myself, I can NOT fathom my children being taken away from me. I would go crazy. So when the electricity goes out, for what ever reason, my home has no running water either. I live on a well. If the grids go down, does that mean that my home is unfit for my children to reside with me in our house? I suppose it would be better if they were living out of their car? On the streets? In a rat infested shelter? Perhaps in a drug infested low rent motel? C'mon, that's just insane!!

Alot of parents commit suicide because of this, my poor mother has been hanging in there and i give her so much credit for putting up with the bull.

reply to post by falah

As a teenager in this world I completely agree with your post, I wouldn't mind living like this myself. I love camping, the whole experience thrills me. To be able to live like this for an extended period of time would definately be interesting, and good learning experience. With others arund it would be different, for sure. Overall I think I would enjoy it, teaching and learning from not only my experiences but others as well. To see how we would work and come together for the beneficial gain of the whole group and not just yourself. We have things way too easy now a days, that some do have it easier than others and take full advantage of it. We need to get over ourselves, let we be rich or poor we must all stick together.

Your post fills me with more hope than I've felt for a long time.
Hang in there, be strong, be true and I hope you can find exactly what you're looking for.
I'm really proud of you!
You're the hope we all have to some day stop the insanity that's going on in the world, like the government taking these kids away from THEIR family.

hugs

peace

reply to post by reesie45

Bless you sweet one! I give your mother a lot of credit. I know many who have had to deal with the "agencies" and the crap they put them through with their kids, mostly over nothing! Yet the parents who harm their children, get them back in the blink of an eye.

You are a strong person, and I am sure you learned that from your mother (as well as what you have had to endure). Stay strong! [[[[[[[hugs]]]]]]]]] to you!!

The reason why the state/gov frowns upon the homeless or those who help the homeless is because of the following:

If you live in America and you don't pay to live, you should move to another country or be dead.

I'm surprised the owner of the storage facility didn't get arrested or sued.

AmErikAn DrEaM foR tEh weEnnNn

Originally posted by balon0
The reason why the state/gov frowns upon the homeless or those who help the homeless is because of the following:

If you live in America and you don't pay to live, you should move to another country or be dead.

I'm surprised the owner of the storage facility didn't get arrested or sued.

AmErikAn DrEaM foR tEh weEnnNn

How true, balon0...once someone in Amerika is no longer viable...able to produce what is expected of them...they are treated as if they do not exist. Unfortunately when children are involved, Children's Services/Social Services will always jump the gun when it comes to whether what some nosey neighbour says is true, or what is really going on.

reply to post by SavedOne

Building codes prohibit living in storage facilities. What this family is doing is illegal.

This argument is factually, legally, and realistically untenable. What Child Protective Services did was not only illegal, it was unlawful. Illegal due to its unconstitutionality. Unlawful because before there is government there is law, and the people are the lawful authority to any government. All power flows directly from the people, and the establishment of government cannot in any way be construed as a surrender of that original political power.

Legally this is supported by Constitution, beginning with the Constitution for the State of Texas. First, there is the Preamble to that Constitution:

Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Next, there is Article I, of that Constitution, titled The Bill of Rights, which begins with Section 1:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This section above has been presented here to establish that Texas acknowledges being subject to the Federal Constitution, which of course, comes with its own Bill of Rights. Before moving on to other sections of Article I of the Texas Constitution, it is important at this point to present the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution for the United States of America:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

While most state Constitutions have their own version of this law, the Texas State Constitution does not. Fortunately what the Texas State Constitution does have is Section 1 that acknowledges the legally binding document of the Federal Constitution, so the Ninth Amendment is applicable.

Applicable because there are no enumerated rights of parents. Not enumerated because apparently our Founders were saner than most people are today, and it never even occurred to them that tyranny would get so bad that state and local governments would ignore Constitutional restraints placed upon them and do things such as kidnap children from their parents.

All people have the absolute and undeniable unalienable right to parenthood, and as parents have the unalienable right to determine what is in the best interest of their children.

Returning to the Texas State Constitution we have Section 2 of Article I:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

It cannot get any clearer than this as to who is actually in charge, and it sure as hell ain't Child Protective Services, and as for the state legislature, their authority extends as far as their ability to avoid trampling all over the rights of individuals.

Beyond Constitutions, the people - which means individuals - have case law to rely upon.

"Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent not manifest in its letter."

Norris v. Baltimore, 172, MD 667; 192 A 531.0.

"It cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the Sovereign power."

Cooke v. Iverson, 122, N.W. 251.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"The Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 176 (U.S.Supreme Ct)

"The Bill of Rights was provided as a BARRIER, to protect, the individual against the arbitrary extractions of the majorities, executives, legislatures, courts, sheriffs, and prosecutors, and it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian processes."

STANDLER - Supreme Court of Florida en banc, 36 so 2d 443, 445(1948)

Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct) 380 US 436(1966)

"Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms."

Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512 CA Tex(1974)

"It is a duty as much as a right for all citizens to jealously and zealously protect their Fourth Amendment rights."

U.S. Supreme Court, appeal of Chimel v. Calif. 89 S Ct 2034

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule in making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct) 380 US 436(1966)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946(1973)

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime."

Miller v.U. S., 230 F 486 at 489

"When Constitutional rights have been violated, remedies for violations are not dependant upon fictionalized distinctions."

Kelly v. U. S., 379 F Sup 532

"Civil contempts are sometimes civil in name only, entailing what are in reality criminal punishments."

Wyman v. Uphaus, 360 US 72(1959)

"All acts of legislature...contrary to natural right and justice are void."

"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may...promote in some respects the best interests of the public."

Slote v. Bd. of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 2 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same ruses of conduct that are commands to the citizen."

Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438 485; 48 S CT L ED 944(1928)

Case law more specific to parental rights:

"Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights."

P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

"Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process."

Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997)

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.

Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.

Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children.

Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections.

Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection.

In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake.

Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

"Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody."

May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man."

" Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child."

Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult.

Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).

Those were just a few, there are plenty more.

In terms of Texas' justification for Child Protection Services, which is an agency under the purview of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, begins with Section 1200:

1200 Legal Base for Child Protective Services CPS 96-8 Management Policy

DFPS's Child Protective Services Program is based on federal and state laws. Federal laws, under which the program operates, are specified in the Social Security Act and interpreted through regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations. State laws to protect children from abuse, neglect, or other harm have existed since 1931. DFPS is designated as the single state agency in Texas to administer Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.

www.dfps.state.tx.us...

What follows 1200 are a bevy of other statutes, state and federal, designed to give an appearance of legality, but all that is cited, including what was cited above, are statutes subordinate to the Supreme Laws of the Land, which would be both the Texas State Constitution, and the federal Constitution.

If you deign to lecture people on what is illegal, it would behoove you to actually know the law. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that opinion, when demonstrating gross ignorance of the law, should be viewed with the same abhorrence as the actions of Child Protective Services in this matter.

Ignorantia juris non excusat!

This is stupid those kids need to be back with the mom n dad!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wow great post! Talk about knowing your stuff! Any chance you're free on August 16th to go to court with the Leonards?

Me and my brothers and sisters were taken away and it destroyed our life

They should have a heart and help the family, but i guess that love has left this world.

Originally posted by SavedOne
Building codes prohibit living in storage facilities.

I actually deliver portable storage containers, and funny enough, the contracts refer to the customer as the "tenant".

On a serious note though, this is to ensure the children do not grow up being self sufficient. They want you to need running water and electricity etc so you will become dependant on them for your survival.

I'm so glad that so many of you were as outraged as I was when I read that story. I've never had any experience with CPS, although I'm sure my kids have thought about calling them (j/k - I think), but I do see stories all the time of how they seem to make so many poor judgments and kids get hurt instead of helped.

The excuse always seems to be they are overworked, underpaid, yada yada yada.

Anyhow - I really hope this situation gets resolved in favor of these parents who really do seem to care about their kids and that's all that should really matter.

CPS is truly an evil entity. That is why I cringe on here every time some one shouts for a child to be taken from their parents because the parent is poor, or as in one thread, because the parents smoke.

Studies reveal that children are 11 times more likely to be abused in state care than they are in their own homes, and 7 times more likely to die as a result of abuse in the foster care system.

~ John Walsh
John Walsh

Foster care and CPS are just like any other corporation, yes I said corporation, because that is how they operate. Its all about the money and how much federal funding they can get. They get extra federal funding every time they are able to label a child as disabled. So when a child cries for mommy and daddy as these children surely will, they get a diagnosis of depression, dope the kid up and bam, more federal dollars. Of course this is all paid for with medicaid. CPS also collects welfare for every child that is in state custody, on top of federal payments. Not that the foster parents see the welfare, aside from the medicaid. NO, the foster parents get their own separate payment.
It cost tax payers far more for a child to be in state care than for the child to be on welfare. When they count the number of people on welfare every child in foster care is counted in that number, please remember that.

Cps also gets adoption benefits. this was a well meaning program that went horribly wrong. It started as an incentive for social workers to find adoptive homes for foster children. Social workers soon learned that they could make more money by taking cute, emotionally stable children, who's parents couldn't afford to fight back
like the ones in the article. Children who are truly abused cost to much money for their care and because of emotional problems are harder to adopt. Social workers are never held accountable when a child dies when they were aware that the situation was unsafe, yet they did nothing.

reply to post by calstorm

Thanks for the eye opening information. In the end it's always about the money!

First off, massive hats off to the owner of the storage unit to do something like this for that family! There can never be enough of people like this. Regarding self storage units though, it's possible to stream running water if required for the items within, but it would have to be electrically operated from inside, or there would have to some form of piping. That being said, it seems a little ridiculous not to give the family a chance to rectify the situation before acting.