Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hartford, CT - DCF to Start Engaging In Criminal Trespassing

Expand Messages
  • Connecticut DCF Watch
    August 30, 2006 DCF to Start Engaging In Criminal Trespassing By: Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President Connecticut DCF Watch Hartford, CT - Over the next four
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      August 30, 2006
       
      DCF to Start Engaging In Criminal Trespassing
       
      By: Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President
      Connecticut DCF Watch
       
      Hartford, CT - Over the next four weeks, DCF and its employees will start engaging in governmental intrusion of the highest sort which is criminal trespassing without a lawful warrant.  Without lawful warrants or lawful complaints of child neglect, DCF employees will start trespassing on private camp grounds harassing families who are lawfully camping.
       
      Parents have the lawful right to camp before and during the school year.  DCF will attempt like always to falsely charge parents with educational neglect just because families are on vacation.  Homeschoolers are exempt from DCF and Boards of education intrusions as ruled by the federal courts.
       
      There is also an equal protection violations because DCF employees also go on vacation during the school year.  DCF has two unlawful standards, one for them and one for everyone else.
       
      Unless DCF has a credible complaint about neglect or abuse, they can not go on "fishing expeditions" onto private property.  The federal courts have repeatedly ruled that only a parent can act in the best interest of the child, not DCF.  There must be a ruling of parental unfitness in order for the state to intervene and act in the best interest of the child.  And as long as their is one fit parent, DCF can not interfere with parental decisions.
       
      For example, the campground called Gentiles in Plymouth Connecticut have told CT DCF Watch that DCF employees intimidate and threaten the owners to waive their 4th Amendment rights or fear the lost of their business.  Their lied to by DCF workers that they have a right to enter anyone's camp site which is also protected by the 4th and 14th Amendment.  Parents are told at the campground by the owners they must be out by the 1st of September even though the campground is open all year round.  This unlawful and illegal behavior on the part of DCF must cease and desist.
       
      For those rulings and more, we have attached our must up-to-date handbook which contain rulings against Child Protection and in favor of the family.  The following is an excerpt from that.
       
      In conclusion, DCF has NO legal basis to trespass on private property without a lawful warrant supported by "probable cause" and "imminent physical danger" to the child as ruled by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Circuit courts.
       
      The decision in the case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) will affect the manner in which law enforcement and Child Protective Services (“CPS”) investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect are conducted.  The decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the practice of a “no prior consent” interview of a child will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.   According to the Court, the investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances,” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly the owner of the private property.
       
      The mere possibility or risk of harm does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child.  Hurlman v. Rice, (2nd Cir. 1991)
       
      A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness.  Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
       
      Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, President
      Special Family Advocate
      Connecticut DCF Watch
      P.O. Box 3005
      Bristol, CT 06011-3005
      860-833-4127
      Admin@...
      www.connecticutDCFwatch.com
       
      P.S. Check out our web site for the FREE handbook on parental rights.  There is also a manual on "reasonable efforts" with sections for Attorneys, Judges and Agencies.
       
      (WE AT CONNECTICUT DCF WATCH ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND ARE UNABLE TO OFFER ANY LEGAL ADVICE.  ANY INFORMATION OR OPINIONS CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL OR FROM CT DCF WATCH AND ITS MEMBERS IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.  IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE ANY INFORMATION, YOU DO SO BY YOUR OWN CHOICE, CONVICTION AND RISK.  WE ONLY OFFER UP AN OPINION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.  WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DECISIONS YOU CHOOSE TO MAKE OR FAIL TO MAKE.  BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS, SEEK LEGAL ADVISE FROM AN ATTORNEY IN THE AREA OF LAW YOU WISH TO PURSUE.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.