Michigan Court Of Appeals Video Hearing On CPS Termination Of Parental Rights - (a.k.a. Trafficking Tiny Humans By Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare Featuring Vivek Sankaran

The case is about a mother about to have her rights terminated to her ninth child.

The man judge said,  "she should know how this works since she lost her eight previous kids."

So, I guess the case is about the attorney and, I shall assume the court, that the mother was not advised of her civil rights in the course of her Child Protective Services case.

{this is the point where I am going to walk away for a few moments to ground myself in that glorious chi, so I do not say anything too disparigning about these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Each and everyone one of these individuals need to fall from the heavens.

These people refuse to accept that Michigan lies, promulgates lies through child welfare propaganda for the purposes of selling tiny human chattel.

When a mother has a child snatched and sold by the State, they typically will have another child to fill that void.

In Michigan, a previous termination of parental rights is automatic grounds for termination to all posterity of the mother, and sometimes the father, for all eternity.

This case is about a mother who was poor and in need of help she never received because someone checked that "reasonable efforts" box.

If these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) cannot even mention fraud upon the court in the generation of false claims to be published in the public record, then how the hell can the mother understand.

Why do these parents take pleas?

Because it ends the suffering of her children's hopes of going home so they can move on to a life of being drugged, raped, tortured, and lab rated.

That is exactly what they did to Ricky Holland's original parent.

Ricky Holland: Murdered By False Claims In Child Welfare

Vivek Sankaran is grooming an army to continue cloaking the Michigan industry of trafficking tiny humans because he refuses to mention the fraud and corruption.

Interestingly, the next case is being adjudicated under the same transposable model in the termination of parental rights, in SNAP licensing.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

When Ukrainian Adoptions Go Horribly Wrong

I wonder which international christian adoption agency facilitated this transaction and how much was involved.

This sounds like a private adoption because it is regulated under private law because they do private stuff, particularly in the Ukraine.

How come the couple did not call CPS to surrender the girl and voluntarily terminate their parental rights?

Were there services in place?

There is much more to this story and I bet there are many, many other like this.

Sometimes you can see them walking the streets.

Couple accused of abandoning adopted daughter, 11, claims she was actually 22-year-old scammer

Couple accused of abandoning adopted daughter, 11, claims she was actually 22-year-old scammer
The couple is accused of renting an apartment for the girl and moving to Canada. They claim that she is actually an adult and that the adoption was a 'scam.'

LAFAYETTE, Ind. - An Indiana couple accused of abandoning their 11-year-old adopted daughter claims she was actually a 22-year-old woman with a form of dwarfism who is a diagnosed psychopath and sociopath, according to reports.

Michael Barnett, 43, and his now ex-wife Kristine Barnett, 45, adopted the girl in 2010, two years after she came from Ukraine to the United States through a different adoption process, WISH-TV reported, citing court records. A doctor who examined her that year determined she was about 8 years old.

The couple allegedly rented an apartment in Lafayette in July 2013 and, despite knowing that the child knew no one in that city, left her there and moved to Canada, investigators wrote in a probable cause affidavit filed in the case.

Michael Barnett told detectives earlier this month that other than paying the apartment’s rent, they provided the girl with no financial support, according to the affidavit.


Michael Barnett (L) and Kristine Barnett (R) are pictured in booking photos. (Photo credit: Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department)
The couple had the girl’s age legally changed to 22 in June of 2012, WISH-TV reported. Kristine Barnett allegedly told her to tell anyone who asked that she “looks young but was actually 22.”

The girl has a form of dwarfism called spondyloepiphyseal, which could make an exact age difficult to determine, according to the local station.

In 2014, the girl told a detective with the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department that she lived with the Barnetts in Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis, for about two years, after which they rented the apartment for her in Lafayette, located about 60 miles northwest of Indianapolis.

“She was left alone in the apartment in Lafayette while the rest of the Barnett family moved to Canada,” investigators wrote in the affidavit, adding that the girl hasn’t seen the Barnetts since.

Prosecutors filed neglect charges against the couple on Sept. 11. They surrendered to authorities and were released from a Tippecanoe County jail on a $5,000 bond, court records show.

It was unclear how long the girl lived alone in the apartment before her situation was discovered, and why an investigation that apparently began in 2014 took years to result in charges against the Barnetts.

Kristine Barnett claimed she learned of the charges when contacted by WISH-TV earlier this month. She told the local station that the situation with the girl was “complicated” and claimed the girl was diagnosed as both a psychopath and sociopath, according to the station.

Barnett also said the adoption was a “scam” and she has been an adult the entire time she’s known her, but refused to provide additional details, WISH-TV reported.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Kristine Barnett said the girl was actually a woman conning people into believing she was a child. She claimed in the interview that the girl allegedly threatened to stab them in their sleep, pushed Kristine into an electric fence and poured bleach in her coffee.

Michael Barnett's attorney filed a petition on Sept. 18 to release the girl's mental health records, according to the Lafayette Journal & Courier. A closed hearing on Oct. 15 will decide whether those records will be released and used in Barnett’s defense.

Intercountry Adoption: U.S.... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Lala Bears Witness To The Horrors Of The Michigan Child Welfare System - Here Is Her Story - She Wants Her Children Back - Happy Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution Month

This is Lala.

Michigan stole her as a little girl and put her in the foster care system.

Michigan used her as a lab rat.

Michigan kicked her out at 18 years of spending most of her life in a residential institution.

Michigan stole her Social Supplemental Income and left her homeless.

Michigan stole guardianship over her children on forged documents.

Michigan terminated her parental rights.

Listen to Lala.

Lala is an original source, an expert on the Michigan Child Welfare System.

Lala does not bear false witness in the public record, but Michigan does.

Lala tells how Michigan has profits from children placed in foreign, corporate guardianship.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Does Vivek Sankaran Actually Think He Can Command & Cloak Perkins Coie Sucks Corporate Parental Rights Gerrymandering Ops In Michigan?

Vivek sold out.

He has not once communicated with me.

That is how I know he sucks.

He has not once, ever, ever, ever, spoken upon that forebodden term called fraud, or anything connected to the industry of trafficking tiny humans or the children's trusts.

Hey, Vivek!

Are you related to any Awans?

How much did you trick yourself out for?

Do kiss and tell.

You know how they like to roll in Detroit.

To Have Impact, Laws Must Be Enforced. Appellate Lawyers Help Do Just That.

You would think he could at least give a recent photo.
Vivek Sankaran is director of the Child Advocacy Law
Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the
University Michigan Law School

Each fall, students in the University of Michigan Law School’s Child Welfare Appellate Clinic represent parents in termination of parental rights (TPR) appeals. We don’t cherry pick our cases for ones we’re likely to win.

Dude. Seriously. Tell us how many Termination of Parental Rights cases you have won in relation to the number of cases giving to you.  The only reason I want to know is to find out how much in false claims were generated during the time in privatized custody.

Instead, at the end of July, we call up local courts and ask them to send us TPR cases in need of an appellate lawyer. We accept the first six we get. Then our students scrutinize the record, draft briefs and deliver oral arguments at the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Oh, Precious, do you just like not know about the Title IV-A Poverty Means Test criteria for eligibility of foster care funding which means that the parents cannot afford an attorney?

No money; No justice.

Despite the randomness of our case assignments, every semester we discover laws being unenforced, which we bring to the attention of our appellate courts. Because of this, since 2015, our clinic has won roughly a third of our cases. We’ve gotten appellate courts to strike down a TPR statute for being unconstitutional, find that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires agencies to design service plans to accommodate the disabilities of parents in child welfare cases, and hold that incarcerated parents can plan for their children by arranging for relatives to care for them. Again, our students have done this even though our cases are randomly assigned to us.

Did you ever file a False Claims Act case on Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare for the cases you were successful in reinstating parental rights? Oh, wait, there has never been a reinstatement of parental rights. Ever talk to Dan Beaton? I have. 

Our experience is not unique. In 2018, attorneys working with the Colorado Office of Respondent Counsel, a governmental agency that has overseen parent representation in the state since 2016, has gotten appellate courts in the state to find procedural violations in nearly one of out three cases. Advocates in other states with high quality appellate representation have achieved similar results.

Colorado? Oooooo..... Vivek......did you ever hear of Joseph Korbel or Claude d'Estre'e or Monica Petersen in Haiti when it comes to trafficking tiny humans?  Obviously not, which makes me think you are a generic personae as you have now lowered yourself to the have the Chronicles of Social Change, the notorious Clinton Propaganda machine for Silicon Valley in the financial fraud scheme called Predictive Modeling Crap.

These results deliver a straightforward conclusion – that child welfare systems need strong appellate advocates to enforce the law. In the past decade, both the federal government and states have passed an increasing number of laws to promote the interests of children involved with the foster care system. The federal government alone has passed four major pieces of legislation – the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act and the Family First Prevention Services Act.

Vivek!!! What are you doing? You are promulgating the peculiar institution.  You are advocating corporate layering of foreign private, children's trusts. Oh, wait. I got it.  You are a fake ass lil bitch who would sell your soul for a bit of credibility, if you are even real.

These laws, along with those enacted by states, have created a child welfare system governed by complicated procedures.

The procedures are not complicated. The procedures are christian law of chattels. You would know about Ecclesiastical Law if you were a licensed attorney, 

Yet talk to advocates on the ground, and they will describe laws that routinely go unenforced. Child welfare agencies fail to make reasonable efforts to prevent kids from entering foster care or to place siblings together. Courts don’t ask children about what sort of relationship they want with their birth parents before terminating those parents’ rights. And far too often, relatives aren’t informed about ongoing child welfare cases until it is far too late for them to get placement of their kin.

The list goes on and on. But without strong appellate advocacy, these laws – key to promoting good outcomes for children in foster care – will continue to get unenforced.

So how do we move forward? The recent federal policy change to permit states to use Title IV-E money to support the representation of parents and children in child welfare proceedings allows states to immediately increase the amount of funds to support quality appellate advocacy. States should move to create specialized appellate practices, like those that exist in New Jersey, Maryland and North Carolina, among other jurisdictions.

Money alone, however, won’t solve the problem. Appellate advocacy is a nuanced skill – involving meticulous research, writing and editing skills – and states must ensure that advocates have the necessary training to do this. Just last year, the National Legal Aid and Defender’s Association – for the first time – created a family defense track for its annual training for appellate attorneys, which provided participants with intensive feedback on their writing skills.

Based on the success of that training, this week, the Michigan Court Improvement Project is piloting a similar one for appellate attorneys. Each state’s Court Improvement Project must prioritize appellate advocacy as an essential component of the infrastructure needed in any functioning child welfare system.

In about two months, my appellate clinic will start getting new case assignments. I suspect that we’ll continue to find laws that aren’t being enforced. Each time we win a reversal or a remand from the Court of Appeals, we will continue to strengthen the legal infrastructure that is so crucial in ensuring the well-being of children. And even when we lose, we increase the legitimacy of our child welfare system by ensuring the public that it is acting in a matter consistent with statutes and the Constitution.

Vivek Sankaran is the director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic and the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic at the University Michigan Law School. Follow him on Twitter at @vivekssankaran.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz Signs The First Reinstatement Of Parental Rights - We Are Coming For Our Children - The End Of The Peculiar Institution

These children were Legally Kidnapped by CPS from the arms of their original parents, to be trafficked through foster care, used as lab rats, raped, tortured, then sold through adoption.

Yes, it is legal to snatch and sell children.

These people will never give up be there is too much money involved, so they are launching Corporate Parental Rights.

This is a battle just getting started.

People do not like it when you take their money makers.

RELEASE: Gov. Walz signs Rep. Moran bill providing pathway to reestablishment of parent/child relationships

ST. PAUL – Monday afternoon, Gov. Tim Walz signed into law HF 554, a bill authored by Rep. Rena Moran (DFL – Saint Paul), that allows parents, who had previously had their parental rights terminated for non-egregious harm, to directly seek reestablishment of these rights from the courts. Currently, only a county attorney is able to make this petition.

“Whenever we’re able to, we should keep families together and our children deserve to be protected, loved, and nurtured. When they can stay in their community with their parents, this gives them the best outlook in life,” Rep. Moran said. “We know all too well that our child welfare system doesn’t seem to always have the best interest of the child in mind, and that’s why it’s important for us to keep working to improve it. Every child deserves a strong future and I thank Governor Walz for signing this important bill into law.”

The House approved the measure by a vote of 130-0 on April 4, and the Senate followed on April 29 with a vote of 66-0.

Under the bill, petitions for reinstatement of parental rights would only be allowed in cases in which the rights were terminated for non-egregious harm, such as chemical dependency or mental illness, and not for physical, sexual, or psychological abuse.

Studies have shown when children, especially African American children, remain in the foster system, they face poorer life outcomes than those who remain with their biological families. These include lower lifetime employment rates, a greater chance of experience with the criminal justice system, and higher rates of mental illness and addiction.

The legislation requires the parent to clearly demonstrate the steps they’ve taken to address the underlying issue which led to the termination of rights in the first place, and a judge would make the final decision.

A bill for an actrelating to human services; permitting legal parent to petition for reestablishment
of the legal parent and child relationship; prohibiting disqualification of individuals
subject to human services background studies with expunged criminal records;
amending Minnesota Statutes 2018, sections 245C.14; 245C.15, by adding a
subdivision; 245C.16, subdivision 1; 245C.22, by adding a subdivision; 245C.24,
by adding a subdivision; 260C.329, subdivisions 3, 7, 8; repealing Minnesota
Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 5.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.14, is amended to read:

245C.14 DISQUALIFICATION.

Subdivision 1.

Disqualification from direct contact.

(a) The commissioner shall
disqualify an individual who is the subject of a background study from any position allowing
direct contact with persons receiving services from the license holder or entity identified in
section 245C.03, upon receipt of information showing, or when a background study
completed under this chapter shows any of the following:

(1) a conviction of, admission to, or Alford plea to one or more crimes listed in section
245C.15, regardless of whether the conviction or admission is a felony, gross misdemeanor,
or misdemeanor level crime;

(2) a preponderance of the evidence indicates the individual has committed an act or
acts that meet the definition of any of the crimes listed in section 245C.15, regardless of
whether the preponderance of the evidence is for a felony, gross misdemeanor, or
misdemeanor level crime; or

(3) an investigation results in an administrative determination listed under section
245C.15, subdivision 4, paragraph (b).

(b) No individual who is disqualified following a background study under section
245C.03, subdivisions 1 and 2, may be retained in a position involving direct contact with
persons served by a program or entity identified in section 245C.03, unless the commissioner
has provided written notice under section 245C.17 stating that:

(1) the individual may remain in direct contact during the period in which the individual
may request reconsideration as provided in section 245C.21, subdivision 2;

(2) the commissioner has set aside the individual's disqualification for that program or
entity identified in section 245C.03, as provided in section 245C.22, subdivision 4; or

(3) the license holder has been granted a variance for the disqualified individual under
section 245C.30.

(c) The commissioner shall not disqualify an individual under this subdivision based on
(1) a record of conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A and the order was directed
specifically to the commissioner, or (2) any underlying fact or element from an expunged
record of an arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically
to the commissioner. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Subd. 2.

Disqualification from access.

(a) If an individual who is studied under section
245C.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (2), (5), and (6), is disqualified from direct
contact under subdivision 1, the commissioner shall also disqualify the individual from
access to a person receiving services from the license holder.

(b) No individual who is disqualified following a background study under section
245C.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (2), (5), and (6), or as provided elsewhere
in statute who is disqualified as a result of this section, may be allowed access to persons
served by the program unless the commissioner has provided written notice under section
245C.17 stating that:

(1) the individual may remain in direct contact during the period in which the individual
may request reconsideration as provided in section 245C.21, subdivision 2;

(2) the commissioner has set aside the individual's disqualification for that licensed
program or entity identified in section 245C.03 as provided in section 245C.22, subdivision 
4; or

(3) the license holder has been granted a variance for the disqualified individual under
section 245C.30.

(c) The commissioner shall not disqualify an individual under this subdivision based on
(1) a record of conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A and the order was directed
specifically to the commissioner, or (2) any underlying fact or element from an expunged
record of an arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically
to the commissioner. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Sec. 2. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.15, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:

Subd. 6. 

Expunged criminal records. 

The commissioner shall not disqualify an
individual subject to a background study under this chapter based on (1) a record of
conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A and the order was directed specifically
to the commissioner, or (2) any underlying fact or element from an expunged record of an
arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically to the
commissioner. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Sec. 3. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.16, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1.

Determining immediate risk of harm.

(a) If the commissioner determines
that the individual studied has a disqualifying characteristic, the commissioner shall review
the information immediately available and make a determination as to the subject's immediate
risk of harm to persons served by the program where the individual studied will have direct
contact with, or access to, people receiving services.

(b) The commissioner shall consider all relevant information available, including the
following factors in determining the immediate risk of harm:

(1) the recency of the disqualifying characteristic;

(2) the recency of discharge from probation for the crimes;

(3) the number of disqualifying characteristics;

(4) the intrusiveness or violence of the disqualifying characteristic;

(5) the vulnerability of the victim involved in the disqualifying characteristic;

(6) the similarity of the victim to the persons served by the program where the individual
studied will have direct contact;

(7) whether the individual has a disqualification from a previous background study that
has not been set aside; and

(8) if the individual has a disqualification which may not be set aside because it is a
permanent bar under section 245C.24, subdivision 1, or the individual is a child care
background study subject who has a felony-level conviction for a drug-related offense in
the last five years, the commissioner may order the immediate removal of the individual
from any position allowing direct contact with, or access to, persons receiving services from
the program.

(c) This section does not apply when the subject of a background study is regulated by
a health-related licensing board as defined in chapter 214, and the subject is determined to
be responsible for substantiated maltreatment under section 626.556 or 626.557.

(d) This section does not apply to a background study related to an initial application
for a child foster care license.

(e) Except for paragraph (f), this section does not apply to a background study that is
also subject to the requirements under section 256B.0659, subdivisions 11 and 13, for a
personal care assistant or a qualified professional as defined in section 256B.0659, 
subdivision 1.

(f) If the commissioner has reason to believe, based on arrest information or an active
maltreatment investigation, that an individual poses an imminent risk of harm to persons
receiving services, the commissioner may order that the person be continuously supervised
or immediately removed pending the conclusion of the maltreatment investigation or criminal
proceedings.

Sec. 4. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.22, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:

Subd. 8. 

Expunged records. 

This section does not apply if the subject of a background
study has a conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A, and the order was directed
specifically to the commissioner, or any underlying fact or element from an expunged record
of an arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically to the
commissioner. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Sec. 5. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.24, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:

Subd. 5. 

Expunged criminal records. 

The commissioner shall not disqualify an
individual subject to a background study under this chapter based on (1) a record of
conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A and the order was directed specifically
to the commissioner, or (2) any underlying fact or element from an expunged record of an
arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically to the
commissioner. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Sec. 6. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 3, is amended to read:

Subd. 3.

Petition.

Only the county attorney
 A legal parent may file a petition for the
reestablishment of the legal parent and child relationship. A petition for the reestablishment
of the legal parent and child relationship may be filed when:

(1) both the responsible social services agency and the county attorney agree that reestablishment of the legal parent and child relationship is in the child's best interests;

(2) the parent has corrected the conditions that led to an order terminating parental rights;

(3) the parent is willing and has the capability to provide day-to-day care and maintain
the health, safety, and welfare of the child;

(4) the child has been in foster care for at least 36
 24 months after the court issued the
order terminating parental rights;

(5) the child is 15 years of age or older at the time the petition for reestablishment of 
the legal parent and child relationship is filed;

(6)
 (5) the child has not been adopted; and

(7)
 (6) the child is not the subject of a written adoption placement agreement between
the responsible social services agency and the prospective adoptive parent, as required under
Minnesota Rules, part 9560.0060, subpart 2.

Sec. 7. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 7, is amended to read:

Subd. 7.

Service of petition on the parties.

The petition for the reestablishment of the
legal parent and child relationship and notice of hearing on the petition must be served on:

(1) the child;

(2) the parent whose rights have been terminated and with whom the legal parent and 
child relationship is proposed to be reestablished;

(2) the county attorney;

(3) the responsible social services agency;

(3)
 (4) the child's guardian ad litem; and

(4)
 (5) the child's tribe if the child is subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Sec. 8. 

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 8, is amended to read:

Subd. 8.

Hearing.

The court may grant the petition ordering the reestablishment of the
legal parent and child relationship only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1) reestablishment of the legal parent and child relationship is in the child's best interests;

(2) the child is 15 years of age or older;

(3)
 (2) the child has not been adopted;

(4)
 (3) the child is not the subject of a written adoption placement agreement between
the responsible social services agency and the prospective adoptive parent, as required under
Minnesota Rules, part 9560.0060, subpart 2;

(5)
 (4) at least 36
 24 months have elapsed following a final order terminating parental
rights and the child remains in foster care;

(6)
 (5) the child desires to reside with the parent;

(7)
 (6) the parent has corrected the conditions that led to an order terminating parental
rights; and

(8)
 (7) the parent is willing and has the capability to provide day-to-day care and maintain
the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

Sec. 9. REPEALER.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 5,
is repealed.

APPENDIX

Repealed Minnesota Statutes: 19-1755

260C.329 REESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEGAL PARENT AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP.

Subd. 5.

Decision not appealable.

The decision by the county attorney not to file a petition for the reestablishment of legal parent and child relationship is not appealable.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Virginia Passes Bill Allowing Ownership Of One Person By Another - Chattel Ranching The Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution - Corporate Parental Rights

I told you so.

I have been telling the world for almost 20 years.

The Pro Life Movement is nothing more than a cover for trafficking tiny humans.

This is your modern day slavery, modern day human trafficking.

What they are going to do next is get "The Boys" to unleash their christian pro life propaganda psyoptics, but what they do not know is that we already have the playbook.

War crimes.

Their next rollout is going to go attack the LBQRSTUV movement, of which I typically call them humans, like the rest of the people in humanity, because they are all working together.

The goal is to label each individual based upon one's DNA and genotype, not phenotype.

 The "Atlas Shrugged" crew are the ones getting rich off the trafficking of tiny humans but are too gluttonously self indulgent to even care, as long as the profit margins are maximizing through returns.

This is about parental rights, the final roll out, because now, the corporate parent can now file for termination of parental rights.

The child welfare model is no longer based upon the arcane heirarchial classification of "race" but is now bsed upon civil debt, or rather poverty, where they are enacting the final plan of corporate parental rights for the asset forfeiture of children in the womb, utilizing the gradual switching of the legal terms of "Abortion" to mean "termination of parental rights".

You can consider this the state contracting in a Public Private Partnership to take legal custody of the identity of the child, pre-birth, by aborting the birth before the breaking of the water before the child is born unto the banks of the land.

The legal doctrine for the asset forfeiture of the child is call partus sequitur ventrum, a re-empowered concept of the peculiar institution.

 I wrote the book on parental rights. 

I was sitting at the table, writing this legislation, when these people came up with it, stole it and launched that pro life crap. 

It started in Michigan.

This is the modern day slavery Trump speaks upon, but I prefer to call it chattel ranching because it is the instant action to tap into those children's trust funds, just another part of the industry of trafficking tiny humans.

Bill to Make Babies Legal Property Passes House, Goes to Senate!

As I told you earlier this week, HB 1979 (D-Sullivan) is one of the most Anti-Family bills we've seen that actually has a shot at passing.

With your emails and calls, and The Family Foundation team's lobbying efforts, HB 1979 has taken some major hits, but unfortunately it still passed the House of Delegates this week on a vote of 61-36 where Delegate Dave LaRock masterfully critiques this bill, joined by Delegates Brenda Pogge and Nick Freitas.) Now it has been assigned to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, and will most likely be voted on next week!

URGENT ACTION: Click HERE to contact the KEY Senators on the Committee and urge them to VOTE NO on HB 1979!

This bill will open up Pandora's Box on critical matters involving Life, Parental Rights, and the most basic notions of what it means to be a family. It must be stopped.Some are naively calling this bill "pro-life" because it will make it easier for single people and same-sex couples to enter into surrogacy contracts to implant one of the one million "snowflake babies" which have been created in labs and are currently frozen. But even setting aside the terrible public policy decision of encouraging children to be born into the world without both a mom and a dad, nothing in this bill would limit the continued proliferation of more and more lab-created human beings, most of which will be forever frozen or destroyed. 

Here are some of the terrible consequences of this bill: 

1)    Recognizes in VA law (for the first time since the 1860s) human beings as property to be “owned” by others.

• The bill language inserts “owns”, “owned”, or “ownership” 8 times to refer to human embryos. (A new concept and legal term of art.)

2)    Multiplies and expands the commodification of human beings to potentially be exchanged, traded, bought, and sold.

• Children are not commodities to be sold or bartered!

3)    Creates a new legal presumption for parenthood that is not tied to biology, undermining the parental rights of ALL parents. 

• This will cause serious long-term damage to our society. Imagine the immeasurable damage to a child when they will now grow up to be told that they never had a father, or that they never had a mother.

4)    Encourages the creation of babies without both a mom and a dad

 because it would now allow any single individual to contract with a surrogate to obtain a baby. 

• Unmarried homes create more unstable environments for children.

5)    Greatly  with a dad, a mom, and their resulting biological (or adopted) children.

• The breakdown of the family and familial bonds is the single greatest cause of ALL of the other social ills we face since the nuclear family is the bedrock societal institution.

6)    Leads to the commercialization of “lab-babies” with no parents, which will lead to selection based on certain desired traits.

• This will lead

 to countless human lives being created and destroyed in labs. 

7)    Erases terms like “husband” and “wife”, “his” and “her”, to replace them with gender-neutral language

.

• This further blurs important distinctions between male and female and removes child-rearing from the sexual/procreational/conjugal union of a man and woman, leading to the commodification of children, and ultimately to government assumption of parental rights.

Virginia HB 1979 - Allowing... by on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©