Fighting Tyranny CPS DCFS Social Workers

On today’s Radio show, we talk about Fighting the Tyranny of CPS DCFS Social Workers with callers from Los Angeles and San Diego about DNA test, paternity, Project Fatherhood, presumed father status, family preservation services, family reunification services, FR services, 388 petition, 26 hearings, disposition hearing, and six-month review hearings.


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT (Radio Show Transcript from Dec 26, 2015 Air Date)

Vincent Davis:  Good morning.  This is Attorney Vincent Davis.  You’re on Blog Talk Radio Talk Radio Experts and we’re talking today about getting your kids back now.  This show is dedicated to keeping families together and to fighting tyranny of CPS DCFS social workers.  The secondary purpose of this show is to educate parents and relatives or to at least show them where to get the necessary information for their fights.  The final purpose of this show is to remind everyone that change can be effectuated at the ballot box at the state and federal levels.  Let us unite, vote and elect those who make the necessary changes.

We’re broadcasting this morning from Los Angeles International Airport and I’m going to get to the first caller right away before we get into some presentations that will help the families and relatives stay together.  The first person that I’m going to be connecting with here has an area code of 661 and ending in 57.  Again their number is 661 ending in 57.  Good morning.  You’re on the radio with Attorney Vincent Davis.


Fighting Tyranny CPS DCFS Social Workers – Caller Male

Male:  Hi, Mr. Davis.  We had a problem with DCFS in Lancaster here area and they had me tested for the DNA test with LabCorp Corporation North Carolina and they told me that I was not the father.  And several months — I never got a copy of my test.  So several months goes by, I see the baby again with the young lady, she had the baby and then the baby looks like my other babies I had previously from other wives I was married to.  And I had an investigation and I found out that I need my DNA test from them.  So finally I got a hold of the attorney, he gave me the DNA test.  I looked at it and the test had been changed.  And then so I asked — I said if I could have another drug test.  And I looked at it and also it’s been changed too to make it looked like it’s a legal test but it’s not.

And then the baby pictures and everything looks that she is far to my family, my baby, so I went to the DCFS and tried to talk to them and explained to them what’s this and what’s that and this is not right, you know, what they have given me.  And they won’t talk to me.  They dismissed me.  They said, “We can’t talk to you, you’re not the father,” that’s it, “Good bye.  We’re not going to have to talk to you.”

And so what we did, I’ve been trying to get another DNA test on our own without legal claim for me and the young lady and the baby.  Finally, last week, we did the test and we sent it out to a different company in Salt Lake City.  And because of the holidays, we haven’t got the results back yet but it should be in the next couple of days and that will confirm hundred percent that I am the father basically.

Vincent Davis:  Okay.  Sir?

Male:  Yes.

Vincent Davis:  Let me interrupt you for a second.  Was there a question that you wanted to ask me this morning?

Male:  Yes.  What can I do with that — doing the paternity, can I go back to court?  Do I get reopen the case?  Can I hire an attorney and sue them?  Or what’s my next move once I get the DNA test that says I am the father hundred percent?  And they denied me, the baby, for over a year now and two months almost.

Vincent Davis:  Let me ask you, where is the child right now?  Where is the child living?

Male:  With my significant other brother.

Vincent Davis:  Okay.

Male:  They placed the baby with her brother and his family.

Vincent Davis:  Okay.  Is the case close or still open?

Male:  The case is still open on her and list father number two.  I was the list father number one but they dismissed me but I am the father.  And the list father number two, he’s doing his own thing whatever and so — but the case is still open on her and…

Vincent Davis:  Okay.  So this is what you probably need to do.  If the court will appoint you an attorney, you can ask for a court appointed attorney or you can hire your own attorney but what you should do is immediately file for what is called presumed father status.  That’s a specific type of petition and motion that you file with the juvenile court to try to ask the court or force the court to acknowledge you as the father, giving you custodial rights, visitation rights, and parent’s rights or something called family reunification services.

Male:  Okay.  What’s the name of that again?

Vincent Davis:  It’s a presumed father status.

Male:  Presumed father status, I need to go file it with the court.

Vincent Davis:  Correct.

Male:  Okay.

Vincent Davis:  Now, that’s not something — do you have any legal training?

Male:  Not really.  Not really, no.  But I can…

Vincent Davis:  That’s not something that I should…

Male:  What do you think I should do with this?

Vincent Davis:  You should probably find an attorney, talk to an attorney as soon as possible so that paperwork can be properly prepared and filed with the court.  I’m not sure — unless you have significant legal training, I’m not sure that you’ll be able to do that by yourself.

Male:  Right, right.  I should consult an attorney then.

Vincent Davis:  Okay.  As long as the case goes on, things get I guess — how can I say, a little bit more — a little bit harder for you to get your foot in the door into the juvenile court regarding custody and visitation.  So I would do that as soon as possible.  And thank you for your call.

Okay.  The next call that I’m going to take has an area code 562 and the number ends in 48.  Good morning, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis.


Fighting Tyranny CPS DCFS Social Workers – Caller Daniel

Male:  Good morning.  How are you today?

Vincent Davis:  I’m doing fine, sir.  How are you?

Male:  I’m doing quite well now that I’ve hired your office to bring my child home for Christmas.  I just want to thank you.

Vincent Davis:  What’s your first name, sir?

Daniel:  Daniel.

Vincent Davis:  Daniel, how are you this morning?

Daniel:  I’m doing excellent.  My daughter’s name is Queen.  I had a 22-month uphill battle with DCSF.  I was fortunate that my mom found your law office.  I had another attorney that just dragged through the whole process.  I’m not the offending father and I just came forward to get my daughter back.  They had her on adoption risk.  I had to drive two hours one way for visits.  I get 78 visits over a 13-month period.  Everybody was against me during this time.  Social worker and his supervisor both really were against me.  However, the other day, they both called me and congratulated me and said that they were happy that my daughter was home with me.  The whole thing got turned around.  Thanks to your law office, sir.

Vincent Davis:  Well, Daniel, thank you.  You know, when did you hire us?

Daniel:  About three weeks ago I believe it was.

Vincent Davis:  And you had been fighting this for 22 months?

Daniel:  Twenty-two months, sir.  Every time I’ve seen like I gained, there was a loophole and something up popped up.  I did all my mandates.  I’m with Project Fatherhood.  I did two 730 evaluations and just cooperated.  My daughter was taken from me when her mom was in the hospital.  I went to visit her and her — she is a substance abuser and my daughter had substance in her blood.  So at the hospital, because the mom is a substance abuser that I am although I denied any of that.  And so they said, “We’re going to have to take your daughter.”  And it shocked me.  I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know what all my rights are but I had to turn my three-week old daughter over to the social worker and it just dragged from there.  I mean, they were just completely against me, so.

Vincent Davis:  Daniel, I was reviewing your case a few weeks ago and I couldn’t figure out why they didn’t want to give you this child and we had to force it in court, but why do you think was the real reason they didn’t want to give you the child back?

Daniel:  I’m not quite sure.  I have a stable home, three-bedroom house, I live by myself.  My daughter is there with me now this time.  I’m also in the entertainment business.  They brought up the fact some music that I had written and some films that I had been in in the past.  There was no cussing in any of the music.  I don’t talk about anything bad.  But they had just turned the whole thing around. They said that’s part of it.  Also, my daughter’s mom is a lot younger than I am.  That was part of it.  My daughter’s mom, like I said, is a substance abuser, so they automatically presumed because the mom is a substance abuser that I’m a substance abuser.  So I think it’s a combination of all these kind of things.

Vincent Davis:  I was talking to somebody in my office about your case and they were wondering if these social workers have violated your civil rights at all.

Daniel:  Yeah, I believe so.  I don’t really know what my rights are exactly.  So, you know, not knowing, I must say this, Mr. Davis, my mother found you guys and I went on your website and there’s a world of information if a person doesn’t hire you that they can get the information from your website.  It’s a world of knowledge.  It really helped me out a lot.  For instance, my daughter was taken and put up for adoption and my mother and my sister both signed to be caregivers for my daughter.  They did not let that happen for 13 months.  After 13 months, I went on your website and I put it out a section, I took it to the social worker and I said, “You’re supposed to do your due diligence to place my daughter with friendly family members,” and you know what, they did it within three days after that.

Vincent Davis:  Wow.  You know, I’m glad that information helped you, Daniel.  I’m glad that we could help you.  I appreciate you calling this morning and sharing your story with us.

Daniel:  Okay, Mr. Davis.  I really appreciate you guys and I just don’t understand, people, they just need to get on your website and there’s a world of information there, every case is different.  I’ve been through a lot.  I’m so grateful to have my daughter back.  So you just have a great day and I really appreciate it, Mr. Davis.  Thank you so much.

Vincent Davis:  Thank you and Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you, Daniel.

Daniel:  Merry Christmas, Mr. Davis.  Happy Holidays to you and your family.  Thank you.  Bye-bye.

Vincent Davis:  Thank you for calling in.  This morning I’d like to talk about three different topics.  During this past week, I’ve gotten a lot of calls and emails regarding CPS cases all over the state of California.  And I’m noticing the trend that I’m seeing and I want to talk about those trends.  The first topic I want to talk about this morning is something called family reunification services.  It’s known or we’ve heard this probably in the court system, it’s called FR services.  And family reunification services are mandated by law and what they are is their services offered by social workers and outside vendors to keep the family together.

Let me give you an example.  Let’s say that your case involved domestic violence and drug abuse.  The family reunification services, that would be offered by the court and by the Department of Children and Family Services or by CPS, Child Protective Services, would be parenting classes, would be domestic violence counseling, it would be drug abuse counseling and drug abuse testing.  Now, it’s important that each parent participate in those family reunification services as soon as the case begins.

It is not an admission of guilt if you take those services.  It is not an admission that you are domestic violence perpetrator or victim.  It’s not an admission that you’re a bad parent.  It’s not an admission that you’re a drug addict and can’t take care of your children.  What it is is a way to show the juvenile court judge that no matter what is true or false that you are serious about reunifying with your child and getting your child back.

Having said that, there’s something that I want each of you to discuss with your attorneys whether they’d be court appointed or private attorneys and that is something called family preservation services.  Now family preservation services is defined in the law, in the Welfare and Institutions Code and everyone can Google it and print it out and take it to your lawyer or take it to your social worker, and it starts at the Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16500 and 16500.5 specifically.  Family preservation services are services that are supposed to be acquired by the county, by the CPS workers to make sure that your child is not taken away from home or is returned home.

Now, I’ve seen very few counties and very few social workers offering these types of services.  It’s my belief that these services are not offered because they can be expensive for the country to implement and to provide to you.  It reminded me of case where family reunification services — excuse me, family preservation services were offered to a family and as part of those services there was a provider who came out four to six times per week to see the family.  If those services hadn’t been provided, it would most likely be the judge will remove the children from the home.  But if you have service providers coming out to the home every day checking on the children every day providing services and education, education to the parents every day, the social worker or CPS can meet his burden that there was no less restrictive alternative.

And that’s something that they have to prove in order to keep their children away from you at the important disposition hearing.   So at the disposition hearing, the social worker has to prove by clearing convincing evidence which is a high burden in California that you are a substantial danger, just not a danger but you are a substantial danger to these children and there’s no less restrictive alternative.  So theoretically if the social worker proved that you are a substantial danger to the child, the children would still have to remain in your home because there are less restrictive alternatives.  And by less restrictive alternatives, I mean there are other things that the judge can do besides taking children and place them in foster homes.  And one of those alternatives is family preservation services.

Not too long ago I had a case in San Diego County and I was just thinking about the case that we’re going to trial and this was the perfect case for family reunification services.  The children were taken from the parents and placed in a foster home.  Subsequently, they were released to relatives but things were getting very difficult for the relatives because a couple of these children were special needs children.  The relative was elderly and it was hard for her to keep up with these very, very active children.

I got the bright idea of subpoenaing to the trial the social worker with the most knowledge about family preservation services in that county.  After that subpoena was served I got a few angry calls and trying to convince me not to bring that social worker to court.  Of course did not work all the subpoena and we forced that person to come to court.  And guess what, that person didn’t come to work and we went to court for trial.  Miraculously, the social workers had changed their position and decided to return the children home to the parents.  They wanted the parents to do a lot of different family reunification services.

But I got the feeling that San Diego County just didn’t want to offer these people family preservation services.  And they had a person that was in charge with family preservation and they had a family preservation separate department or loop within the county of San Diego whose job was supposed to be to provide family preservation services to all candidates.  I got the [inaudible 00:19:57] that family preservation services in San Diego is something that was rarely provided to people and I’m not sure why.

But anyway, go ahead and Google California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16500 et cetera and read what the department and what CPS is supposed to be providing you.

Before I go to my next subject, all calls are backing up but I do want to talk about something that many calls I got.  It’s the six-month review hearing.  So, assuming that your child was taken away from you and placed in a foster care or with the a relative at the disposition hearing, the court orders the CPS workers to provide you family reunification services for at least six months.  Now, I say at least six months because if your child is under a certain age, I believe it’s three, you can only get six months of family reunification services unless there is special circumstances.  And if your children are at home for the aged at the time of the disposition hearing, you’re allowed to get 12 months of family reunification services.

These six-month hearings are extremely important.  They are important because the court is giving the parents 6 months or 12 months to get their act together and to provide or to complete all the family reunification services programs.  What happens in a lot of cases is that sometimes parents do not complete these services within the 6-month period or within the 12-month period.  And if that is the case, their family reunification services are terminated and the case is set for what’s called the 366.26 hearing.  At that hearing, the most likely outcome would be that the parent’s rights would be terminated in the child place for adoption.  Once the parent’s rights are terminated, all relative’s rights are terminated.  And it will be very difficult for relative to come back into court and to try to get these children place with them.

To give you an example, this has been up about a year or year and a half ago.  A group of relatives came to me and wanted to get the child out of foster care and adopt the child themselves.  What had happened was the parent’s family reunification services had been terminated and the case was going towards adoption with the foster parent.  Now, it was very difficult for me to explain something to these relatives.  Let me try to explain it now.

Once the family reunification services are terminated for the parents, there is no guarantee that a child will be placed with relatives.  So in that particular case, I represented that group of relatives who did not know the significance of waiting to go into court early to get the child placed with them.  What had happened was they always thought that the child would be returned to the family if the child could not be placed back to the parents.  And that is not the law in California right now.

Many years ago, you know, 25 years ago when I first started doing this type of law, that’s what happened.  Kids were placed with relatives no matter what stage — in most cases, no matter what stage of the case we were at but it’s not the law today in California.  As a matter of fact, if the relative doesn’t get placement with the child prior to or at the disposition hearing which usually occurs in the first 60 to 90 days of the case, that relative’s chance of getting the child continues to drop as the [inaudible 00:24:32] forward towards the 6-month and the 12-month hearing.  As a matter of fact, I have a relative right now that I’m representing and she came forward about 120 days after the case but it’s after the disposition and we’re heading towards the first 6-month review.

I filed some paperwork in order to try to have the child placed with the relative and they said that dramatically happened.  But believe it or not, the [inaudible 00:25:03] attorney is opposing you saying that there’s a case law in California that’s actually [inaudible 00:25:11] that in certain circumstances the child should not be moved from the foster home unless there is a need to do it.  I forget the exact language.  But the bottom line is the child doesn’t automatically go with the relative.  And these placement fights which I will call placement fights for relatives become harder and harder as time goes on and days.

I once represented a gentleman who had his child taken away from him and he was accused of using drugs.  And I asked him about relatives because what I usually do is try to submit list of 25 names to the social worker and to the judge of possible relative placement.  And by the way, those relatives can live anywhere in the world.  They can live in Los Angeles.  They can live in San Francisco.  They can live in New York, Arizona, Europe, Canada, Mexico, Japan.  They literally can live anywhere in the world.  So if a social worker ever tells you, “Oh, we can’t place that child outside the county,” and social workers telling you something like that.

Getting back to the story, my client told me that he did not want the child placed with relatives and the reason why is because he didn’t want anybody in the family to know that he had been accused a child abuse or a child neglect due to drug abuse.  It was going to be very embarrassing for him.  And the social workers did not do what it’s called their due diligence under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 309 and trying to find possible relative placement.  The client is the captain of the ship so I had to respect his wishes.  I did advise him that there was a possibility that turned out bad with the — the family could lose the child.  But he assured that he would go ahead and do with the social workers and asked him to do which was among other things having a drug test.  And back then it was once a week, you know, I think it’s twice a month in Los Angeles County.

But anyway, as state would have it, he did not successfully complete his drug testing.  And we got to the second six-month date and the child — there was talk that the child would be adopted by the foster parents.  Well, all of a sudden my client says to me, you know, let’s take this child place with relatives.  And I reminded him of what we had discussed months before.  And he said, “Well, I changed my mind.  I’m not,” and he admitted that he was not being able to take his particular drug habit.  He wanted the child now place with relatives.

So I contacted the relatives.  We have filed some paperwork and lo and behold the judge decides that the child cannot be placed with the relatives because the child now has a bond physically, emotionally and psychologically with the foster parent and that it will be detrimental to move the child to the relatives.  At that time, I was horrified but that the judge could move this way and I just insisted it was not the law in California.  But I was wrong.  That is the law in California.  And subsequently, I have been doing research and there’s a lot of studies about the formation and development of a child and their mind developing psychologically and emotionally.

And it seems to be some scientific evidence out there that if we move children from foster parents to relatives that they do such — not that they do, they can suffer some detriments by being placed — by being moved.  Now, there’s arguments on the other side that although there is some detriment that that detriment is far away by the benefit of being placed with relatives.  And that battle — that is a constant battle that goes on in the juvenile dependency court.  The family reunification services have been terminated for the parents.  So the moral of the story is get relatives involved at the beginning of the case so that children can be placed there.

So I’m going to tell you two stories.  One is an older story and one is more recent.  I spoke to this woman right before Christmas Eve.  The first story happened down in Riverside.  A young woman came to Los Angeles and had a child from Oklahoma.  She called her boyfriend up here to Palm Springs.  And she does involve in the drug scene down in Palm Springs and of course the child was taken away by CPS in Riverside County.

At the very first hearing, a couple from Oklahoma who is related to this mother flew to Palm Springs and appeared at the very first hearing and informed the judge that they wanted the child.  And then I think if I remember correctly they appeared at every hearing.  Now, the problem was this child had been placed with foster parents, apparently a very nice couple down there in Palm Springs and they wanted to adopt this child.  Because the [inaudible 00:31:11] needed was called an ICPC, an interstate compact approval from the state of Oklahoma to take this child, it got delayed, and it got delayed, and it got delayed.

After the family reunification services were terminated for the mother and the father, the relatives hired me to try to go into court and get this child placed with them.  Now, as they thought and as I thought the law should be, you know, they appeared at the very first hearing almost 18 months prior why should they get the child placed with them because they were relatives who were right on the boat at the beginning.  Well, the judge ruled that because the child had a significant physical, emotional and psychological bonds to the foster parents that he was not going to move the child and place the child in the relative’s home in Oklahoma.  The relatives did eventually get approved by Oklahoma.

And when we had the trial, the social worker from Riverside County seemed to admit that the child was not placed or had not been placed with Oklahoma, the Oklahoma [inaudible 00:32:33] because of “oversights” and perhaps it was just negligence on the social worker’s part by not getting this approval earlier.  So the judge did not place the child with the relatives.  The relatives decided that they did not want to heal and that was contrary to my advice.  They were so disappointed in California law but they said they wanted to go back to Oklahoma and have nothing to do with California anymore.  But that was a very, very unusual case where they appeared at the first hearing said they wanted the child.  And because of oversights and [inaudible 00:33:15] in the system, few months later they had to hire me to try to get the child and we were not successful.

The second story that I wanted to tell you, it’s a story that I hear all the time.  I heard the day before Christmas Eve.  A child is taken away from her mother because of alleged — well, because [inaudible 00:33:39] included the drug abuse.  And the grandmother, the mother’s mother starts to process of trying to get the child back to her.  Now, this process because the case ended up in Riverside and then back to Orange County and in between the two counties, she’s denied placement from the child.  I met her, she is a very nice woman and she told me that she had to appeal within each department, each county department decision not to have the child placed with her.

And she informed me that she won both appeals and I think she might have been — I don’t think she was represented.  I think she represented herself but she won both appeals and had the child placed with her.  But lo and behold here we are and I think we’re hitting towards a 26 hearing.  They terminate the mother’s rights in January and the child still hasn’t been placed with her and there’s no intention of the child placed with her.  Unfortunately for the grandmother, she informed me that she did hire a private attorney to try to help her and according to the grandmother that that attorney took her money and didn’t know — didn’t do anything towards helping her get the child back.  And of course, she is understandably fighting about hiring another attorney about doing anything of that nature to get this child back but she doesn’t know what to do.  She’s just hoping that the child will be returned to her by the judge at an upcoming hearing.

And the way they described this case to me, I don’t think the judge nor the social worker have any intention placing that child back with them or back with the family.  So it might be a case where something hasn’t done [inaudible 0:35:46] done by some attorney who’s an expert in this area, this child could be lost to his family, just a very sad case.

The last thing I want to talk about this morning is 366.26 — Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26.  That is the selection and implementation hearing known as the .26 in the court system in the legal lingo.  And it’s where a — the primary purpose is where to terminate the parent’s rights where the child — I mean, where the parent hasn’t successfully completed his or her family reunification services.  So in the hearing, it takes usually 120 days after the family reunification services terminate.  So if you get a 10, I want to give you a defense that you should be used if you’re a parent facing or going to be facing the 366.26 hearing.

The first thing that you have to do is you have to have a trial at the hearing meeting in .26 hearing.  That would be either a 21E or 21F and that’s 366.21E or 21F hearing.  And in that hearing you’re given the opportunity to have a trial to get your child back or to get further family reunification services in certain instances.  What I find and what I see from a lot of people that call me that after this hearing they didn’t have a trial.

Now, there’s a difference between a trial and a hearing.  A hearing is anytime you’re appearing in front of the judge but a trial is where you present evidence such as other witnesses and you direct examine those witnesses or you cross-examine witnesses and you present documentary evidence.  Pieces of paper, photographs, videos, DVDs, and you have to have a trial to show the judge that you should get the child back or that you should get further family reunification services.  In many, many instances people called me and said, “Well, we had a hearing or we had a trial but no witnesses were called.   No evidence was presented by my attorney.”

So by definition and they do say, “Well, my attorney did argue.”  Here’s case one in California that says, “Arguments by attorneys is not evidence.”  So if you accept that by definition, if you have a trial and your attorney doesn’t present any witnesses or documentary evidence, by definition you’re going to lose.  It’s just the fast and it’s convenient way for a lot of juvenile courts to handle cases but when it comes down to it there’s no evidence presented on your side.  And the only evidence that the judge has is the social worker’s report.  Now, that’s the only evidence and the social workers recommending that to your family reunification services be terminated then that’s what’s going to happen regardless of what you or your — excuse me, what your attorney says at the time of trial.

So make sure you always have the trial and ask for the return of the child or to build a case where you try to convince the judge where you should get further family reunification services.  That last suggestion is rarely done.  So when you speak to your attorney, you wanted to develop a plan that not only includes trying to get the child back, trying to get the [inaudible 0:39:57] but also a plan where you can get further family reunification services.  Now, the second step in the strategy is if you do go to trial and if you lose, you must file a notice of intent to file a writ.  Now, this is supposed to be explained to you by the judge and by your attorney after your family reunification services are terminated.

I’ve heard several instances where people tell me that that wasn’t done.  I’m of course not in court so I don’t know, but we must file a writ.  The Judicial Council in California has a form.  It’s called Notice of Intent to File a Writ.  I think that has to be filed with the court within seven days after your family reunification services are terminated.  Once that’s filed then your trial attorney will receive a record what they called a Record on Appeal and he or she will have to declare in appellate opening [inaudible 0:41:02] — excuse me, have to file a writ and explain to the court of appeals why it was an error to terminate your family reunification services.

Subsequently, a judge will — or three judges will make a decision on that writ and if you win, the case will be sent back and you’ll be entitled to get a new judge under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 or you can keep the same judge.  If you lose, the case will perceive to the 26 County; however, if you lose, you can appeal more issues if your rights are terminated.  If you don’t file that writ, the issues you can have on appeal at the time your rights are terminated are severely limited.  So make sure you instruct your attorney to file that notice of intent and to file the writ for you.

In current California law, it is the responsibility of the trial court attorney to prepare that notice of intent and to prepare the writ [inaudible 0:42:23] on your behalf.  I heard from many people who called me that had indicated that their trial attorney or the court appointed attorney has told them they’re not going to — has many different excuses on why that can’t be done.  Don’t accept those excuses and insist.  And I would put it in writing via email to your attorney that you want that writ filed.

Now, the third thing that you have to do in this defense of determination of your rights is before the 26 hearing you must file a 388 petition.  Now, I think that’s the California Judicial Council form JV as in juvenile, Juvenile 180.  So go ahead and prepare or have your attorney prepare that 388.  Now, I was talking to someone recently who filed a 388 on their own because their attorney wouldn’t do it but I looked at the 388 and it was not adequate and that 388 ended up being denied by the judge but a 388 is a legal document.  You should probably have a competent or an expert attorney prepared this for you because it’s a significant request by you to the juvenile court basically to stop the adoption and have the child returned to you to give you more family reunification services and to give you more legalized visitation.

So just because the form is online, you can print it out and you think you can fill it out, that’s not necessary going to hit you at court state.  It’s not necessary going to help you win if the court does give you a court date because when you file a 388 what can happen is the court can deny you a hearing or grant you a hearing.  That doesn’t mean that the court is giving you what you’re asking for.  You have to have a hearing — excuse me, a trial and at that trial you have to prove that it’s in the best interest of the child to be placed back with you or to give you format — excuse me, or to give you more family reunification services or to give you more legalized visitation.

I’m going to take a call right now.  The right code is 310 and ends in 09.  Good morning, you’re on Blog Talk Radio with Attorney Vincent Davis.  How can I help you this morning?  Hello?  Okay.   Maybe that call is not there.  So we’ll go to the next caller.  Good morning, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis on Blog Talk Radio.  How can I help you?


Fighting Tyranny CPS DCFS Social Workers – Caller Female

Female:  Hello?

Vincent Davis:  Hello.  This is Attorney Vincent Davis.  You’re on live.  How can I help you this morning?

Female:  Oh, yes.  I have a situation concerning my…

Vincent Davis:  What’s your situation?

Female:  Well, my kids were medically kidnapped.  I have two kids.  One is now 12 and one is 3.  And basically they were medically kidnapped.  The one that’s three is medically fragile.  He has a lot of things going on with him and stuff.  The oldest one — well, I went to the hospital to have the youngest one and I too suffer complication and I was not able to commute the oldest one to school.

We were home but at that time we were staying like in a little, special facility for people with their kids having in-patient hospital.  So we were staying there.  But at the time after I had the youngest one, we weren’t sure as to how long we were there.  So we went to everyone we knew; doctors, nurses, even the hospital, social worker, you know.  And then once they came to another and then they did a referral to children services.  So that’s basically how everything happened, you know.  And we was going in and out of court for like a year and stuff and then eventually we lost for caring custody of the kids.

Vincent Davis:  And how long ago was that?

Female:  This all started back in 2012.

Vincent Davis:  And where are the children now?

Female:  They stay in two different households with two different relatives.

Vincent Davis:  Were your rights terminated?

Female:  No, my right wasn’t terminated and the thing is we don’t know nothing medically was going on with the kids so, you know, no kind of doctor’s name, contact information.  We don’t have any kind of shot records, you know, medically records, et cetera, nothing.  With the oldest one, you know, we don’t have any kind of school records, no kind of report cards, [inaudible 0:48:27] report, teachers, nothing.  We don’t know anything, you know.

Vincent Davis:  When you say we, are you referring to just you and the father or were you referring to the relatives who have the children?

Female:  Me and my boyfriend which is the father of the youngest one.

Vincent Davis:  Well, if your rights haven’t been terminated, you’re entitled to get all of that information.  Have you had the chance to sit down with your attorney to discuss this?

Female:  I had one attorney that just wasn’t doing anything for me.  They gave me a new attorney.  He really isn’t doing anything for me either because he came to me.  I had myself doing a POD and found out that I didn’t appeal it and whatever it is that I did, it wasn’t in the appeal.  And then the attorney comes in telling me that I’d just be wasting my time, spending my wheels on that because they never approved of the appeal anyway.

Vincent Davis:  So what can I do…

Female:  I was in Cleveland.

Vincent Davis:  Where?

Female:  Cleveland.

Vincent Davis:  Oh, you’re in Cleveland, Ohio.

Female:  Yeah.

Vincent Davis:  Well, thank you for calling from Cleveland.  I’m a licensed attorney in California so I can’t give you an advice in Ohio but I can tell you that you should definitely sit down with your attorney, meet with him or her and try to find out the status of your case and tell the attorney what information you were trying to get so that you can find out about your children.  If your rights haven’t been terminated you might also want to talk to your attorney about is there anything that they can do on your Ohio law to get your children back or to get you more legalized visitation or even to get you more family reunification services.

Female:  Yeah, I had filed for manifestation of care and custody because there’s some issues going on with the [inaudible 0:50:46] and so I filed for a manifestation of care and custody.  I haven’t heard anything yet.  This was back in May.

Vincent Davis:  Did you file with your attorney’s help?

Female:  Yes.

Vincent Davis:  Okay, very good.  Well, if you filed back in May and you haven’t heard anything since then, now we’re about to go into January I would suggest you email your attorney to find out what the status is.

Female:  Yeah, because they didn’t give a ruling on the case of what I thought was in appeal.  It’s like a whole year, I didn’t hear anything.  And so this is quite a while.

Vincent Davis:  I suggest that you call your attorney or email your attorney so you can get some more information so that he or she can help you in this case.  I want to thank you for calling in from Cleveland.  I’m going to try to take one more call before we run out of time.  Okay.  Good morning, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis.


Fighting Tyranny CPS DCFS Social Workers – Caller Female

Female: Hello.  Hi, good morning.

Vincent Davis:  Hi.  Good morning.  How are you?

Female:  Good.  How are you?

Vincent Davis:  Good.

Female:  I have just a generic question actually.  I’ve had CPS called twice by my ex who is the father of my kids.  The social worker is kind of familiar with the situation.  He actually gets exhausted to come here but I guess what my real question is, is there ever a time where CPS understand that it’s the ex calling and it’s just kind of like a random routine thing for that person?  Do they ever just stop taking those calls from the ex?  Do they have to continuously come out and investigate each time they get a call?

Vincent Davis:  That’s a very good question.  It happens a lot of times.

Female:  Yeah.

Vincent Davis:  Whenever they receive a call about suspected child abuse, they are supposed to investigate it.  There just come a time, I think and I don’t know what the number is where the social worker can determine a long with his or her supervisor, hey, that this is just a prank call or false calls being made by someone who doesn’t like the mother or who doesn’t like the parents and at the time they can determine to stop investigating but that’s after a lot of times and after a lot of investigations.  And a lot of times you can even find out who’s doing it because it’s confidential by law.

Female:  Yeah, and it wasn’t even the allegation of child abuse.  It was that I had a boyfriend living with me and he was basically saying that the boyfriend was abusing me when that’s never happened.  So it was pretty interesting to — I’ve never had this situation happen.  I’ve never had a boyfriend live though with me until now.  So it was just — this is all new.  It’s just in different realm.

Vincent Davis:  On Christmas Day I got a call from a gentleman and they placed him through to my cell phone and this was his situation.  The social worker has been out to his house three times because there’s somebody making a [inaudible 0:54:27] him and his girlfriend who’s the mother of the child that they were drug users.  And every time the social worker comes out, she requested to take a drug testing and he and the mother complied.  It’s always come out — it turned out to be negative and he finally realized that he thinks that the person making these allegations is an old tenant that used to live in their backhouse who they had a problem with them that they recently have found it.

So now he knows he’s making these false allegations.  He did ask me is there anything he could legally like sue the tenant.  And I said yeah, you could but you have to prove that that it was the tenant making these false allegations.  And supposedly in California, that information is confidential.  I don’t know if there’s an appellate case on whether the county social worker will have to disclose in making those false allegations against you or to him in order to make a lawsuit.

I have two children; they’re 23 and 22 right now.  But then when they were two and three, someone had called in an allegation against me and my wife.  And come to find out it was the therapist of my aunt who sometimes babysit my children.  And my aunt had disclosed to the therapist that she and her husband had been fighting and there was some domestic violence.  But because my aunt one time babysat my children, a referral was given to the social worker and the social worker came out to my house two times to investigate to make sure nothing was going on.

Female:  Yeah, they’ve been out here three times already and I’m just kind of like — do I have the right to refuse at this point?  Is it not a good idea to refuse them to come in and investigate?

Vincent Davis:  That’s sixty-four-dollar question.  I always tell the general rule to my clients and people that call me not to talk to social workers {TAG: don’t talk to social workers} because it could be twisted and turned and when there’s nothing there, case can be filed against you.  But people say, well, what if I don’t talk to the social worker, will the judge or the social worker get mad?  And the answer to that is yes.  But what’s the worst situation talking to a social worker and giving them…

Female:  Giving them information.

Vincent Davis:  Right.  Or which is a ten or not talking to them which is a five.  I mean, it’s bad either way but I tried to advise people not to talk to social workers.  On one of my websites, there’s a video of an ex-governor and I think it was the ex-governor of Mississippi or Alabama or something like that.  And she goes on for about an hour.  I found this video on YouTube.  She goes on for about an hour saying why you should never ever talk to the social worker.  Now, I’m running out of time this morning.  Thank you for your call.  I appreciate…

Female:  Okay.  Well, thank you.  Thank you.

Vincent Davis:  Okay.  So we’re going to wrap up the show now.  I want to refer you to my website fightchildprotectiveservices.com.  There’s a wealth of information there, both in blogs and in videos and I think there is also there where you can download my free eBook on Juvenile Dependency.  My telephone number if you want to call me is 888-888-6582.  That’s 888-888-6582 and also you can email me at v.davis@vincentwdavis.com.  In wrapping up I want to you remind people, in order to win and get your children back you must get expert legal representation.  You must educate yourself and you must vote.  Juvenile Dependency Court judges are elected in California and they go up for reelecting every two years, so remember.  Thank you again for listening this morning and we will talk to you next week at 8:00 AM.


When you talk to me, Vincent W. Davis, you can be sure of one thing, that I am listening. Child Protective Services (CPS or DCFS) and your accusers have their story, and it is our job to make sure that your story is heard and we keep your family together. If your kids or grand-kids have already been taken, we will find the best and fastest way to reunite your family.

Call me personally - 888-888-6582 - I am waiting to hear your story now, to defend you and keep your family together or reunite you and your precious loved ones.

We Are Your Juvenile Dependency Lawyers and we are proud to serve    Los Angeles,   Orange,   Riverside,   San Bernardino , Ventura, and  San Diego Counties.

Email: v.davis@vincentwdavis.com


Juvenile Dependency Attorney Locations

Arcadia Office
150 N. Santa Anita Ave,
Suite 200
Arcadia, CA 91006
Phone: (888) 888-6582
Fax: (626)-446-6454


Beverly Hills Office
9465 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (888) 888-6582


La Mirada Office
Cerritos Towne Center
17777 Center Court Drive ,
Suite 600
Cerritos, California, 90703
Phone: (888) 888-6582


Los Angeles Office
Gas Company Tower
555 West Fifth Street,
31st Floor
Los Angeles, California, 90013
Phone: (888) 888-6582


Long Beach Office
Landmark Square
111 West Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 400
Long beach, California, 90802
Phone: (888) 888-6582


Irvine Office
Oracle Tower
17901 Von Karman Avenue,
Suite 600
Irvine, California, 92614
Phone: (888) 888-6582
Fax: (949)-203-3972


Ontario Office
Lakeshore Center
3281 E. Guasti Road,
7th Floor
City of Ontario, California, 91761
Phone:(888) 888-6582


Riverside Office
Turner Riverwalk
11801 Pierce Street,
Suite 200
Riverside, California, 92505
Phone: (888) 888-6582


San Diego
Emerald Plaza
402 West Broadway,
Suite #400
San Diego, California, 92101
Phone: (888) 888-6582


Aliso Viejo
Ladera Corporate Terrace
999 Corporate Drive,
Suite 100
Ladera Ranch, California, 92694
Phone: (888) 888-6582


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Juvenile   Dependency   ResourcesIf you or a family member are facing off with Child Protective Services, Vincent W. Davis is here to help!

View More Resources

Contact   Us — Juvenile   Dependency   Lawyers   —   Vincent   W.   Davis   &   Associates

Please fill out all fields and an DCFS CPS attorney will contact you.