Wilkes County Department of Social Services HANDWRITING COMPARISON and Lies Exposed

 

HANDWRITING COMPARISON and Lies Exposed

Real Safety Assessment V. Falsified, Fake Safety Assessment and Irrefutable Proof of Wilkes County DSS Lies, Illegal Activities, Threats, Retaliation, and Unethical Behavior

 

By Lawdoll

An in-depth comparison of the only real DSS safety assessment Allison S. Baker ever conducted about us versus the fabricated, falsified, and forged safety assessment that Allison S. Baker created to make it appear she had performed her duties as required by law.  I have included pictures of the documents in question.  Also contains some of the lies and documentation that proves those lies, threats, illegal and unethical behavior, and intimidation.

The first thing that needs to be stated is that we reported the mother for abuse and neglect on August 15, 2006 and the report was accepted that same day.  We were not the only persons who reported this mom, there was another report of abuse received and accepted on August 10, 2006, that we did not make.  Allison Baker was assigned to our report August 16, 2006, but she did not begin investigating the abuse and neglect until the middle of October.

The retaliatory “child abuse and neglect” report that was used as the excuse to begin an investigation on us October 25, 2006, was received by Surry County DSS (the county we reside in) on August 16, 2006.  This report was made the same day the mother was informed during mediation that we had made a report of abuse against her.

Surry County DSS screened this report out because, IT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT, required to initiate an investigation.

Wilkes County DSS, apparently, after we complained about them in late October, obtained this report from Surry County DSS, over two months later, and screened it in.

The first time Allison Baker even hinted at investigating us, and I had contact with her constantly, was during a phone call on October 25, 2006.  During that phone call, Allison Baker began asking me a lot of questions, such as social security numbers and the like.

This call is recorded so I can prove that this is the date that she began investigating us.

This vindictive investigation, which began precisely two days after I called Phyllis Fulton in Raleigh and complained about the Wilkes County Department of Social Services and their failure to perform their duties as prescribed by law and protect my stepdaughter, supports our assertion that it was began as a means to discredit, intimidate, and malciously prosecute us in retaliation of our valid complaints against them.

When we met with Allison Baker October 27, 2006, she had in her possession this screened out report from Surry County DSS, which said idiotic things:

• Trees growing in our gutters
• Poison Ivy in the yard
• Dirty dishes in the sink
• My stepdaughter woke up with a rat on her chest

Absolutely crazy stuff like that.

Allison Baker had already seen video of our home, which documented August 4, 2006, and up, and remarked about how clean it was and how nice our daughter’s room was.

Furthermore, if she had already performed a Safety Assessment on us August 17, 2006, why would she need to ask all of these questions, which should have been asked when she performed the safety assessment? 

She had never performed a safety assessment, she had never been to our home and did not come to our home until December 9, 2006.

She NEVER went to the mother’s home, who our report of abuse was on, until the middle or end of October either!  We know this, because the mother moved in September 06, but the only house Allison ever visited was her new residence. Remember our report of abuse was made and accepted August 15, 2006.  I am positive if a comprehensive investigation was conducted falsified documents and forgeries would be found concerning the biological mom, and the other daughters father and stepmom as well.

A significant fact that must be noted is, if our house was this bad, then why was an investigation never commenced about the 3 children that LIVED in our home FULL TIME? 

Neither Wilkes County DSS, nor Surry County DSS ever opened an investigation or case on us concerning the 3 children who lived in our home 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

These 3 children are not mentioned on any of the paperwork, safety assessments, risk assessments, case plan, nothing.  The three children living in our home were never talked to, or interviewed, nor was any CPS Assessement or investigaion of any form ever conducted regarding them… period. 

Although according to North Carolina DSS Policy they were supposed to.

 “Based on N.C.G.S. § 7B-302 (b), all children living in the home, in a non-institutional setting, shall be considered as alleged victim children when there is any allegation of abuse, neglect or dependency. Therefore, initiation of a CPS Assessment includes face-to-face interviews with all children living in the home.”

There is ample evidence that proves the sole purpose of the Wilkes County Department of Social Services investigation of us was far outside the scope of their duties, and a complete abuse of their power. 

Wilkes County DSS abused their power and unlawfully and maliciously targeted us as a means to discredit our valid complaints against Wilkes County DSS, to intimidate us, to shut us up and to cover up WCDSS’s failure to perform their duties by law and protect a child that was being abused and neglected by her mother.

Wilkes County DSS threatened us with foster care for my stepdaughter, thereby ensuring our compliance with their law breaking, through intimidation.  We had no choice but to comply with their illegal and unethical activities, it was abundantly clear that to do otherwise meant having the child, WE WERE NEITHER ABUSING OR NEGLECTING, needlessly placed into foster care.

Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of abuse and neglect my stepdaughter and her sister were enduring by their mother’s hand…  (Not my husband’s or the father of her other child), the Wilkes County Department of Social Services, ignored that evidence and instead focused solely on discrediting and persecuting us.

They ignored the mother’s noncompliance, lies, and the abuse and neglect of two little girls, so they could teach us a lesson, for speaking out about their initial failure to investigate an accepted report of abuse in the manner and time constraints required by law.

Wilkes County Department of Social Services instituted a malicious investigation against us, without good cause, they falsified records, forged my husband’s signature, discriminated against my husband for being male and the father, lied in assessments and their records, lied to the judge, the psychologist, threatened and intimidated us, abused their power, and neglected their legally duty.

 And then when all of their lies, fabrications, threats and intimidation, illegal and unethical behavior still failed to give them ammunition against us, and after, wrongly and illegally, trying to substantiate against us for serious emotional neglect, they created a new type of neglect and substantiated against us for that.  Injurious environment, parent’s inability to get along, a finding that does not even exist, a finding so far removed from the statutory definition of any type of abuse or neglect that it should have been found invalid the moment they used it, a finding that is so vague that every person in the world could be substantiated against for it.

With the evidence that we have, that proves what Wilkes County DSS did to us, my stepdaughter, her sister and her sister’s father and stepmom, the fact that not one government official will do anything demonstrates the lack of total accountability DSS faces, even when they commit felonious criminal acts.

Handwriting Analysis

•  This is a comparison of the handwriting on the REAL and ONLY safety assessment, dated December 9, 2006 Allison Baker ever did on me and my husband (Top) and the Fabricated, falsified, and forged one that was created to make it appear she had done one on us, when she had not, dated August 17, 2006.  You can clearly tell these are written by the same person.

• Again, this is a comparison of the handwriting on the REAL and ONLY safety assessment, dated December 9, 2006 Allison Baker ever did on me and my husband (Top) and the Fabricated, falsified, and forged one that was created to make it appear she had done one on us, when she had not, dated August 17, 2006.  Furthermore, I have no idea where the spanking allegation came from, neither one of us had ever spanked her.  Just another lie.

 

 

 

•  Below  this is a comparison of the signatures on the REAL and ONLY safety assessment, dated December 9, 2006 Allison Baker ever did on me and my husband (Top) and the Fabricated, falsified, and forged one (bottom) that was created to make it appear she had done one on us, when she had not, dated August 17, 2006. 
•  I was the only one home on August 17, 2006, David was at work, I will post his work record following this comparison, and you can see for yourself that on the day in question David worked 10 hours at LP.  Note that my signature is missing, David’s signature is different on these documents, and the only ones that look the same are Allison Baker’s and Mary Henderson’s.  The signature for David in the signature section on the bottom is forgery.

David did not sign this document and this safety assessment NEVER OCCURRED.

 

 

Work Record

 

• This is a copy of David’s work record for August 17, 2006, the day that Allison Baker claims to have performed the August 17, 2006 safety assessment on, impossible to do since David was at work for 10 hours that day. 

 

Personal Records

• I kept meticulous records; this is the August 2006 record.  Note that we made our report August 15, 2006, but there was a previous report made August 10, 2006 on the mom that we did not make.  
•  Note On August 15, 2006, the custody hearing was postponed, “Court postponed.  Turned Tammy in, Allison Baker assigned to case.”
• August 16, 2006, my stepdaughter finally had an appointment with Dr. Weinstein in Wilkesboro after two cancelled dentist appointment by her mom. She had new cavities that she did not have when she saw our dentist and had two teeth extracted on July 3, 2006. Court ordered mediation orientation between David and Tammy from 3-5, this is where David informed the Mediator about our report of abuse to DSS.  Special Note…  After this meeting is when Tammy made the report of abuse about us to Surry County, it was received August 16, 2006.  August 17, 2006 The ONLY note on this date is about my stepdaughter’s sister not being seen by the dentist again!  No visit to our home by Allison Baker, no safety assessment, nada.
• Also, note the continuous missed dentist appoints by both girls in their mothers care. In addition, note my contact with our insurance company verifying how much they would pay toward fixing my stepdaughters teeth.  We had insurance.  On August 11, I talked to the moms Medicaid worker who informed me that my stepdaughters Medicaid expired July 31, 2006…after having it continuously for her entire life.  (What a coincidence) Debbie Perry also informed me that the mom had never turned in David’s insurance information and that she was reporting her for Medicaid fraud.

Other Signatures

Scanned copy of David and my organ donation cards that we signed in 2004.  Please note David’s signature on both.  David has never signed his full last name the entire, almost 12 years I have known him.  I even have his high school senior shirt from 1998 and it is the same on it as it is here, just a little scribble.

• Below David’s signature on his driver’s license issued in 1999.

 

 

• David’s signature on his driver’s license, 10 years later this driver’s license was issued on November 17, 2009.  David has consistently signed his last name the same way for years…he does not write out his last name, but makes some form of N swoop.

 

• David’s signature on the “In Home Family Services Agreement” signed January 1, 2008.

 

(I changed my mind about Linda Brookes after reading the lies she wrote to Judge Byrd)

I can and have consistently proven that the signature on the safety assessment dated August 17, 2006 is not David’s. 

I have consistently shown and proven that David has signed his name the same way throughout his entire adult life.

I have also shown that the handwriting on both documents is consistent with Allison Baker’s, and that the signatures of Allison Baker and Mary Henderson match on both documents. 

It is obvious and clear that either Mary Henderson or Allison Baker forged David’s signature on the falsified safety assessment. 

There is more than adequate evidence to support that this safety assessment never occurred. 

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

First, we have David’s work record showing that on August 17, 2006, he was at work for 10 hours at LP.

Then, according to North Wilkesboro Police Detective, Chris Handy, there is the absence of our name and information on Allison Baker’s Worker Daily Report of Services to Clients, form DSS 4263.

The DSS 4263 form is required to be filled out daily and turned in weekly and records every service and activity performed, for payment and is absolutely, necessary for federal reimbursement.  Not only is this document required, it must be certified by the worker.  The fact that our name does not appear on the DSS 4263 form alone is proof enough.

When you combined the two, you have irrefutable, documented evidence that for this safety assessment document to exist a felony was committed…because it did not come into existence under legal means.

Since this safety assessment was fabricated, proving who forged David’s signature is not necessary in order to prosecute Allison Baker, Mary Henderson, or other personnel at the Wilkes County Department of Social Services who may have had knowledge of its creation or participated in covering it up after the fact.

Why, in spite of all of this evidence and documentation, charges were dropped against Allison Baker in this case…CITING not enough evidence,  could it be because her grandfather, Glenn  Johnson, was a Wilkesboro Commissioner for 26 years?  

And why charges were never brought against Mary Henderson should be a matter of deep concern, as well?

Furthermore, why has an investigation about the conduct of the Wilkes County Department of Social Services in regards to us, and in the face of this evidence NEVER OCCURRED?

Why, in spite of all of this evidence and documentation, charges were dropped against Allison Baker in this case…CITING not enough evidence, and why charges were never brought against Mary Henderson should be a matter of deep concern, as well.

Frankly, when you considered the fact that the former, Wilkes County DSS Director, James (Donnie) Bumgarner and the current Director, Bill Sebastian were and are aware of this and have been since it occurred, alarm bells should be ringing loudly in your head. 

Tellingly, neither one has asked local or state law enforcement to conduct an investigation.

 Neither one has removed the substantiation against us that was based on the lies, false documents, forgeries, illegal and ethical behavior; it should make anyone reading this question their motives for allowing such a travesty to continue.

 I believe Donnie Bumgarner was involved in this forgery and falsification and/or at the very least, covered it up.

In fact, many government officials were contacted about this issue and all of them failed or refused to do anything.

People who have been made aware of this illegal and unethical behavior include.

• Renae Steele, Caseworker, Wilkes County Department of Social Services
• Nikki Hull, Caseworker, Surry County Department of Social Services
• Linda Brookes, Caseworker, Wilkes County Department of Social Services
• Mary Henderson, CPS supervisor, Wilkes County DSS
• Sonya Freeman, CPS supervisor, Wilkes County DSS
• Donnie Bumgarner, Former Director, Wilkes County DSS
• Bill Sebastian, Current Director, Wilkes County DSS
• Dr. James D. Powell, (who went right along with DSS’ lies)
• Matthew Levchuk, Assistant District Attorney, Wilkes County (who believed the lies told to him by Wilkes County DSS)
• Charles F. Bauer, Assistant District Attorney, Wilkes County (who dismissed the charges against Allison Baker for lack of evidence.)
• Keith Elmore, Wilkes County DSS Board Chair
• Rudy Holbrooke, Wilkes County DSS Board member
• Ken Noland, Town Manager, Wilkesboro, NC
• Lanier Cansler, North Carolina Health and Human Services Secretary
• Dempsey Benton, Former North Carolina Health and Human Services Secretary
• Sherry Bradsher, North Carolina DSS director
• Joann Lamm, North Carolina DSS Deputy Director
• Ellen Thomas-Pullen, Child Welfare Services Consultant
• Former North Carolina Governor, Mike Easley
• North Carolina Governor, Bev Purdue
• Chris Downing, Region IV Director
• Carlis V. Williams, Region IV Administrator
• Ruth Parker, Regional Program Manager, Region IV, Administration for Children and Families

And many others.

Not one of these people did anything about the law breaking, discrimination, malicious persecution of me and my husband for trying to protect a child…, which WAS the only thing we did.

Not one of these people stood up and tried to enforce the laws of this state, nor did any of them take any steps to protect these children by ensuring that the Wilkes County Department performed its statutory duty.

Not one of these people cared about the children who were being harmed while WCDSS continually harassed us, persecuted us, violated welfare policy and broke the law.  NOT ONE!

Even when faced with the damning evidence I have shown in this document, these people ignored it and allowed this travesty to continue.

Honestly, if these government officials were upstanding, honest, people you would think that when faced with this type of evidence they would do what is right or at the very least ask for an investigation.

The only person who tried to stand up for what is right and enforce the law was Chris Handy, North Wilkesboro Police Detective (who tried to seek justice, but was blocked by ADA Bauer)

We did not do the things that Wilkes County DSS lied about.

Threats

When we stood up to them, my life was threatened on www.gowilkes.com, a public forum.

• You best be glad you live out of the county.
• I know what your “REAL NAME” is.
• Be careful and don’t cut your own throat.
• You will be dealt with, and just as the same in your case, this is the “END”!

And still nothing was done! 

Then after my stepdaughter’s mother died, on the same public forum, another person who clearly worked at Wilkes County Department of Social Services accused me of killing her.

This person also talked about statutory protected confidential DSS information, for even if it is not true, it is still confidential.

Again, nothing was done.

We are the victims in a series of crimes committed by The Wilkes County Department of Social Services and the fact that no one will step up and do what is right, just enables WCDSS to continue to break the law and do this to other people.

Investigation Needed

An investigation desperately needs to occur in this case…and the wrong that has been done to us corrected… in order for that to happen, an extensive examination of the department and persons involved must be conducted.

• First and foremost, my husband and I must have access to the Wilkes County case file on us, so that we can view the contents and expose the lies, forgeries, and unethical documents, notes, and assessments, among other things, that are hidden behind the confidentiality laws that protect DSS case files from view, even when they have broken the law.
• The Wilkes County Department of Social Services and its DSS board members need to be investigated.
• The substantiation against us needs to be removed and our names cleared.
• The Wilkes County District Attorney’s conduct and refusal to prosecute, despite having adequate evidence to do so, needs to be investigated.
• Charges need to be pressed against the person/persons who committed these crimes.
• Most importantly, Charges need to be press against the Wilkes County DSS for failing to protect these two little girls.

To be clear

The Wilkes County Department of Social Services, in retaliation for our criticism about their unscrupulous conduct and dereliction of statutory mandated duties to protect children, invented a reason to investigate us, and created a fictitious abuse and neglect case against us, with the intention of discrediting, intimidating, and silencing us. 

When their harassing and vindictive, examination of us failed to uncover any abuse, neglect, or dependency being committed by us, they conjured a statutory nonexistent neglect finding out of thin air, so they could cruelly, spitefully, and callously brand us as child abusers.

After WCDSS vindictively substantiated against us, they continued their unlawful, harassing, and needless invasion in our lives forcing us to comply with whatever they “recommended” by threatening to place my stepdaughter into foster care if we bulked.

Some of the lies

They created an In Home Family Services Agreement that contained ignorant and useless findings, which did not remotely meet the definition of abuse, neglect, or dependency.

1. 1.  David was to provide basic insurance as directed by the child support agency, so cost would not be a reason to deny dental care.

• When her mother neglected her dental care, and allowed her teeth to get so decayed that two of them had to be extracted, David had insurance on his daughter, the mother had insurance on her, and the mother had her on N.C. Medicaid.  Lack of insurance was not the reason her mother denied her dental care.  Neglect by her mother was the reason for the denial of dental care!
• Not having insurance is not neglect or abuse, but besides that point, the only reason David did not have insurance on his daughter at this time was because he had lost his job, because of DSS, and their inability to attend appointments, for example:
• When we were scheduled to meet at Dr. Powell’s for the “evaluation” meeting, DSS did not show up so it had to be rescheduled.  David had to take off for the meeting because of DSS negligence to attend, then turn around and take off again for the rescheduled appointment, that DSS, specifically Renae Steele was an hour and a half late to.
• DSS was order by Judge Byrd after he was notified that we had made a report of abuse, to submit their findings to him.  DSS, failed to investigate the reported abuse in the manner prescribed by law for 2 and a half months, then drug their feet for almost 2 years.  David would have to miss work to go to court, only to have it postponed because DSS had not sent the Judge their findings.

1. 2.  David and I were required to make the child custody exchanges that were taking place “be as amicable as possible, with no heated exchanges.

•  David and I always made the exchanges as “amicable” as possible.  When the mother screamed, yelled, and cussed at us, we did not even respond.  We recorded the custody exchanges to ensure that the mother could not lie about our behavior and to document hers.  DSS ignored this proof and lied about us.
• Heated exchanges, bitterness, and verbal hostility are not abuse or neglect furthermore, David I NEVER engaged in them, proven by recorded phone calls and video recordings of the exchanges.

3.  The parents were required to take the girls to counseling. 

• First, David and I had been trying to get counseling for his daughter for years, because of the abuse and neglect concerns we had in regards to her mother’s treatment of her.
•  Second, Dr. Powell their own “Forensic Psychologist” said the girls did not need counseling.

 The entire In Home Family Services Agreement was a complete and total sham of statutorily insufficient findings, a ruse for their continued illegal involvement in our lives.

Furthermore, they lied in the Strengths and Needs Assessments, the Risk Assessments saying that “minimally participated in pursuing objectives in service agreement”.  This is an outright lie.  WE always complied with anything and everything that they asked us to do. Even with the knowledge that they were illegally persecuting us. Further lies include:

• For the Risk Reassessment dated 11-07-07 it states as a reason for Discretionary override: “age and previous report static but not pursuing all goals outlined in cft of 9-11-07”…there was no cft on 9-11-07, or 11-07-07 the cft wasn’t completed until 1-08-08 two months later.
• On this assessment we had a total score of 3, mainly just because of this lie.  This is just them trying to justify leaving this case open against welfare policy.
• They use the same override reason on 3-27-08, but in this one they do not mark R8 and R9 with (b) Minimal participation in pursuing objectives in service agreement…….1…So I guess basically the only reason it was left open then is my husband’s age.  Under 29…we had a 1 on this reassessment.

Then suddenly, out of the blue, they closed the case even though the one and only circumstance that had to be met to “keep the child out of foster care” according to the In Home Family Services Agreement, had not been met.  It was so important for my stepdaughter to go to counseling that they threatened foster care if she did not, but then closed the case before the required 3 sessions, THAT THEY REQUIRED, had been completed. 

This speaks volume to their true intent and purpose.

We then received a letter from Linda Brooks that stated:

MONITORING HER CARE FROM HER MOTHER!

This letter from Linda Brooks is a direct contradiction to the one that she wrote, that same day, May 14, 2008, to Judge Byrd, in that letter, Linda Brookes lies about the entire situation, case, and us.

Letter to Judge Byrd page 1 and 2

Conclusion

From beginning to end, every step that the Wilkes County Department of Social Services made in our case was either, illegal, unethical, untrue, or in violation of statutory law.

Since the entire case was based on falsified, forged documents, lies, as well as unlawful and unethical conduct, any substantiation or case decision reached by them is unduly prejudicial and fatally tainted. 

A decision based on lies, is a lie itself, for the truth cannot be discovered with lies.

Wilkes County Department of Social Services behavior in our case denotes a willful, malicious, and conscious intent to deceive, invent, and lie in order to harass, harm, intimidate, and discredit us.  Their persecution of us was a calculated, deliberate, and purposeful act, a wanton abuse of power that served no legal purpose.

Our case is so illegally tainted with lies, fabrication, embellishments, falsified and forged documents that it is wholly unreliable, and should be considered a work of fiction.  The only truth that could ever be ascertained from the Wilkes County DSS file on us is that it is necessary to verify the corruption in this case.

Allowing the substantiation against us to remain, in view of this indisputable evidence, is a travesty of justice.

Failing to seek prosecution of these criminals, allows them to continue to operate in this unlawful manner, puts families at risk, and endangers the lives of children.  Failing to take legal action against the Wilkes County Department of Social Services enforces their belief, as evidenced by their behavior in our case, that they are untouchable, above the law, and can do whatever they want because they will never be held accountable for their crimes.

They will do it again…if they have not already, and eventually a child is going to lose their life because of the rampant, unchecked, corruption of Wilkes County DSS.

 The unjustified treatment and criminal manner in which we were subjected to has left a scar on our lives.  The bogus, unlawful substantiation placed on us can prevent us from working in a daycare, or with children, prevent us from adopting or being foster parents…it can and does impinge on our lives.

 To allow this illicit, unethical, and fictitious case and phony finding to remain against us, despite the overwhelming facts attesting our innocence in this matter, harms not only us, but also the entire community and damages the public trust in Child Protective Services.

If CPS is permitted to behave in this manner without consequences, or accountability, why would anyone trust them to protect children?

Wilkes County Department of Social Services has proven with this contemptible behavior that they are unreliable, untrustworthy, criminal, and corrupted; they are more concerned with protecting themselves then the children of Wilkes County.

It would injudicious and foolish to assume that our family has been the sole victim of their corruption.

*This document does not contain everything that happened, I have complete documentation and records of everything that occurred, if you received this via email then those records are attached, if you are seeing this one line then those documents are below this posting.

I have other evidence that proves our claim, if I have emailed this to you, that evidence is attached.  If you are reading this one line, then that evidence is below this posting.  I have not finished uploading all the phone calls on to my computer, but when I do, they too will be sent or posted.

You can see the rest of this story and more documentation at Wilkes County Department of Social Services Failure to Protect my Stepdaughter

Incompetence, ignorance, or willful failure to protect a child?

The following is a message that was left on my answering machine October 24, 2006.

Hal Wilson to Phyllis Fulton  <<<< Click this link to hear.  (left on my answering machine)

*I did remove the child’s name from this audio recording!

In it Oscar Howard “Hal” Wilson III,  a Social Worker Supervisor at the Wilkes County Department of Social Services called our home, believing that he was calling Phyllis Fulton in Raleigh. During his lengthy message to Ms. Fulton, which he left on our home answering machine, he released my name as the reporter, the child’s name, and basically admitted that it was improbable the child received all of these bruises from a haunted ‘hay ride, but…’ He also said that they were going to advise me to make another report. A report that I was later criticized for making.

The level of incompetence required to make this phone call and then leave this message is astounding..  

First, “Hal” had to dial the wrong number,  Phyllis Fulton’s area code is 919, mine is 336, a huge difference.  Mr Wilson should have realized he was dialing a local number,  since Wilkes County’s area code is also 336.

Next, my answering machine, at the time, clearly indicated that “you have reached the Nixon family“.  NOT Phyllis Fulton at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Third, Hal then proceeds to break the law.  He releases the child’s name, (which I removed from this copy of the recording) then the reporters name on MY ANSWERING MACHINE.  

Hal Wilson had no clue who he was talking to, no idea who would hear this message.

But as a social worker supervisor, he should have!

Finally, He admits, “We kind of surmised, after hearing the child had been out on a hayride, we thought well maybe she could  have gotten some bruising from that “although its improbable“ but the child’s age was taken into consideration….”

The last time I checked, which hasn’t been long, the North Carolina General Statutes does not say that DSS and the Director are only required to investigate and accept reports, where the child is saying something “adverse” has happened to them.  

Nor does it say that DSS is allowed to listen to the concerns of the reporter and just ASSUME that the bruises or injuries happened in an accident.

…and that is not what he says here, he basically admits that it is improbable that she received the bruises on the “hay ride” but they chose not to investigate the report based on their own conclusions, without ever talking to the child or viewing the bruises! (it wasn’t a “hay ride” at all, but a haunted trail, that she was carried through by her daddy…and no injuries occurred there! DSS was informed of this at the time of the report!) 

Of course, Hal’s statement in this phone call does not say that they believe “the child received the bruises by accidental means, Hal’s statement in this phone call says, although we believe it is improbable that this child received the bruises during a “hayride”, we aren’t going to investigate this report. 

So they believed that this child received these bruises some other way, other than a hayride, possibly from abuse, but they were not going to investigate it because the child DID NOT state she was being abused!

…and while the child had not stated that anything adverse had happened to her, she had not stated that anything adverse HAD NOT happened to her either!

I did not question her about the bruises, because I did not want to take the chance that DSS would then say that I coached her, or put ideas into her head!

I did what I was told to do, if the child came to our home with unexplained bruises I was supposed to call Allison Baker, which I did, but she refused to come to our home and talk to the child and see the bruises…and instead told me to call the “on call worker”, who refused the report.

In the letter that I received explaining why the report was not accepted, the reasons given is, “the child is nine years old and is not stating that anything adverse has happened to her.”

Refusal does not fit the criteria required for the report to have been screened out and not investigated.

It further states “Allegations do not meet CPS criteria”

Yet according to Chapter VIII:Protective Services 1407 – STRUCTURED INTAKE  a report of abuse is supposed to be screened using the following tools, (I have placed only the ones that apply to this case here) : 

VI. MALTREATMENT SCREENING TOOL AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of the screening tools is to determine which reports meet the legal definitions of abuse, neglect and dependency and to aid in achieving consistency in regards to the screening of CPS reports.

Which cases:	The screening tools are to be utilized with every CPS report received in order to determine whether the allegations meet the legal definitions of abuse, neglect and dependency. If the information received meets the legal definitions; a CPS assessment is required. This includes telephone calls and all other means of referral, and includes information on new families and families already known to the agency; whether or not a case is open to CPS Assessments/Investigations, CPS In-Home Services or Child Placement Services.
Who:	Every staff member who has the responsibility for CPS intake.
Decision:	Screening tools determine whether the report should be accepted for CPS assessment. This is a joint decision made with the CPS Intake social worker and the supervisor.
When:	Screening tools are consulted immediately upon receipt of the report.
Appropriate Consultation:	Please refer to the definitions page for each screening tool. The tools correspond with the abuse, neglect and dependency statutes. The corresponding screening tools for abuse reports include: physical injury, cruel/grossly inappropriate behavior modification, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and moral turpitude. The corresponding tools for neglect reports include: improper care, improper supervision, improper discipline, abandonment, improper medical/remedial care, injurious environment, and illegal placement/adoption. The directions provide case examples but are not all-inclusive. It is impossible to account for all incidences of child abuse, neglect and dependency. These tools are guidelines to assist in the decision making process. The social worker should consult each tool as it corresponds to the allegations. Every allegation made by the reporter requires an examination of the corresponding screening tool. It is likely that a reporter will allege maltreatment which requires an examination of multiple screening tools. It is crucial to evaluate each allegation based on the statutory definitions of abuse, neglect and dependency, and consulting the Maltreatment Screening Tools serves this purpose.

“A. Physical Injury Screening Tool Directions

Is the parent/caretaker causing serious non-accidental physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or impairment?

Fractures, subdural hematoma, dislocations, sprains, internal injuries, burns and inflicted injuries such as extensive welts, bruises, lacerations and abrasions would be indicative of abuse. The specific injuries listed are not intended to be an all-inclusive list, but are an indication of information that does warrant an Investigative Assessment. There may be instances where a child has bruises that do not rise to the level of abuse, but are considered improper discipline (refer to Improper Discipline Maltreatment Screening Tool), as well as situations where there may be bruising and there is no abuse or neglect. Physical abuse of a preschool aged child or a developmentally disabled child requires an immediate response.

The physically injury screening tool for use in assessing a report of physical abuse.

I. Improper Discipline Screening Tool Directions

Is the parent/caretaker using corporal punishment that results in any type of injury, cuts or extreme bruises?

...significant trauma and tissue damage, such as bruises, welts, or lacerations may be signs of child neglect (inappropriate discipline) or child abuse, depending on the extent of the injuries. Factors to consider regarding bruising include: location and severity of the injury, child’s age and developmental stage, and whether the bruises are consistent with normal play. Injuries such as these, not resulting from an accident, must be assessed. A definition of significant trauma is any injury beyond temporary redness of the skin. A practical guideline to use is that any inflicted injury which lasts more than 24 hours constitutes significant injury and requires an investigation. (PEDIATRICS, Vol. 110 No. 3, September 2002, American Academy of Pediatrics.) A reporter’s knowledge that this was the parent’s first time inflicting such an injury or that the injury is just a small bruise does not impact screening. Spanking and corporal punishment should be confined to the buttocks or legs and should not result in injury, scarring or bruising. Physical discipline that is administered to a child’s head or torso area presents a greater risk of injury. The child’s age and abilities are relevant to whether the discipline used is reasonable…”

Improper discipline screening tool for use in assessing abuse/neglect

If the appropriate response is in doubt, the social worker should respond in the most protective way.

Yet even though, Hal Wilson, thought it was improbable that the bruises occurred during a hayride, and knowing that this child had a hand shaped BRUISE on her inner thigh, and bruises on her stomach (a very dangerous area to hit) as well as other bruises…he chose to screen out this report of abuse because the child did not say she was being abused!

This is not how you investigate reports of child abuse, this is how children end up dead!

A look at the law…

“§ 7B‑302.  Assessment by director; access to confidential information; notification of person making the report.

(a)        When a report of abuse, neglect, or dependency is received, the director of the department of social services shall make a prompt and thorough assessment, using either a family assessment response or an investigative assessment response, in order to ascertain the facts of the case, the extent of the abuse or neglect, and the risk of harm to the juvenile, in order to determine whether protective services should be provided or the complaint filed as a petition. When the report alleges abuse, the director shall immediately, but no later than 24 hours after receipt of the report, initiate the assessment. When the report alleges neglect or dependency, the director shall initiate the assessment within 72 hours following receipt of the report. When the report alleges abandonment, the director shall immediately initiate an assessment, take appropriate steps to assume temporary custody of the juvenile, and take appropriate steps to secure an order for nonsecure custody of the juvenile. The assessment and evaluation shall include a visit to the place where the juvenile resides, except when the report alleges abuse or neglect in a child care facility as defined in Article 7 of Chapter 110 of the General Statutes. When a report alleges abuse or neglect in a child care facility as defined in Article 7 of Chapter 110 of the General Statutes, a visit to the place where the juvenile resides is not required. When the report alleges abandonment, the assessment shall include a request from the director to law enforcement officials to investigate through the North Carolina Center for Missing Persons and other national and State resources whether the juvenile is a missing child.

(a1)      All information received by the department of social services, including the identity of the reporter, shall be held in strictest confidence by the department, except that:…”

No where in the law does it state that the department of social services is to listen to the report and then JUMP to conclusions about how the bruises occurred!

Nor does the law state that the only reports that will be accepted and investigated are those where the child is saying that someone abused them.

Furthermore, there is no age limitations for investigating a report of abuse, meaning the age of the child does not matter, they are supposed to investigate reports of abuse of any child under the age of 18, who is not married, emancipated, or a member of the armed forces.

 If DSS receives a report of abuse saying that suspected abuse is happening to a nine year old, whether that nine year old is saying it is or not, they are required by law to investigate that report.

Unexplained bruises, some of which look like a hand print fit the criteria of suspected abuse and should be accepted for CPS investigation.

That is not what happened here.

And because that did not happen here, because of the obvious incompetence of this supervisor and the Wilkes County Department of Social Services, this child was left in the care of her mother, and the abuse was allowed to continue, while DSS turned their focus to shutting us up with a malicious, unethical, and illegal investigation!

The failure of the Wilkes County Department of Social Services to protect the child in this case, especially in light of their belief that it was improbable that the bruises occurred by accidental means, constitutes willful failure to follow the laws of North Carolina and America, as well as willful failure to protect a child from abuse.

I believe that breaking the law is a criminal offense, so why haven’t these people been charged with the crimes they committed?

NORTH CAROLINA CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL PRACTICES?

 

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-29636-Surry-County-CPS-Examiner~y2009m12d2-North-Carolina-Child-Protective-Services-illegal–and-unethical-practices#

Do you know a child who has died during or after a DSS investigation in North Carolina?

Do you know a child who has died after reports of abuse where made to DSS? Did DSS ignore your report and fail to protect the child?

Do you know a child who has died in foster care or after being adopted from foster care due to child abuse or neglect?

Are you the family member of a child that died during or after DSS involvement?

Are you a family member of a child who has died as a result of DSS policy violations or inaction when it came to investigating reports of abuse?

 

To read more of this article please visit the above link…more importantly, if you have a complaint against North Carolina DSS, in any county…visit the above link and contact the reporter.

INNOCENTS DESTROYED PARTS 1, 2, & 3…WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES

THE HEARTBREAKING STORY OF ADRIANNA CRAM 

ADVOCATES CALL FOR ACTION ON BIRTHDAY OF SLAIN FOSTER CHILD  (Marcus Fiesel)

THE SHORT, HORRIFIC LIFE OF DANIEAL KELLY: WARNING THIS PAGE CONTAINS GRAPHIC PICTURES AND ARTICLES

4 DHS WORKERS OUSTED IN FALLOUT FROM DANIEAL KELLY CASE

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/3117385.php??

by KYW’s Mike Dunnsee related story). Four DHS workers involved in the death of 14-year old Danieal Kelley  are now being shown the door. The four employees — Shawn Davis, Ingrid Hawk, Martha Poller, and Valerie Mond — had been named but not indicted the Danieal Kelly grand jury report.   Now DHS Commissioner Anne Marie Ambrose says all four will be gone.   Poller was allowed to retire, Mond allowed to resign while Hawk and Davis are being fired.   DHS spokeswoman Alicia Taylor says Ambrose felt the actions of the four were unconscionable: “Given their egregious disregard for their professional responsibilities, and the role that it played in Danieal Kelly’s death, she felt that she had no other choice but to rule the way she did.” Now, Taylor says, the department hopes to move on, though never forget: “Danieal Kelly will always be remembered in the department.  Because of her death, there’s been a major reform effort underway at DHS.” Nine others face charges in Kelly’s death, including two DHS workers and the girl’s parents (

FORMER CPS WORKER FOUND GUILTY OF FORGERY

 

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/powell-85213-sutter-county.html

August 06, 2009 11:40:00 PM

By Rob Young/Appeal-Democrat

A Sutter County judge on Thursday found former Child Protective Services worker Sarah Jane Powell guilty of forgery after she admitted “cutting and pasting” a court document, including a copy of another judge’s signature.

Judge H. Ted Hansen reached the verdict after a one-day trial in which Powell alternately wept and became angry under cross-examination by a prosecutor.

Powell testified she created the document April 15 so a foster child — a girl under the age of 5 — could get much-needed dental surgery. But Assistant District Attorney Jana McClung said Powell, who had just been reprimanded for not completing work on time, was trying to protect her job after failing to promptly file a true document.

Powell was fired after another social worker found a fake document, with Sutter County Judge Chris Chandler’s signature taped to it, in a copy machine where Powell left it.

“Why did you do it?” Powell’s attorney, Timothy Evans, asked her.

“I just panicked. I wanted to make sure (the foster child) got the procedure done she was scheduled for,” Powell said.

Delaying the dental procedure, which was scheduled the next day, would have meant the child living in pain months longer, she said.

But Craig Hungrige, an investigator for the Sutter County District Attorney’s Office, testified Powell told him soon after being caught that she was worried about losing her job.

Hungrige said he initially interviewed Powell at the CPS office on Live Oak Boulevard in Yuba City with her boss present. She denied knowledge of the fake papers, he said.

But when he and Powell, who knew each other from student days, walked to her car in the parking lot, Powell said, “Craig, I f—-d up,” and cited problems in her personal life. She acknowledged not getting her work done on time, he said. McClung aggressively cross-examined Powell.

“How many times had you done this before?” McClung said about the fake documents.

“I’d never done it before,” Powell snapped.

Asked why she hadn’t gone to supervisors to expedite the needed paperwork instead of forging it, Powell said, “I wish I knew the answer to that.”

Evans said it was very unlikely his client would have been fired for not filing the papers on time.

“She foolishly chose the path that ended with her losing her job,” Evans said in summing up the case.

Evans blamed CPS in general — and Powell’s boss Roberto Garcia in particular — for delaying the dental work, which was first proposed in August 2008.

Powell took over the case from another social worker in February or March, according to testimony.

Two CPS employees testified paperwork moved slowly once it got to the desk of Garcia, who had to approve documents submitted to the court.

Powell said she complained to a superior about Garcia’s “incompetence as a social worker.”

Garcia testified he left Powell two voice mail messages and talked to her once in person about the dental procedure. Her response was, “Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it,” he said.

Asked by Evans if Powell was a “poor social worker,” Garcia responded, “I would say so, yes.”

McClung summed up her case by saying Powell’s forgery defrauded the dentist, who needed a legal document before doing surgery, and damaged the credibility of CPS and the courts.

Hansen scheduled sentencing for Sept. 18. Powell could be sentenced on just one of three fraud charges, or could serve concurrent sentences on all three, he said. Two of the charges are “wobblers,” he said, meaning they could be reduced from felonies to misdemeanors.

If Powell is incarcerated, it will be in jail, not prison, according to McClung.

MUST READ….

 The T.R.U.T.H. Project

 

 Family Attorney Blows the Whistle on State Child Protective Services Agencies

 

 

Practicing family attorney Gregory Hession confirms child protective service agencies engage in abusive, deliberate and dirty tricks motivated by federal funding.

http://thetruthproject.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/family-attorney-blows-the-whistle-on-state-child-protective-services-agencies/

FORMER CPS WORKER ARRAINED ON 3 FELONY CHARGES…AND THE APPEAL-DEMOCRAT HAS DECIDED TO DO THE STORY

Former CPS worker arraigned on 3 felony charges

 

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/sutter-78178-county-powell.html?orderby=TimeStampDescending&oncommentsPage=3&showRecommendedOnly=0#slComments

June 02, 2009 01:14:00 PM

Appeal-Democrat

A former Sutter County Child Protective Services employee has been arraigned in Sutter County Superior Court on three felony charges of forging a document.

Sarah Jane Powell, 35, turned herself in Tuesday morning at the Sutter County Jail for booking and was released. No bail was set at Monday’s arraignment and Powell did not enter a plea, according to the Sutter County Clerk of Courts Office.

Powell, who was listed as unemployed on a jail booking sheet, did not immediately return a call Tuesday to her home. She is being represented by former Sutter County judge Timothy Evans, now a private attorney.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled at 9 a.m. June 12, preceded by a preliminary pretrial conference at 1:30 p.m. June 10.

Powell allegedly forged a document, including a judge’s signature, and forged the state seal on the document.

The Sutter County District Attorney’s Office declined comment on the motive behind the alleged forgery.

I originally posted this story at the following, then for some reason the Appeal Democrat removed the story…well it is back up and running again.

http://stopcorruptdss.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/cps-worker-charged-with-forgery-like-this-the-first-time-they-have-forged-something/

CHILD WORKER ARRESTED FOR ALLEGED FICTITIOUS VISITS

Former child welfare caseworker played hooky – and forged documents to cover it up, authorities say

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_she_was_supposed_to_be_minding_the_kids.html

BY Veronika Belenkaya and Stephanie Gaskell

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Thursday, May 28th 2009, 4:00 AM

 

Stephanie Sabouni faces charges of faking city Administration for Children's Services documents. But she doesn't seem too worried outside court (below) or on her Facebook page (above.)

 

A soon-to-be-married former child welfare caseworker entrusted with checking on truant kids played hooky herself – and forged documents to cover it up, authorities said.

Stephanie Sabouni, 27, of Brooklyn, filled out seven forms claiming she had visited three different families whose children routinely missed school while she worked for the city’s Administration for Children’s Services from 2005 to 2007.

Ward for News

The bride-to-be was charged Wednesday with seven first-degree felony counts of tampering with public records. Each charge carries up to seven years behind bars.

“Covering up misdeeds by faking official computer records is a serious crime and this case is even more troubling because it involves allegations that children in need were ignored,” said state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

The forged documents were found shortly after Sabouni left the ACS to become a teacher at a Brooklyn middle school, authorities said.

“After several Brooklyn families told ACS employees that they had never met the former child protective specialist who had written about her supposed visits to their homes, ACS alerted [us],” said city Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn.

Sabouni – who recently posted racy pictures of herself on her Facebook page – has been fired from her teaching job.

Sabouni, who attended John Jay College of Criminal Justice and earned a master’s degree in education from Touro College in Manhattan, denied the charges.

“ACS is at fault for everything,” she told reporters after her arrest. “I’m just being used.”

Her lawyer Arnold Keith argued that the documents were not public records.

“Nobody was injured as a result of these [documents],” he said. “The children she worked with are fine.” (That is not the  point…the point is they could have been, children could have died because of her failure to perform her job as required by law…)

Keith said his client “went to some [homes], but not other homes.”

He also said Sabouni didn’t know she was being investigated when she was questioned.

“She made a statement and the statements are being used against her,” he said.

“If you go in and you don’t know you’re being investigated and you’re told you can’t leave until you make a statement, I think that brings a question of knowing and a voluntary waiver of your rights,” he said. “I think she may have incriminated herself.”

Sabouni, who is planning to get married on June 27, was released on $1,500 bail and ordered to hand over her passport, putting her Mexican honeymoon in question. “She is upset,” Keith said. “She’s destroyed over these allegations.”

vbelenkaya@nydailynews.com

 

 

 

Child Worker Arrested for Alleged Fictitious Visits

 

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=4&id=28478

by Ryan Thompson (court@brooklyneagle.net), published online 05-27-2009

BROOKLYN — After two recent child deaths in Brooklyn, the city’s Administration for Children’s Services has been under fire in the borough. Now, adding to the controversy, an ACS worker in Brooklyn has been arrested for lying about the family visits she allegedly never made.

Stephanie Sabouni, a former child protective specialist with ACS, was arrested yesterday on felony charges of falsifying ACS records of cases to which she had been assigned in May and June 2007. The office of New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is prosecuting the case.

“DOI’s investigation revealed a troubling case of a city child protective specialist’s fabricating official reports regarding children and families she never saw,” said Department of Investigation Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn. “For any ACS employee to fabricate case reports is reprehensible and jeopardizes the safety of the children involved.”

After several Brooklyn families told ACS employees that they had never met the former child protective specialist who had written about her supposed visits to their homes, ACS alerted DOI. DOI investigators then reviewed case records, interviewed witnesses and worked with state officials to find the facts and ensure that the charged criminal conduct would be prosecuted.

ACS in Brooklyn has come under heavy scrutiny after the deaths of Nixzmary Brown, 7, and Kyle Smith, 3, both of Bedford-Stuyvesant. Brown and Smith were both found beaten and killed at home, in 2006 and 2008, respectively, despite ongoing ACS investigations into both of their families.

In separate cases, Brown and Smith were allegedly abused physically and sexually by at least one of their parents or guardians, while the other guardian allegedly allowed the abuse to continue. Brown’s mother and stepfather were both convicted of manslaughter in Brooklyn Supreme Court and are currently in prison.

Manslaughter trials for Nymeen Cheatham and Lamar Martin are both pending in Brooklyn Supreme Court. “Fiction has no place in an ACS case record, and those who would make up reports instead of doing their jobs need to know that such deliberate falsification will be exposed and prosecuted,” a DOI statement said yesterday.

This case reinforces the findings of some of DOI’s earlier investigations and recommendations for reforms in ACS case work, according to DOI, which thanked ACS Commissioner John Mattingly and his staff for bringing the allegations to DOI’s attention.

—Ryan Thompson

Brooklyn Daily Eagle

 MORE ON THE CASES OF NIXAMARY BROWN AND KYLE SMITH

 

 http://www.brooklyneagle.com/search/index.php

CPS WORKER CHARGED WITH FORGERY ( LIKE THIS THE FIRST TIME THEY HAVE FORGED SOMETHING.)

CPS worker charged with forgery

 

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/powell-77795-county-charged.html

By Rob Young/Appeal-Democrat

A Sutter County Child Protective Services employee has been charged with forging a court record and a judge’s signature, the Appeal-Democrat has learned.

Sarah J. Powell, 35, will be arraigned June 1 in Sutter County Superior Court, said Assistant District Attorney Fred Schroeder.

Powell is also charged with forging the seal of the state of California on a document, he said.

Schroeder said he could not comment on the motive behind the alleged forgery. He did not disclose which judge’s signature Powell is charged with forging.

Powell and Child Protective Services officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

The three charges were filed May 12. Powell was not arrested but was sent a letter ordering her to appear in court, Schroeder said.

There are no other defendants in the case, he said.

Child Protective Services workers are county employees.

Sutter County spokesman Chuck Smith said he learned of the case from the Appeal-Democrat.

“I have no idea what her job status is,” Smith said.

Contact Appeal-Democrat reporter Rob Young at 749-4710 or at ryoung@appealdemocrat.com.

I emailed the reporter in this case and asked him to use the Freedom of Information Act to get more information on this crime.  As far as I know the crimes that this CPS worker have been charged with are felony charges, yet she was sent a letter telling her to appear in court.  Talk about differental treatment, she should have been carted off to jail in cuffs, force to bond out, fingerprinted, just like any other criminal.

I mean honestly, did she do this to illegally remove a child?  If so, did it work?  Where is that child now?  I think there is an urgent need for more information on this case.  These are serious charges and should not be taken lightly.  They are also a matter of public record and should not be hidden as they are.  I have to question why they are being so hush, hush about this crime.  If it were anyone other than a CPS worker the name, picture and exactly what they had done would be all over the news…having been released by the very people who in this case, will not comment.

We the public have a right to know exactly what this woman did and if there was a child involved it makes it urgent in my mind.  This “cover up” behavior is how CPS continues to break the law and get away with it.