I was with a good friend the other night, discussing life and some of our personal stories. My friend was telling me about how his mother became very ill and was no longer able to care for him when he was a child. CPS came to his home, and met his grandmother who he was very close with. She was a tough lady, and was adamant that she would be able to care for him. As my friend related this story to me, he was visibly very disturbed to recall the events. They were very adamant about trying to get him taken into foster care, and despite his grandmothers assurance that she was the best person to care for him they persisted. In this case, my friend was very lucky and was able to stay with his family, but what if his grandmother wasn't so strong? How many people are bullied into losing their children? More importantly, why are CPS so keen to remove children from families, and even unconstitutionally?

My friend then shared a video with me, and I watched it because I knew that it was important, and I didn't understand it all. It was 4 hours long, and watching this video was eye opening. When we want to understand why CPS is so keen to remove children from families we have to understand 2 very powerful causes. The first is the very sinister aspect of child trafficking and serious child abuse. This is one of the darker aspects of some CPS abuses, and is one that my friend explained well to me. People who are child abusers are attracted to children, and will find a job that gives them access to them. Child abusers, and traffickers couldn't want for an easier mode of child acquisition than how CPS operates around the globe. So that is one side of the story, but I will put aside as that is not the focus of this post. The second issue is the simple fact that CPS is operated as a business, and is constrained by the budgets puts upon them. Their staff are largely untrained in anything relating to the needs of the parents or child, and are instead given instructions to act unconstitutionally in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, to ensure success in court, there is evidence that over 50% of CPS reports are exaggerated, or have omissions that lean the case in favour of the CPS.

CPS are forced to remove children from families, regardless of if they have proof of immediate danger, because they have to remove children in order to get funding and survive. The vast majority of removals happen without a warrant, or immediate danger or physical harm, despite this being required by the USA constitution. If CPS attend and do not remove, they do not get funding and start to run at a loss. The pressure to remove children regardless of circumstances is very strong, and indeed the HEAD of CPS strongly acknowledges this in his deposition. If that weren't bad enough, CPS are also pressured by monetary reasons to not only remove children, but to ensure they are adopted rather than reunified with their families. If CPS can manage to get children into foster care, they can survive as a business. They have great pressures on them to do this, and it needs to be very clearly understood that this is what is driving a huge number of unethical removals. It is so important to realise that as a consequence, there is no almost effort put into reunification, and all this just because of money. This is a tragedy in every way. When you really start to look at some cases, you realise they CPS agents will actively try to find reasons for removal that are totally fabricated, because every visit they make without removal costs the CWS money, and they get no additional funding for their operations.

It may sound crazy to you that an agency that was intended to preserve the welfare of children are doing the exact opposite. You may be skeptical that the people who work in these agencies are really that bad, but I have heard enough now to know that sadly that they really Are that bad. They will go to any lengths, including perjury in court, to fabricate and exaggerate their case and ensure they get child removal. Unconstitutional removals are happening each and every day, and there is no one able to stop it. The system is totally disconnected, and when CPS are given budget cuts, those making them have no real care about the knock on effects of these cuts. CPS are not able to fire their staff easily, and they have strong unions. Not having a budget is not a good enough reason to fire someone legally. Therefore the pressure for CPS to do whatever it takes to remove children is unsurmountable and not up for debate. It is clearly admited in this video! CPS is a system that is inherently flawed, and by its very nature attracts the wrong kind of people. You would think CPS is run by wonderful people who want to save children from terrible abusers, but the reality couldn't be further from the truth!

I have taken some pertinent quotes from this video and written them below. These quotes contain the proof for a lot of what I have just said, and were given under oath by and is a deposition by Michael Riley, Head of Orange County CPS.

Q. Currently, you are the head of Orange County social services, correct?
A. That is correct
Q. And you have the authority to set policy for the entire department correct
A. Yes

Q. You remove children from the care of their parents on a daily basis?
A. Yes we do
Q. And in most of those instances of removal, your social workers do not obtain a warrant prior to removing the child correct
A. In most cases, that is correct.

Q When are emergency care workers sent to a home?
A. When they are part of a drug ring for example, or when there is domestic violence, and they call us and we come on site.

Q. What about in the case of reported abuse in hospitals?
A. When we have a hospital call us with a young child with no idea how the child was harmed, we then detain the child as a matter of practice

Q. Who decides when a child is detained?
A. We discuss with medical staff but mainly with our child abuse expert. We make a determination in consultation with our emergency response supervisor.

Q. When a child abuse expert has NO experience can they still overrule and make the decision over and above a physician.
A. Yes, that is correct

Q. You were the head of the children and family services division prior to director of social services, correct?
A. Correct, in 1997 - 2007

Q. Isn't it correct that until 2010 your agency provided NO TRAINING to the social workers regarding the procedure for a protective custody or removal warrant if they wanted to?
A. It is not my understanding, there was training

Q. When?
A. I don't have the dates as to when, although that may not have included removal warrant training

Q. The 2012 mandatory civil rights training, is something all your workers are required to go to, correct?
A. Yes. We started doing that as it became apparent our staff needed to become more astute and more aware of whats happening as far as litigation is concerned

Q. So you did the training not because you were concerned about the rights of the people impacted by your agency, but because of concerns of litigation?
A. We wanted everyone to be given the same consistent message.

Q. So it is your testimony here that a child under the age of 3 could be removed from the custody of his or her parent without a warrant if there was the potential they could be physically harmed?
A. Yes, there would be a high probability.
Q. At the time of the removal, does there have to be any evidence that the child is abused by the caregiver? Will you remove the child, even if there is no evidence that the parent harmed the child?
A. Yes we can remove children even if there is no direct evidence
Q. And you understand that the constitutional right for parents and children to live together is guaranteed by the 4th 14th and 1st amendment to the US constitution?
A. Yes i understand
Q. You also understand that in the absence of a true emergency its improper to intervene in that family relationship that is preserved by the constitution?
A. Yes
Q. Are you familiar with the legal position that it is constitutionally improper to remove a child unless there is reasonable and articulable evidence to support the proposition that the child is in immediate danger of bodily danger or death at the hands of the parents, correct?
A. Yes, that is correct

Q. Do you ever hear complaints from parents that social workers were being less than honest in their court reporting
A. Yes?

Q. How frequently?
A. We don't have them frequently, but now and then and take that seriously

Q. Are you aware that a social worker for your agency has testified that up to 50% of cases parents complain of social worker dishonesty in their reporting
A. I wasn't aware of that

Q. In foster care, would the money the county receive be higher if the child is actually removed at the emergency response stage?
A. Yes

Q. And if the child is not removed then you would only get CWS funding?
A. Correct

Q. And what about reunification? is there any difference in funding depending of the outcome of the reunification effort?
A. Only in the sense that we are to get kids as reunified as quickly as we possible can within an 18 month cap

Q. the amount of money the county receives would be higher if the child is actually removed at the emergency response stage?
A. yes, the state will provide funding to support that child.

Q. Then after 18 months we go to permanency planning right?
A. Right?

Q. That is funded by who?
A. It is under the same umbrella

Q. Now if a child goes off to adoption, then more funding comes in for that?
A. Yes

Q. So let me clarify the funding. You get funding at removal, funding for CWS costs, funding for reunification, and funding for permanency planning?
A. Yes

Q. And all of that funding is associated with a particular child going through that process?
A. Yes

Q. Do you get any extra funding or bonus for reunification?
A. No, we don't get bonuses. it doesn't matter if a social worker sees 10 or 20 children in a month it makes no difference.

Q. OK so you are going to get the same amount of funding regardless of how many children a social worker sees or reunifies?
A. Correct.

Q. And then of course your staffing levels are also driven by the number of children you are dealing with?
A. Absolutely

Q. You don't like to fire anybody do you?
A. No, in fact it's very difficult to fire anyone, and they have unions and union members

Q. And you can't just walk in one day and say you're fired because we don't have money for you?
A. No we cant.

Q. If your funding shrinks you are just stuck with this situation
A. Yes that is too bad, yes

Q. So really it is like a business as you have to take all that into account
A. Yes it is, we have to take all that into account.

Deposition of Michael Riley

Shawn McMillan deposing CPS director, Michael Riley in relation to a US 1983 section 42 lawsuit