How Responsible is DHR for These Four Deaths?

 

Two of these children died in DHR custody. One child died while DHR was reportedly trying to find her. The fourth child's status with DHR is unknown, but read on for details...

1 & 2 - At the top of the collage are Haven and Roman Hartline who died together in 2018. Both children had been taken from their biological parents in Red Bay three and one-half years before they were killed in a reckless accident while in the custody of their latest foster caregiver. Franklin County DHR had refused to end the legal custody of the Hartlines and allow the children to be adopted.

3 - At bottom left is Serenity Irene Renfroe who died in 2016 at the hands of her mother's boyfriend. The mother had been convicted of child endangerment earlier in Marion County relating to her husband's sister's children. Reportedly, family of both parents had notified DHR of their suspicions that Serenity was being abused, as had a physician. Haley Rose Renfroe made a plea deal in Franklin County, did time in community corrections, and is now residing again in Marion where she is currently in jail on a minor charge.

4 - At bottom right is Amasia Faith Stewart who died at the hands of her father in 2023. Shannon Stewart had previously been arrested in Walker County for abuse of a child. Now both Stewart and his squeeze/baby mama have been charged with child abuse in cases involving their two surviving children. Facebook photos show one of the two older children not treated for a medical condition. Where was DHR in Winston County?

Is DHR understaffed? Certainly. Is that all that's hampering that organization from being effective and saving lives? No.

We have to redo our State policy and our way of thinking when it comes to what many call the Blood Family Movement. Blood doesn't make a father or a mother. Pass "One Strike and You're Out" laws. It's not a Draconian policy - it's a life saving policy.

More DHR Corruption?

Alabama DHR is the recipient of much criticism. Is it unjust? Unfortunately, we find in most cases, it certainly isn’t undue. We’ve recently been contacted by a local woman who had sought to gain custody of her daughter’s two daughters who were in the care of the state. Not only was custody not granted to the grandmother and her husband, DHR failed to tell them that their daughter had given birth to a son who was also in state custody.

Perhaps the grandparents’ right to know is debatable? We welcome comments on this issue or any new problems our readers have faced with Alabama DHR.

*****

*****

Have you been keeping up with the Chelsea Fike case? Considering the severity of harm done to her young son, we’re surprised it took the state two years to gather enough evidence to arrest the live-in boyfriend of the Lawrence County woman. During this time, Chelsea told her supporters that Ian died from unknown causes and collected money for his funeral and monument. 

Our blogger L. Stone sent this:

M is for the Murder charge

O is for the Other dude she brought into the children's lives

T is for the Trauma on the small bodies

H is for the Hell the children went through

E is for the Extreme indifference to human life

R is for the Reckoning in the execution chamber that she will no doubt avoid

*****

It’s been announced that Dr. Jennifer Gray will become the new assistant principal at Brooks Elementary School. Will this be an improvement? Comments always welcome.

Sixteen Spurgeons: A Very Dysfunctional Family

Statistics vary from state to state, but for years the average U.S. family has produced around 2.2 children. Averages are just that and include the childless family as well as the parents who are part tribble. Obviously the tribbles are rare animals these days for a great many reasons.

Should a family choosing to adopt 11 children raise any flags? The Spurgeon family, formerly of Clanton, Athens, and Florence, seemingly didn’t raise any eyebrows among DHR workers. All 11 children, six of whom are already adopted, were placed by the Alabama Department of Human Resources.

We’re not going to post names or photos here, but social media show healthy and robust Caucasian children who were added to the Spurgeon household. In other words, there were no handicapped or minority children who might have found it difficult to secure a forever home. We’ve also heard over and over from friends just how hard it is to adopt such children if the family already has one or two children. How did the Spurgeons manage to accumulate a household of 14?

We’re also sure that both adoptive parents and children said what DHR wanted to hear. Yes, children need and want homes and are often willing to put up with at least some abuse in order to obtain one. Yet, how about that semi-nude kayaking on the canal photo on the Spurgeon’s Facebook page? By this time the family had migrated to Florida, but wasn’t this a red flag to social workers that family dynamics were at least a mite out of the norm?

The thread running through the children’s accounts of abuse is that Daddy Daniel liked his girls between the ages of 13 and 16. That required a constant stream of children populating the Spurgeon home. Would it have all been over in ten years or so? No, he probably would have then begun with his grandchildren…and it will never be over for the young girls whom he took into his home and systematically abused.

Alabamians need to demand more from DHR. If you suspect any kind of abuse, don’t hesitate to report it. The mantra should be “Better safe than sorry.”

*****

*****

Yesterday we blogged on McKayla Slater who was missing from Franklin County. She was found late this morning. Given the reported circumstances of her disappearance, we're extremely grateful that she has been found. We do suggest she now be grounded until she's 36.

*****

From a reader:

In light of the most recent attack on law enforcement where another officer was murdered in cold blood, one MIGHT think that federal and state government buildings would make sure that their respective U. S. flags were indeed flying at 'half staff'. Well.....such is STILL not the case at the Lauderdale County Courthouse, nor is it, I'm sad to say, at the Sheffield Post Office.

The county commission is in charge of the courthouse flag. Any time the flag is not handled properly, it should be reported to them. Also, another reader has indicated the flag was indeed at half-staff at the Florence Municipal Building when a reader questioned it. We realize that errors occur when many are in charge of the flag at various days and times, but if you see any breach in flag etiquette, be sure to report it to the head of administration for that building.

DHR Letter from Mark Davis

The below is a letter written by Mark Davis sent to Bob Maddox of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Alabama Child Support Advisory Committee. The Committee Meets on Friday morning July 25, 2014.


July 22, 2014

Mark D. Davis
[REDACTED]
Florence. Alabama 35633
[REDACTED]@icloud.com

Mr. Bob Maddox, Legal Division AOC
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
[REDATED]@alacourt.gov

Re: Advisory Committee, Child Support, July 25, 2014

Dear Mr. Maddox:

I have the following concerns about the state of Alabama??™s application of child support services, child support enforcement and application of Alabama Rule 32 ARJA as related to Federal Title IV-D funding.

I am a voter, Alabama citizen, and an active divorced parent to a 12-year old daughter. In 2002, when our daughter was 18 months old, I was awarded equal custody in the state of Tennessee on a four-day rotating basis and ordered to directly support our daughter. The Tennessee order was implemented consistent to Title IV-D mandates revised in 1997 of the Federal Public law 104-193. I have always fully supported my daughter willingly out of love for her. In 2006, after my daughter??™s mother and I moved to Alabama, and while the 2002 Tennessee judgment remained pending on remand from an appeal in Tennessee, the state of Alabama modified the Tennessee judgment without requiring the Tennessee judgment properly registered pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3A-101 et seq., mandated by Title IV-D of 42 USC 666 and Public Law 104-193.

The 2006 Alabama child support judgment was reversed by the Alabama Appellate Courts in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

In July 2012, I filed a federal complaint against three trial court judges, several employees within DHR, the local DHR attorneys and several local attorneys. The federal complaint was dismissed on immunity grounds and that decision was upheld by the 11th Circuit COA in November 2013.

In 2010, the Alabama DHR became involved in the private pending state court legal case to which the mother at all times had two private attorneys for legal representation.

In 2010, with the Alabama child support issue reversed and pending a hearing in the state trial court, the Alabama DHR was provided timely notice that the Tennessee judgment was not UIFSA registered.

At all times, including currently, the Lauderdale County Alabama DHR, Alabama DHR, Lauderdale County District Attorney Chris Connolly and/or AAG Jennifer Mims Bush have argued legal positions to the trial court, in briefs to the appellate courts, and to the State DHR hearing Officer Louise Shaddix in a state level DHR Administrative hearing indifferent to, and inconsistent with, federal Title IV-D law mandates.

A social worker at the Lauderdale County DHR explicitly advised Lauderdale DHR does not act without first seeking, and gaining approval from AAG Bush in individual cases such as mine.

I have multiple documents from my case showing not only is the Alabama DHR not honoring federal Title IV-D mandates, the Alabama DHR is not correctly training its social workers, the District Attorneys, the trial court judges, the appellate court judges and this committee.

In addition, and the purpose of this letter, Rule 32 ARJA conflicts with Alabama Code Section 30-3-150 et seq. Section 30-3-150 was enacted solely due to federal mandates of Title IV-D and Federal Public Law 104-193 for the state of Alabama to receive federal incentive funding. Records show the state of Alabama AOC and DHR are receiving such federal granted funding to implement alternative custody and support arrangements. However, the DHR and the AOC is not training judges and attorneys on this issue.

As for deviations from Rule 32 ARJA at (A)(1) states, “(a) Shared physical custody or visitation rights providing for periods of physical custody or care of children by the obligor parent substantially in excess of those customarily approved or ordered by the court… The existence of one or more of the reasons enumerated in this section does not require the court to deviate from the guidelines, but the reason or reasons may be considered in deciding whether to deviate from the guidelines…”

The Alabama appellate courts are not mandating trial judges or attorneys use parenting plans created with parental involvement on the issue of custody. Instead of making judicial determinations on the narrow facts of a situation that fosters two-parent involvement in children??™s lives, when the parents are no longer living together, absent an agreement by the parents, the trial courts order a “standard visitation schedule”. Despite local Rules have been abolished by the Supreme Court, every Alabama county uses a different standard visitation schedule. These local schedules are created by attorneys and local bar association, approved and used by the court, regardless of situations where one parent wants to be active in their child??™s lives. The appellate courts indicate any disagreement by the parents is a basis for not awarding joint physical custody or alternative parenting plan custody arrangements. This is contrary to the federal intent of Title IV-D that parents not the state should be making these decisions using parenting plans.

The conflict for parents is typically fostered by attorneys, general knowledge the state supports only one parent involvement that mandates fighting a court custody battle, and/or vague and difficult to understand restrictive standard visitation schedules. Often the pick-up and drop off times will vary for certain holidays during pending divorce and post-divorce. Or the schedule is written in a way not even attorneys can agree to its plain and ordinary meaning. This creates strife in the lives of the parents and children.

Federal Health and Human Services Data, Alabama DHR Data and creditable family dynamic research shows children are much better adjusted with two-parent involvement with the closer to equal time in the children??™s best interests when each parent is fit. The same data show Alabama??™s use of standard visitation arrangements is harmful to children and society.

Alabama DHR and US Department of Health and Human Services statistics reveal that children from one parent homes account for: 90% of homeless and runaway children; 85% of youths sitting in prison; 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger; 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers; 71% of pregnant teenagers; 71% of high school dropouts and 63% of youth suicides.

The state of Alabama since 1997 has accepted federal Title IV-D grant funding to implement alternative child custody arrangements and parenting plans by placing parents in charge of their children rather than the state. However, Rule 32 ARJA conflicts with Federal mandates. The DHR and AOC is not properly training judges on the importance of two parent involvement.

It appears the state presumes federal child support incentive funding will not arrive should the local courts mandate parents to have more than “standard visitation” with the non-custodial parent as Rule 32 describes or otherwise to order both parents to directly support their children.

In my case, the state of Tennessee honored the federal Title IV-D mandates. Alabama does appear to know what they are. The below shows Alabama DHR and AAG Jennifer Mims Bush is not properly training the DHR nor the judiciary. Facts show the DHR is taking actions to which no statutory or judicial authority has been granted by the legislature. Said acts and omissions are in direct violation to the state of Alabama??™s state plan 42 USC 654 filed with the Federal Government. This violates 42 USC 666, CFR 205.10, due process, equal protection and other federal laws.

Federal Title IV-D mandates citizens must be given a hearing by an independent judicial and/or administrative hearing officer. See 42 USC 666.

Mrs. Louise Shaddix, the DHR administrative hearing officer verbally agreed in a DHR hearing that everyone at DHR is well aware the Tennessee judgment in my case must be properly UIFSA registered before Alabama has legal authority to act. I have audio of her verbal statement.

Mrs. Shaddix admitted she is employed by the Alabama DHR, and her office is located in the DHR headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama. She indicates she has more than 30 years with DHR.

Despite Shaddix??™s verbal statements her administrative order affirmed all DHR acts and omissions in my case.

42 USC 654 and 42 USC 666, CFR 205.10 sets forth due hearing requirements that shall meet due process standards. See CFR 205.10 (“State plan (42 USC 654) under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI(AABD) of the Social Security Act shall provide for a system of hearings under which: (1) The single State agency responsible for the program shall be responsible for fulfillment of hearing provisions which “shall meet the due process standards set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), and other due process standards as set forth in 205.10.”).

The Alabama DHR, including Mrs. Shaddix in the administrative hearing, repeatedly indicated DHR is representing only the Mother. This position is not consistent with Alabama code Section 38-10-1.1 or an Ethics Opinion issued by the State Bar in 1996 that indicates the DHR only interest is in representing the states interests in the child. The same was provided to Shaddix and DHR.

As the facts of my case show, if the state has not paid monies for the direct benefit for the child – the state has no compelling interest to take any legal position inconsistent with federal mandates. Rather, it has a duty under law to advise the judiciary of the Title IV-D requirements including UIFSA mandates.

But, of course, the facts of my case show, the DHR doesn??™t know Title IV-D law, instead does what it wants with no accountability to anyone.

DHR Adverse Action Prior to Due Process Hearing

In December 2012, when the child support issue was pending on appeal in the Courts, the Lauderdale DHR social worker Judith Shelton took administrative action adverse to me prior to providing a due process administrative hearing. This is a federal mandate of the state plan 42 USC 654, 42 USC 666, CFR 205.10 that requires DHR to honor due process requirements of Goldberg v Kelly of the US Supreme Court.

DHR Adverse Acts Prior to Due Process Hearing

Specifically, Judith Shelton reported alleged child support arrears to the credit reporting agencies and issued tax-offsets. Although, I timely filed a due process administrative hearing request in December 2012 out of an abundant of caution because DHR is known to me based upon information and belief not to honor Federal Title IV-D mandates. At that time DHR was acting judicially in the courts. No administrative hearing was granted and the issues of credit reporting or offsets were not before the circuit court. I discovered said adverse acts by Ms. Shelton??™s own admission in a March 3, 2014 administrative hearing with Shaddix. Alabama and federal law show when an administrative hearing request is made a hearing must be given and no adverse action can be taken during the pending hearing request. The DHR Billing notices clearly indicate the same. No administrative hearing was granted on the December 2012 request. The Shaddix hearing was timely requested in July 2013 upon my receiving my very first child support billing notice from DHR. Yes, this is correct. I received no billing notices from DHR prior to and until July 2013. I had no prior notice from DHR of its December 2012 administrative acts until the March 2014 administrative hearing timely requested upon arrival of the first billing notice.

Credit Reporting of Arrears Not Codified by State Statute

As to the reporting to the credit agencies, the Alabama legislature never codified in statute for the reporting of child support arrears to the credit reporting agencies. The Alabama DHR is acting outside the scope of the Title IV-D, and Alabama law in violation of Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43.

The Alabama legislature codified every aspect of 1996 Federal Title IV-D mandates on child support enforcement except for the state reporting alleged arrearages to the credit reporting bureaus.

Title IV-D requires the states to first enact state law that supports Title IV-D. It does not create federal law for the states to enforce without authority from the state legislature.

State Law and State Plan Governs DHR Authority

This is shown by reviewing the Alabama State Plan filed with the federal government mandated by Title IV-D, 42 USC Section 654.

a. Example One:

The State Plan filed under 42 USC 654 shows Alabama elected not to enact a law requiring the use of procedures for enforcement of child support orders with respect to a child of minor parents, if the custodial parent is receiving welfare assistance under Part A of Title IV-D, that shall be enforceable, jointly and severally, against the parents of the non-custodial minor parent of such child in accordance with 42 USC 466(a)(18).

The state of Alabama legislature did not enact this particular Title IV-D mandate and it is not enforceable by the Alabama DHR.

b. Example Two:

The State Plan indicates it has in effect laws requiring the use of procedures authorizing withholding, or suspension or restriction of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses and recreational and sporting licenses in accordance with 42 USC 466(a)(16).

However, at the time the State Plan was approved the Ala. Code did not include “Sporting licenses”.

The State Plan notates this fact and said “Sporting licenses” will have to be added to the list of type of licenses and will require amending Alabama's license suspension act in the 1999 session.

c. Example Three:

The State Plan indicates Alabama has procedures in place on the reporting of arrearages.

The Alabama Code the DHR in its child support policy and procedural manual relies upon to grant it authority to report to the credit agencies is Section 38-10-7 enacted in 1979.

A further read of Section 38-10-7 said “(The) Court making the determination” …. “shall retain jurisdiction…”

Nowhere in Ala. Code Section 38-10-7 does it expressly mention credit reporting of arrears or the granting DHR the authority to automatically take enforce actions without court authority.

The consumer credit reporting section of Title IV-D Law 42 USC 666 was not enacted by the federal government until 1997. See Public Law 104-193.

It is a legal impossibility for the DHR to presume the Alabama Legislature intended for Ala. Code Section 38-10-7 to replace the Legislature??™s refusal to enact a 1997 provision of Title IV-D Section 466(a)(7).

It is not within the providence of the Alabama DHR to act as a legislative or judicial body. Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43. Also see US Constitution Art. I, Section 1; Art. II, Section 1; Art. III, Section 1. Also cnf. Ex parte Christopher, (1120387) ___So.3d___ (2013).

DHR Failures to Follow Federal Title IV-D Mandates

Now, back to DHR failures to follow federal mandates. In 2010, 2011, 2012, December 2013 and January 2014, the undersigned requested to view the entire case file the Alabama DHR has on me and our daughter. The DHR refused.

The Lauderdale DHR social worker advised me that Jennifer Mims Bush advised her not to allow review of the case file, although, I had subpoenaed the case file quoting federal case law and US Supreme Court case law of my due process right to view the file. Said subpoena was squashed by the Alabama DHR Hearing officer Louise Shaddix. Shaddix indicated I didn??™t have a right to view my case file. Although, the State Plan 42 USC 654 due process mandates of CFR 205.10 said I have a right to review the entire case file.

In the Administrative hearing Lauderdale DA Chris Connolly said, “We are in the 11th Circuit, I don??™t have to honor 8th Circuit law” which I had provided to the DHR to support my federal legal rights to view the file.

The 8th federal circuit held a plaintiff should have a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense subject to CFR 205.10 due process safeguards. Page v. Preisser, 585 F. 2d 336, 341 (8th Cir. 1978)(“Reasonably construed, 45 C.F.R. § 205.10 "plainly entitles the [recipients] to examine the entire contents of their files prior to and during an appeals hearing.").

Because a state chose, voluntarily, to participate in the federal program. In doing so, it is obliged, in promulgating regulations, to conform to federal regulations. See Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U.S. at 253. Otherwise the acts are void under the supremacy clause.

In my case, as quoted to the DHR, including Jennifer Mims Bush, the US Supreme Court has specifically held that, under the Supremacy Clause, federal Spending Clause legislation trumps conflicting state statutes or regulations. See Blum v. Bacon, 457 US 132, 145-46, (1982) (holding the provisions of a New York welfare program that conflicted with federal regulations under the Social Security Act invalid under the Supremacy Clause); Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 604 (1972) (holding a California regulation that conflicted with the Social Security Act invalid under the Supremacy Clause); Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 285 (1971) (holding an Illinois statute and regulation that conflicted with the Social Security Act invalid under the Supremacy Clause). The 8th Circuit Court applied these cases to invalidate state regulations under the Supremacy Clause. Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332, 337 (8th Cir.1991) (invalidating a Missouri regulation under the Supremacy Clause because it conflicted with federal regulations under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 USC §§ 601-615 (1988)), cert. denied, 503 US 960 (1992).

The above cases stand for the proposition that the Supremacy Clause indeed applies to Spending Clause enactments and makes them supreme when challenged by conflicting state enactments. Also see King v. Smith, 392 US 309, 316, 326-27 (1968) ("once a state has accepted federal funds, it is bound by the strings that accompany them").

In June 2013, the DHR Lauderdale District Attorney Chris Connolly filed a petition for contempt in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court against me. The contempt petition indicated I was in contempt of an April 5, 2013 order. All issues of the April 5, 2013 order were on appeal in the Alabama Appellate Courts when the DHR filed its contempt petition in the circuit court.

Despite the above stated Title IV-D, 42 USC 654, CFR 205.10 and Goldberg v Kelly due process violations and contrary to law and regulation, the DHR sought, and the circuit court determined on September 17, 2013, I was in contempt for 60 months and jailed me for 60 days. Although, I provided receipts of direct expenses expended on the child for more than $23,000.

Remember during this time the Alabama child support issue had been reversed multiple times and the only valid order, the Tennessee order that ordered me to directly support our child. The Tennessee order has never been UIFSA registered in Alabama in accordance to 42 USC 666. The record shows state has never paid any monies for the child.

Also, remember the trial court is solely trained by the Alabama DHR on Title IV-D mandates under contract with the AOC.

In my case, the Alabama DHR has repeatedly taken legal positions without affording me an independent hearing.

The DHR has been and is acting contrary to Title IV-D mandates in the taking of legal positions with the trial court and appellate courts that are contrary to federal mandates.

These issues are not presented for resolution by the committee. They are presented to show the committee that the state of Alabama DHR - trained by Jennifer Mims Bush - and the AOC contract with the DHR, and its acts and omissions are out of compliance with Title IV-D mandates on multiple issues.

CONCLUSION

The Alabama AOC receives Federal Title IV-D incentive funding. The AOC has a contract with the Alabama DHR on child support issues, which in turn goes to the County level DHR. My case file shows more than one case number for only one child. I have not been afforded due process protections that Alabama agreed with the federal government. I have not been allowed to review my case file. DHR has taken adverse action to me without affording me a hearing as I timely requested. DHR is not authorized by Alabama statute to report child support arrears to the credit reporting agencies.

The problem: there is no accountability. The judicial branch automatically defers to the executive branch Alabama DHR and Jennifer Mims Bush. The DHR and Jennifer Mims Bush does not honor federal Title IV-D mandates. Nor does the DHR properly inform those placed in charged to educating. Said acts and omissions are violating the separation of powers clause of the Alabama and US Constitutions and the supremacy clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

The state of Alabama out of compliance with Title IV-D mandates and these issues must be addressed. The starting point is making Rule 32 ARJA consistent with Alabama Code 30-3-150 et seq. enacted to receive federal funding under Federal Public Law 104-193. That is to do away with standard visitation schedules throughout the state and mandate Rule 32 provide for alternative child custody arrangements and alternative child support orders.

Thank you for your consideration of the above referenced facts and I look forward to hearing from the committee in a timely manner.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Mark D. Davis________________________
Mark D. Davis

XC:

Gordon Bailey, Chairman,
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Judge Aubrey Ford, Jr., Co-Chairman
Jennifer Mims Bush, DHR Legal Counsel
Faye Nelson, Alabama Child Support Director
Angela Campbell, DHR Program Mgr Mobile County
Penny Davis, Alabama Law Institute
Mr. James D. Jefferies, Esq,
Mary Moore, Circuit Clerk Perry County, Alabama
Julia Kimbrough, Attorney Shelby County, Alabama
Judge Julie Palmer, Circuit Judge Jefferson County, Alabama
Judge Billy Bell, Circuit Judge Madison County, Alabama
Mr. Stephen Wright, Esq.
Mr. Stephen R. Arnold, Esq.
Mr. Scott Hoyemm Alabama Administrative Office of Courts
Mr. Alex W. Jackson, Esq. Alabama Supreme Court
Michael Polemeni
Ms. Faye Nelson, Child Support Enforcement Division, Alabama DHR

Alabama Senator Paul Sanford
Alabama Senator Cam Ward

Mary Sell, Florence Times Daily
Josh Moon, Montgomery Advertiser
CBS 8 News Montgomery
ABC 32 News Montgomery
WSFA 12 News Montgomery
FOX News Channel
US Health and Human Services Office of Children and Families
US Congressman Mo Brooks

*****

We wonder if we'll be seeing any of this in the TimesDaily?



Shoalanda

One Cause of Fatherless Homes...

#1 cause of fatherless homes and one parent involvement in Alabama?

The Supreme Court of Alabama is composed of a chief justice and eight associate justices.

How can one judge clearly cite supporting statues and fundamental protected rights and eight other judges ignore such plain language.

The danger of rubber stamping trial court ruling!  Children with restrictive contact with one of their biological parents account for 63% of youth suicides, 75% juvenile drug abuse, 85% of youths in prison, 71% of school dropouts, 71% of teen pregnancies and 90% of homeless runaway children. Source: Ala. DHR and US Department of Health and Human Services.

Alabama is currently ranked 44th among the 50 states in overall child well-being, based on measures in four categories – (health, education, economic well-being, and family and community).

Approximately 40,000 children in Alabama are annually subjected to child custody determination (court orders that limit children to only 48-54 hours twice a month to visit with one of their parents - this equates to only 4 years out of 19 years of the child's minority).

Surprisingly the #1 cause of fatherless home is court ordered and not the stereotype of deadbeats you so often hear about in the media and from organizations that profit and advocate for children spending time with only one of their parents.

*****

The above article was sent to us by Kenneth Pascal. We, as well as others, have been criticized for using the term "fatherless child." If you don't want to use the term, you don't have to, but if a child has no father present in the home...or there when he needs it, he is essentially fatherless. Think about it.



Shoalanda

Catching Up with Mark Davis

We've received the following communication from Mark Davis. We have his permission to publish it in toto and unedited:

I filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about Alabama DHR reporting me to the credit reporting agencies when there is no Alabama statute that grants it.

The complaint was forwarded to the federal government's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov).

Word arrived today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now has an active investigation regarding the issue.



Also there was a state level hearing with the DHR on their acting adverse to me.

As I have said since 2010, federal regulations mandate the previous Tennessee child support judgment that ordered me to directly support our daughter be registered in Alabama in accordance to a particular mandate.

The state hearing officer Louise Shaddix verbally agreed with me on this issue and said "everyone at DHR knows well that an out of state judgment must be registered in Alabama."

Well, that was never done.

This means my being jailed was illegal.  I am fully supporting Katie consistent with the only valid court order... the Tenn order.

Although, the hearing officer will not issue an order for 30 days, I suspect she might cover for DHR. She is employed by DHR.

Another federal violation by the DHR  is that Federal law indicates I am to have an independent hearing by an independent hearing officer.

I have attached a written summary of the issues addressed in the DHR hearing. The summary includes quotes from the Alabama child support and procedures manual showing the DHR fraudulent failures.

I have redacted personal information including my daughters name. You have my permission to publish it, either as a whole or in sections.

This involves public monies and the public should know about it.

Finally, the federal regulation regarding an administrative hearing CFR 205.10 said that I am entitled to view "all documents" in the DHR case file prior to the hearing. I have requested to review the case file since December 2013.

Chris Connolly objected and said that I am not entitled to view it. The hearing officer agreed indicating the file is "confidential".

The 8th federal circuit court of appeals quoting the US supreme court said when Alabama agreed to accepted federal funding it is mandated to follow federal regulations regardless of the state agency policies, otherwise the state agency is violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. See the first page of the summary.

Chris Connolly's response on my viewing the DHR case file is that he is not required to follow 8th federal circuit case law. Connolly said we are in the 11th federal circuit. Never mind, the 8th circuit is quoting the US Supreme Court.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men. Yet, Chris Connolly is of the opinion he is above the law.

*****

We welcome comments on Alabama DHR!



Shoalanda

How to Fight DHR?

How do you fight the Alabama Department of Human Resources? The answer for most, is that you can’t. Why? Because it requires both the know-how and the resources, and those with both are rarely the targets of DHR.

When we first began this blog, we knew little of the workings of DHR. We just assumed that those children taken from their biological parents were guilty of some heinous crimes...and we assumed that was the spurious source of most complaints against DHR.

Why has our opinion of DHR changed over the years? It changed with the realization there is no rhyme or reason to most DHR actions. It changed when we realized that DHR actually profited financially when families were split up. It changed when we saw the abuse close up and personal and realized how many innocent families were hurt.

It certainly changed when we became friends with Mark Davis and witnessed his fight against the system that was supposed to protect his daughter, but in reality has caused her more damage than any child should have to suffer. We frequently post editorials from those involved in these fights. Keep sending them.

We also frequently receive requests for either information on how to fight DHR or perhaps even requests to actually help in this fight. No one who blogs here is an attorney, and rest assured an attorney is what you need. Make sure the attorney is well versed in child custody laws in the state (in other words, don’t use your second-cousin the patent attorney), but is not a part of any local good ol’ boy system. The latter may be harder than you would think.

Someone out there has to have both the stamina, funds, and common sense to force an overhaul of these current laws. Let’s hope it comes soon.

Shoalanda

Alabama DHR and Your Credit

Below is a letter written by our friend Mark Davis to three Alabama legislators. The letter is long, but extremely interesting:

The Consumer Credit Reporting of Purported Child Support Arrears by DHR is not Codified by Alabama Legislature.

The DHR is acting outside the scope of Alabama law.

The Legislature never codified this issue.

It appears that the DHR is acting as a Legislative body without legal authority.

See Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43, “In the government of this state, except in the instances in this Constitution hereinafter expressly directed or permitted, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

The Alabama legislature codified every aspect of Federal Title IV-D mandates on child support enforcement except for the state reporting alleged arrearages to the credit reporting bureaus.

Title IV-D requires the states to first enact state law that supports Title IV-D. It does not create federal law for the states to enforce without authority from the state legislature.

This is shown by reviewing the Alabama State Plan filed with the federal government mandated by Title IV-D, 42 USC Section 654.

Example One: The State elected NOT to enact a law requiring the use of procedures for enforcement of child support orders with respect to a child of minor parents, if the custodial parent is receiving welfare assistance under Part A of Title IV-D, that shall be enforceable, jointly and severally, against the parents of the noncustodial minor parent of such child in accordance with 42 USC 466(a)(18). See “Exhibit 1” attached hereto showing the state plan did not approve the federal mandate because "legislation did not pass".

Example Two: The State has in effect laws requiring the use of procedures for authorizing withholding, or suspension or restriction of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses and recreational and sporting licenses in accordance with 42 USC 466(a)(16). However, at the time the State Plan was approved the Ala. Code did not include “Sporting licenses”. The State Plan notates this fact and said “Sporting licenses” will have to be added to the list of type of licenses and will require amending Alabama's license suspension act in the 1999 session. See “Exhibit 2”

Exhibit 3 shows the State Plan Alabama filed with the federal government on reporting arrearages. The Plan indicates Alabama has procedures in place. However, this is untrue.  This can be considered felony fraud upon the federal government. See attached President Obama’s Executive Orders 13519 and 13520.

The DHR Child Support Policy and Procedures Manual on Reporting Arrearages to the Credit Bureaus.

Chapter 15 (Exhibit 4) addresses consumer credit reporting and here is the DHR legal basis:

9.7.2 LEGAL BASIS

9.7.2.a State Code

Code of Alabama 1975, as amended, Section38-10-7 allows DHR to “take appropriate action under federal and State laws...to assure that the responsible person...owing an obligation of support provide support, including...civil or criminal actions...to enforce support obligations.”

9.7.2.b Federal Regulations

The Consumer Credit Reporting is governed by the Consumer Credit Protection Act, at 15 U.S.C. Section1680 et seq. 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(7) authorizes State IV-D child support agencies to report child support arrearages to credit bureaus. It requires that states have procedures to report periodically to consumer reporting agencies the name of any noncustodial parent who is delinquent in the payment of support and the amount of overdue support owed by such parent. Procedures must ensure that reporting takes place only after the noncustodial parent has been afforded all due process required under State law, including notice and a reasonable opportunity to contest the accuracy of the information. (Emphasis Added).

Here is the full version of Ala. Code, 1975, Section 38-10-7:

“Institution of actions for enforcement of child support obligations, etc.

"(a) Whenever anyone owing the obligation of support has failed to provide support, and application is made to the department for support services as may be provided pursuant to the requirements of Title IV-D or for aid, the department, and including the district attorney when providing services for the department, may take appropriate action under this article, or any other appropriate state and federal statutes, to assure that the responsible person or persons owing the obligation of support provide support, including, but not limited to, civil or criminal actions to determine parentage or to establish, modify, or enforce support obligations. All actions to determine parentage or to establish, modify, or enforce support obligations may be brought in either the juvenile court or district court or the circuit court or appropriate federal court, and all presently existing statutes are hereby amended to provide that the juvenile courts and district courts and the circuit courts shall have the concurrent jurisdiction of actions involving parentage, desertion, nonsupport, or support.

"(b) The court making the determination of parentage, or establishing, modifying, or enforcing support, unless otherwise provided by law, shall retain jurisdiction to enforce or modify prior orders of the court."

Id.

No where in Section 38-10-7 does it expressly mention credit reporting. 38-10-7 was written and codified in the Alabama Child Support Act of 1979.

Consumer credit reporting was not mandated in Title IV-D until 1997.

There is no way the DHR can presume the Legislature intended Section 38-10-7 to replace the Legislature’s refusal to enact the 1997 Title IV-D provisions of reporting alleged arrearages to credit reporting bureaus.

It is not within the providence of the Alabama DHR to act as a legislative body. Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43.

Also, it is not within the providence of the DHR to presume acquiescence by the Legislature due to inaction Legislative with DHR policy of reporting alleged child support arrearages.

The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this issue in October 2013 decision of Ex parte Christopher, (1120387) ---So.3d--- (2013).

In the Christopher Court it was argued that it was presumed the legislature acquiesced to the judicial branch because the legislature had not acted in 24 years of the judicial branch mandating the payment of college education of child beyond the age of majority by divorced parents.

Christopher quoting the Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43 said,

“In Alabama, legislation cannot originate with the judiciary."

“Instead, "The legislative power shall be vested in a legislature, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives." See Ala. Constitution, rt. IV, Section 44.

"No law shall be passed except by bill...." Ala. Constitution Art. IV, Section 61.

“And no bill shall become a law unless first referred to and acted upon by a standing committee of each house. Ala. Constitution Art. IV, Section 62.

“Additionally, no bill shall become a law unless approved by a recorded majority vote in each house. Ala. Constitution Art. IV, Section 63.

“Adoption of amendments also requires a recorded majority vote. Ala. Constitution Art. IV, Section 64.

“Finally, "Every bill which shall have passed both houses of the legislature ... shall be presented to the governor" for signature. Ala. Constitution Art. V, Section 125.”

The Christopher Court goes to say,

“Courts do not make law. No law can be enacted or amended apart from the constitutionally mandated procedure, known as bicameralism and presentment. (noting the "bicameralism and presentment requirements of Art. I" of the United States Constitution).

“Nowhere in the Alabama Constitution is provision made for the judiciary to initiate legislation that then automatically becomes law when not affirmatively vetoed by the legislature within a prescribed period. This presumed lawmaking authority of the judiciary has some resemblance to the provision for a bill to become a law by gubernatorial silence. But obviously the judiciary has no power to translate itself into the shoes of the legislature and then further to clothe the legislature with a veto authority over its unauthorized enactments.”

“Any act of the legislature that does not follow the procedures required by the Constitution is, "as a law, wholly void, a mere nullity, and imposes no legal obligation on any body.". Accordingly, the legislature cannot acquiesce to a lawmaking process devised by the judiciary ex cathedra that has no authorization in the Constitution." The power to legislate rests exclusively with the legislature ... [which] cannot delegate that power." Opinion of the Justices No. 145, 263 Ala. 153, 155, 81 So. 2d 697, 698-99 (1955) (some citations omitted)”).

The above holds true the DHR cannot create legislation. The DHR is acting without any legal authority on this issue.

It is federal criminal fraud – a felony - to provide false documentation to the Federal government for federal incentive funding.

I have always fully supported my only child out of love for her.

Since August 2013, the DHR is reporting inaccurate and false, and misleading child support arrearages on my consumer credit bureau reports. Although in June 2013 I timely requested a hearing with DHR on the issue.

The DHR notices indicate reporting will not take place until after a hearing has been held. A hearing was scheduled today, 02/03/14, but the state hearing officer from Montgomery failed to show up in Florence, Alabama.

The above is also a violation to the Federal Debt Collection Protection Act (FDCPA)

FDCPA 15 USC Section 1692(e) “prohibits debt collectors from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” as well as the use of “unfair or unconscionable means of collection.”

DHR is acting without authority granted it by the Legislature. Said Acts are harming vested liberty interest rights of thousands of Alabama parents which negatively impact children and society.

*****

If you've been treated unfairly by DHR, we urge you to fight back...




Shoalanda

DHR Doesn't Practice "Alabama First?"

Several months ago we were asked to provide information on a certified Tennessee charity, Turning Leaf Counseling and Educating Services Inc. This entity is run by a Rascaltown, Tennessee, resident Angel Gieske. Ms. Gieske's involvement with local divorce/child custody cases seems twofold.

Counseling? Does Gieske provide counseling for a fee? If so, she would appear to be in violation of the law. She has already been taken to court in Tennessee for practicing without a license and lost, having to pay what we would consider a huge fine.

Drug testing? Several have asked what qualifies Gieske to drug test. This question is one that could, or could not, be slightly humorous. Anyone can buy a drug testing kit. Many employers do just that and regularly test their employees.

Yet drug testing can be highly specialized. Correct hand washing (to remove contaminants from money, etc.), special toilets with limited running water, sealed containers, and documented chain of custody are ideal. Yes, that costs money, so many agencies go with cheaper options.

Does Angel Gieske work as a contract employee? Was no Alabama resident available for this position? These are Lauderdale County and state tax funds that pay for these services. We should demand accountability in all areas of employment and spending.

If you have information concerning any unqualified employees of DHR, illegal employment, or just information related to Turning Leaf Counseling, please contact us via e-mail. Also please contact the website Stop DHR Corruption.

Editor's note: Many small communities just across the Tennessee state line use Alabama mailing addresses. This could be the case with Gieske's legal address. DHR could have hired her assuming she lived in Alabama. In this case it would be hard to prove malfeasance or fraud in her initial employment.

Related post: Who is Angel Geiske?



Shoalanda

Title IV-D and Child Support Enforcement

Is it the child's best interest or all about money for the state of Alabama?

Congress blames one parent for the child support problem in this country, by calling them "deadbeat parents" (even though it has been proven through studies and statistical analysis that less than 5% are true deadbeats) rather than admit its own dubious contribution to the suffering of America 's children. Politicians promulgate the myth that they are helping children through federal and state welfare entitlement programs. It is, in fact, these very programs which are responsible for the out of control rampage against children. Here is how the scam works.

The federal government levies taxes against citizens to redistribute as welfare entitlements among needy applicants. Congress created the Social Security Act, a section of which is called Title IV. Title IV describes how tax dollars will be distributed among the States to subsidize their individual welfare programs. In order for States to tap into the federal treasure chest, containing billions of dollars, they must demonstrate that they are complying with Title IV mandates to collect child support revenues. In other words, to get money from the federal government, each State must become a child support collection and reporting agency.

Every unwed or single parent seeking welfare assistance must disclose on the application the identities of the other parent of the children and how much child support the other parent has been ordered by a family court to pay. The parent must also commit to continuously reporting the other parents payments so that the State can count the money as "collected" to the federal government's Office of Child Support Enforcement. As with all bureaucracies, this process has developed into a monstrosity that chews up and spits out the very people it was designed to help.

States have huge financial incentives to increase the amount of child support it can report to the federal government as "collected".

To increase collection efforts, States engage in the immoral practice of dividing children from both parents in family courts.

Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to one parent in 80%-90% of all custody cases, even when the other parent is determined to be just as suitable and fit to raise the child?

It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent.

This means that the State "collects" less child support if parents share equal custody.

By prohibiting each parent from having equal custody and time with their children, the State's child support coffers are increased and federal dollars are received.

Opponents try to paint one loving parent as "deadbeat parent" for daring to challenge the one parent-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of most parents is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support. Any parent that cares about his/her child will do everything in their power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from one parent by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of that parent’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect - even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the  parent without custody is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration. The truth is that most parents don't care about the financial aspects of these family court verdicts nearly as much as they care about having their time with their children eliminated for nefarious government purposes.

The root of this evil is a State-level addiction to federal tax dollars being doled out as entitlement monies by a monolithic federal government. In the wake of this horror are millions of children drowning for lack of the care, guidance, and companionship of one parent. Statistics and empirical evidence universally confirm that children forcibly separated from one parent by family courts are considerably more likely to suffer anxiety and depression, develop drug addiction, engage in risky sexual activity, break the law, and commit suicide. This travesty must end.

Unconstitutional federal bureaucracy creates many of the societal ills it claims to be trying to solve. There are several steps incremental steps that could be taken to restore a child's right to the companionship of both parents. For example, citizens should insist that States abide by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No father should be automatically deprived of his fundamental right to the custody of his children without due process of law. Being a divorced parent is not a crime.  Divorce does not make a parent unfit!  Absent a finding of true danger from a parent, family courts should order shared parenting rights and equal time sharing for divorcing parents. These rights are fundamental and should not be abridged. The automatic presumption of custody-to-only one parent is unconstitutional.

The history of America is brim with examples of the federal government denying basic rights to its citizens. Women were denied the right to vote until the women's suffrage movement secured the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Black Americans also were denied the right to vote and suffered myriad other cruel and humiliating indignities under the law until the civil rights movement brought about desegregation, put an end to Jim Crow legislation and compelled the enactment of the 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution. In each of these examples, society was slow to recognize that a problem even existed or that some of our laws were unjust. It took considerable time, concerted effort, self-sacrifice and perhaps even divine providence to realign concurrent societal paradigms with the principles of liberty and justice for all.



Shoalanda

How is the State of Alabama Spending YOUR Money?

Getting value for money--it's something most of us have been taught from our youth. Yet it seems to be a concept with which those connected to Alabama government are unfamiliar. Our friend Mark Davis recently called our attention to an article in the Alabama Family Rights Association newsletter.

For 2008, the last year for which such data are available, an estimated minimum of 1.31 million individuals (children, parents, guardians) were affected by legal rulings established by Alabama family courts. During that year, DHR received over 143K in Federal funding to assist the state in complying with the Alabama Access and Parenting Program. Just what was accomplished? From state reports:

The Alabama Department of Human Resources show only 677 parents and 695 children were involved in the Alabama Access and Visitation Programs for FY 2008. Further, the government data shows only 217 divorced parents and 246 unmarried parents were served.

Out of these numbers the services provided accounted for only 165 mediation services, 7 Counseling services, 117 Parent Education, 250 Supervised Visitation, 37 Neutral Drop-off sites, and only 26 parenting plans developed.

The question asked and unanswered: Why are there 1,577,765 persons subject to child custody judgments in the state of Alabama and only 26 parenting plans implemented.

We hardly know which is worse--the lack of oversight in these programs or the number of families involved--families torn apart and in which children suffer...

*****

Anyone recognize any of these children from Patton Elementary School in Florence? This eBay listing is described as: Patton Elementary School, Florence, Alabama class picture. From the estate of Ann Huston Acker (Mrs. Guy Acker). Unknown date. This picture may be an old reprint. It is 5" x 7". I believe Mrs. Acker and her sister Miss Ellie Huston were teachers at this school. There is no writing on the back of the picture to identify the students or their teacher. Link



Shoalanda