// -->
Petition for Investigation into Child Welfare Agency
Visitation Guidelines for Parents with Children in Foster Care
General Guidelines of the CPS Process in Dependency Court
Establishing a Baseline of Your Child's Condition Before He is Seized by the State
An Analysis of Actual Practice in Child Dependency Cases
A Comparative Analysis of the Nazi Lebensborn Programs and Contemporary American Child Welfare
Companion Chart to Comparative Analysis of Nazi Lebensborn Program
Protecting Your Family's Privacy in General and in the Public School Setting
Objection to Closed Court Hearing
What happens when the court orders you to leave a child welfare hearing? You have the right to object to that order. This document provides the arguments.
Objection to Closed Hearing
Objection to Closed Hearing
Audio/Video Recording in CPS Case
Arguments that stopped Termination of Parental Rights
First Amendment and some Fifth Amendment arguments that stopped the petition for Termination of Parental rights dead in its tracks. The judge read this document and told the mother ‘you choose between your husband and your son. Because if you choose your husband, you’ll never seen your son again.’ Four weeks later the boy was back home and the case was closed - no comments given by DHHS or the court. Strange? Not really, the judge absolutely could not rule on the questions in the motion, so he capitulated and ordered the department (behind closed doors) to make sure he didn’t have to respond to the motion. No official ruling, but if you have your child, you win. This document is several years old, and the law may have changed.
Comments: there are some analytical errors in this document, some arguments that are not on target. We do not recommend using this in your case as presented here. However, we feel it is a valuable sample of how to present targeted arguments to the court without being antagonistic or uncooperative.
Challenge to Case Plan That Resulted in Reunification
Comments: there are some analytical errors in this document, some arguments that are not on target. We do not recommend using this in your case as presented here. However, we feel it is a valuable sample of how to present targeted arguments to the court without being antagonistic or uncooperative.
Challenge to Case Plan That Resulted in Reunification
Objection to Court Appointed Counsel for conflict of interest
Objection to Court Appointed counsel paid under contract where contract fees are far below reasonable and customary fees. Colorado lawyers are only paid $750 for 2 years of representation for a respondent parent.
Under the existing scheme in Colorado, court appointed counsel must also refund part of the fee if the case is resolved prior to the adjudication phase. If they can extend the adjudication beyond the statutory sixty days, they get to keep the entire fee. This often results in the attorney seeking or agreeing to continuances, especially if the parent demands a contested adjudicatory hearing. Court appointed counsel are not paid enough to properly prepare and vigorously represent the parent's legal interests at the adjudicatory hearing, and will pressure the parent to admit to the petition, thereby eliminating the need for the trial. Then, if court-appointed counsel can delay the resolution of the case until the permanency planning phase, and the agency files a petition for termination of parental rights, court-appointed counsel receives another $700+ to represent the parent during the termination phase.
This scheme provides significant financial disincentives to properly represent the legal interest of the parents vigorously or effectively. Oh, the Guardians ad litem operate under similar financial disincentives. Is it any wonder less that one tenth of one percent of these cases ever go to adjudicatory hearings?
Objection to Court-Appointed Attorney Under Contract Scheme
Under the existing scheme in Colorado, court appointed counsel must also refund part of the fee if the case is resolved prior to the adjudication phase. If they can extend the adjudication beyond the statutory sixty days, they get to keep the entire fee. This often results in the attorney seeking or agreeing to continuances, especially if the parent demands a contested adjudicatory hearing. Court appointed counsel are not paid enough to properly prepare and vigorously represent the parent's legal interests at the adjudicatory hearing, and will pressure the parent to admit to the petition, thereby eliminating the need for the trial. Then, if court-appointed counsel can delay the resolution of the case until the permanency planning phase, and the agency files a petition for termination of parental rights, court-appointed counsel receives another $700+ to represent the parent during the termination phase.
This scheme provides significant financial disincentives to properly represent the legal interest of the parents vigorously or effectively. Oh, the Guardians ad litem operate under similar financial disincentives. Is it any wonder less that one tenth of one percent of these cases ever go to adjudicatory hearings?
Objection to Court-Appointed Attorney Under Contract Scheme