CAS Baby for sale?
CPS "Equal Justice?"
CFSM - “Citizens for Social
An Expose on the Current
State of Protection Personified:
As a pretext to the following content, I’d
like the reader to consider this “expose”
merely as an extrapolation of how we perceive the “current”
protection climate. Therefore and in the CFSM’s
desire to redirect “real & actual”
abuse back into the forefront, I must or will respectfully
refrain from probing cites, legal opinion and more specifically,
“state” required submissions to the
AFCARS data base and for obvious reasons. Why? Simple. Child “protection”
is neither about numbers crunching, nor is it about categorizing
“children” by line--item and as a compartmental standard
for measuring success. And for a lack of better baseline terminology,
let’s just call it, a rubric anomaly of compensatory reimbursement,
for children in care. Excuse me, I meant “fostered”
care and let’s not forget “adoptions”, as yet
another form of subsidiary privatization. Only, and please don’t
take this the wrong way folks, as we do concur with fostering and
adoptions, as being of the utmost importance. Absolutely, unequivocally!
However and yet where we differ, well it’s plain as day. As
in, blatantly obvious. As in, why has child protection taken a back
seat to indifference and profitable motivations?
Good question, and the answer? Probably, because we’ve allowed
this to become an acceptable norm. Acquieced to
the situation at hand, like in what problem, just take the
kid, simple. And, or as opposed to considering another
possibility, or other, “less disruptive” options. Hell
no. Don’t even think about entertaining that idea, as to cause
Determine what manifested the element of danger. Find
the “root cause”, maybe even ‘craft a repair plan?.
Nope, bad business decision here, as the protective fix is in and
consider it done. Yet and again, on and on, “just another
family” rendered defenseless by ignorance, by simple minded
you’ve gone and created a situation and one which abrogates
the peeling away of a childs innocence, and for whatever the market
exchange rate of $’s for child
can fetch. Because in application and real dollars, it’s more
or less, initiate an action and open the coffer.
Take 2, 3 kids, get promoted. Adopt one out, collect a bonus.
Presuming of course, you exceed quotas and surpass YTD goal, plus
the perk, adoptions. And congratulations once again,
as you, you’ve qualified and have been selected for that prestigious
award. Child & family terrorist, worker/agency, of the
year. Sad but true and certainly not amusing in the least.
Wherein and in an exercise of our deference to, in either awarding
or by congratulating others for abuse, and I suppose, as kind of
a protest, we will not publish appropriations, funding, nor “accounting
formulations”. You know, like in paying homage to, or as acknowledgment
of, an “opportunistic enterprise”,
and of one, which sees fit to prey on the weak. This diabolical
hypocrisy, “the business”, it’s exploitative aspirations,
the whole enchilada. All of it, evolving. With much of it’s
shear existence, both predicated and dependant upon and as a matter
of it’s continued survival, by bigger numbers, as in, “increased
headcounts”. Treating children as cattle, like commodities.
Or in short, removal for profit. To that extent,
some may view portions of this content as offensive, while others
may find it a bit redundant and as well, somewhat peppered with
Fact is, you can interpret it in any manner you choose.
Yet going away, it will either lead you to believe, one,
either this guys nuts, or two, that he’s
plain ole fed up. Tired, disgusted, angry, pissed off, all of that.
Certainly ashamed of our governing bodies, now that’s a “fact”!
The blind, deaf and dumb, “star chambers” of the world.
Judiciaries, oblivious to the deafening silence of a child’s
removal, kicking and “ ”. Where audi alteram partem,
“the right to be heard”, has been plead out
and once again, to ” no contest”. Lost
in the adversarial bowels of a legal system in disguise.
And by what, another scheduled hearing? Of more of the same, apostolical,
“good faith, best interest”? Child abuse by
proxy, being what it is. The whatever ya say master, case
management alternative of choice. That be it and let’s press
on, and oh yes, three. Review all or part of this
opinion, critique, ignore or simply just blow it off. As that is
your choice. To draw whatever conclusions you might. Or maybe just
enjoy the reading, have a burger and beer, and we’ll just
let it go at that. But make no mistake, we, CFSM
will not STOP,
regardless. And then again, maybe, possibly you’ll just find
this little “ten”
page articulation, somewhat intriguing.
Either way, our intent is really all about motivation. Implore,
inspire, engage, and even force you however necessary, into some
contemplation of the fate of these kids, 100's, 1000's, the tens
of 1000's. Really, it, the denial, abuse, it’s beyond the
pale in scope. Newborns, children of all ages, families, all caught
up in a web of hopeless despair. This the epitome of emotional servitude.
That said, it is, or should be imperative, that we come full circle
in returning back and to center stage, this issue of “real”
and “verifiable”, child abuse.
Get back to the basics. A rehabilitation of “the system”,
if you will and by the decontamination of prior “bad”
policy, protocols and legislation. A reversal of self-inflicted
trends, which have lost sight of the “paramount purpose”
and with a total lack of empathy and for those in dire need of help.
Of abusing the abused in order to justify cost. In other words,
for profit, in the name of the almighty DOLLAR.
That said, we must approach the situation cautiously and with the,
a proportionate response. Just get to that place in time, and where
one can or will simply put their foot down and exclaim. I’m
as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!
Let us proceed. Child Abuse v. Family Rights,
or shall we say, “the business of protection”.
For this has now become the ultimate litmus test, in mankind’s
willingness to defend its most vulnerable. As what we have before
us, is this struggle, between an archaic concept, that “children
should be seen and not heard” and with those who would intertwine
protection neatly around abuse, and as a most “lucrative”
opportunity. Though, what’s really been created here, is this
dilemma, which has elevated a “child’s best interest”,
beyond that of, repairing a situation which relates to a, or some
form of, “problematic behavior within the family”. Whereas,
you could summarily perceive this viewpoint , as societal
corrosion v. moral capacity, or on the
opposite edge of the sword, as a front line failure on the “citizens”
part. Yes, failure! Letting our guard down or moreover, conveniently
turning a blinds eye to yesterdays tragedy. This forget you, I got
“my” own life concept of self, of convenience and by
simply deflecting responsibility elsewhere, the let someone else
deal with it school of thought. You all know, that old rendition
of, it ain’t botherin’ me, so why should I give a dam
anyway theory of passive non-confrontation. And all things being
equal, maybe we ought just “bend over and take it”.
For, or as in terms of fighting back, someone must be willing to
take the ball, instead of the “bucks”. Money, I mean
big cash-ola, this the core obstacle. Since in
complicating matters worse and by placating bureaucratic doctrine
with more regurgitated opinion, we only galvanize this legitimization
of the C.P.S position. Where abuse has become synonymous with protection.
Kids, families, as easy targets, more or less like deer caught in
the headlights. Frozen and defenseless. Only with the kids, the
vehicle of destruction comes equipped with an emblem on the vehicle,
and the weapon of choice? A protector knocking at your door. Anyway
and for now, it’s best we sidestep that landmine and get on
with the matter at hand. Or how best to ETA / End
the Abuse and from both sides.
Since just as “excuses” or opinions are like a--holes”“,
not “everyone’s got one”, that however justifies
abusing his or her child.
While on the flip side of kicking due
process to the curb, due diligence can or certainly
must assume, that we be cognizant of governmental accountability,
and for any flagrant/contravening act or action, which occurs on
their watch. While then, and in even taking it a step further. Some
would espouse the position, whereby criminal charges are and or
should be considered applicable for “racketeering”,
for “intentional fraud”, and against provinces or states,
But is it really as simple as that?
As for the CFSM,
we are not so naive, as to think that we can just wave some magic
wand and rescue all of the worlds children from abuse. Though we
are, in at least for now, satisfied, by our willingness, to assist
but “one”, of what we hope to be, numerous families.
Yet, when I look back at the 1000's of hours of research and try
to conceptualize what an advocate is suppose to do, I for one, now
foresee significant obstacles, questions and doubts, which didn’t
exist at the onset of our involvement and as well, simply were not
Obstacles? Yes. Insurmountable,
possibly. As the issue of “child abuse” and for whatever
reason, has just now crept over the horizon. Brought to us, courtesy
of the media. Television, radio, newspapers, the internet.
“Child beaten, drowned, molested, caged,,,,,,,”. Front
page stuff, as if this is the first time it’s ever happened!
Say what, “caged “? Fact of the matter
is, that if you were to ask the parent or kid, about a ‘child
in care’, you might hear terms like, “hostage”.
Oh really? Probably, as I, you, we all know what time it is and
so do they, the bureaucracy, C.P.Services. Cause you can call it
“in care” til the cows come home, but that’s putting
perfume on a pig. As it is what it is, for good reason or not. “Held
hostage Day 1, 2,3,30, 60,,,365,,,-“. Like
forever, or so it seems. And then what? Our legislators, these “esteemed
colleagues” and acting in our best interests, draft legislation,
give C.P. the go-ahead, and the family destructive frenzy begins.
Help save all of the kids! With this miraculous
cure all, “protection”. From “abuse”, as
vaguely defined. One which has slithered its way into families and
as an infection, while manipulated by some and
to their benefit, but by way of deception. A quagmire,
which has invariably coupled the “protective” issue,
with “neglect”. Where business opportunity has taken
a firm grip on the issue and for the most part, by leaving in it’s
wake, the family and as the victim.
So then and what is the answer?
What sort or form of strategy must be developed
and how best does one go forward? As our resolve
may be admirable, but can or will it be enough? As at the end of
the day, can there be an effective resolution/solution, over this
stark, devious, collusive, enemy? Though be as it may and when looking
at the flagrant manipulation of law and most notably, by fabricated
‘policy and protocol’, one must be a realist. And surely,
not by any such modes of deception or belief, which proclaim the
existence of some magic pill, quick fix solution, or by any legislative
stroke of imagination or pen and by more of the same. Convenient
suggestions, left unanswered. Lost somewhere amongst the internal
workings of, “how best to repair the problem”.
By a child protective arrogance, exhilarated by delusional authority.
This prevention mandated victimization of the “child”
concept of C.P.“Services”. Or in other
words, the philosophy of “good faith”, authenticated.
That and in order for you to right this sinking
ship, we need become more like minded in our motives,
missions, platforms, and methodology of confrontation. Significantly
accelerate our level of “cooperation” and in an efficiently,
engaging adversarial and tactical application of “a/our joint
activism”. Where we act in conjunction with other groups,
partners, government, or as a coalition, and within some asset base
of operatives, or otherwise. Or in the long and short, by whatever
This having been said, and as a founder of CFSM,
I submit, and as well as an advocate, that “we”,
and along with others, can only be successful, if the cause is both
‘right and just’. Secondly, if those actions which need
be taken, fail to address and effectively counter weight all levels
of opposition and at every turn, that these battles, “if unsuccessfully
fought, will be forever lost”. Nevertheless and dashed away,
along with the very hope, dreams and aspirations, of the few, our
desperate brethren, the “little” ones. These “silenced”
lambs, of humanities social and moral ignorance. What, “lost”,
L-O-S-T? Yes and drifting away into a more palatable,
passive and “submissive” exercise in, “citizenship”.
in going forward and with “a plan”.
We, as part of a/the silenced minority, must at least, use to our
advantage, this wide diversification of our cumulative, vast expertise.
And accordingly, we need reflect upon those backward trends of the
past, which have led us to this blackened hole and therein, by staking
a “fresh look” into these injustices. For at the epicenter
of the protective issue, stands a/this “bureaucracy,
intent on securing it’s own survival and by protecting unlimited
growth”. An enemy to us all, which arbitrarily perpetuates
this destruction upon the “family unit” and by a C.P.S
monster, who feasts on as it’s bread and butter, “the
children”. Expecting, thriving on and even dependant upon,
this, our tendency to avoid confrontation.
So here and again,
we sit at the abyss of complacency, where we have as yet to redefine
these all important issues . And having come this far, I/we must
wonder aloud. Just ask and answer ourselves, this all important
question. Can we bridge this gap between isolating [abuse], from
[protection]? Can we conclude, or is the time ripe, for making an
objective determination, as to which is most important. Is it, or
shall I say, “is this” controversy implicitly all about
the “paramount” interest of the child, or as a component
“gold standard” of or for abuse? Or should the gist
of the matter be, more or less, all about the retooling of our thinking
and in such a way, where it falls more along the lines of, a revival
of sorts. As a referendum on the issue. Into bringing together a
world community, one which unites itself in it’s embrace of
but one common theme, and where all are duly bound in their recognition
of the “family”, and at the “pinnacle of the protective
issue”. Better yet, maybe we should merely stipulate, as to
both of these perceptions/values, as conforming, or “equal”.
That is in real terms of an individuals or for “any”
citizens rights, one must or should perceive, child=family though
arguably, as an acceptable dominion, equation, and as a benchmark.
Or at a minimum, as an acceptable policy or standard of practice,
and one which transcends unreasonably corrosive, poorly regulated
government protective mechanisms. Or what we’ll so eloquently
refer to as, a/the C.P.S purgatory of punitive vendettas, or else.
Now I must submit, that in terms of “taking
issue”, what comes before an “advocate or activist”,
is a/the unmitigated proposition, of trying to strike a balance,
in real world terms, between “child & family” and
this huge “cottage welfare industry”, as manifested
by abuse. Abuse, child, protection, family. Anyway and
what, which is it? Who decides? In whom’s arms, has the good
lord chosen to entrust, these, his children? A C.P.S. or
foster parent? No, I think not. As God, Allah or whomever
you place your faith in, would not be so deceitful, as to allow
any such wedge of division, which perpetuates a breakdown of this
covenant hierarchy. “The family”. And
most certainly, not along the lines of a society, which views the
child and parents, as inexplicably unattached entities. So then,
ergo, what we have, in coming full circle into this quagmire, is
this precarious situation, and one that’s yet to be properly
addressed and unfortunately, one which remains dangerously fluid/allusive.
Anyway and what is “child abuse”?
A young person at any age less than maturity, that has been violated.
As in physical, emotional, sexual, or maltreatment. I mean really
and that’s it, abuse by word recognition? Take a kid away
from a mom or dad and based on what, a concept, guideline, or by
some other discretionary notation. Oh, we can go look it up in Webster,
in state or federal statute and elsewhere. Wrap it up in a neat
little word package, I don’t know, maybe call it, Abuse
Dissociative Profiled Syndrome,
or A.D.P.S. Whatever fits the mold. However and when you cut to
the chase, any reasonable person must view any such terminology,
as somewhat circumspect, vague and obviously design specific in
it’s intent to provide for a plethora of interpretations.
Though it does remain, as the catch-all phrase of choice, that is
and as it percolates its way into any number of reactionary conclusions.
But as to it’s meaning, in simplest terms and based on a childhood
perspective? Bad things big people do to
children. That is the connotation. So, does or can it merely
exist, by propagating terms, such as in the above-mentioned and
as a basis in unsubstantiated “fact”, “hearsay”,
or as some inconspicuously acceptable procedural matter of law?
Or, have we just surrendered our children’s ‘care
and custody’, to some new-fangled millennium, of
high profiled, media driven off road, legislative mechanisms. Such
as the CFSA, Canada or CAPTA here in the states. This as the preeminent
lawful defense of “the child”? That’s it, ambiguous
as it is. The federal carrot & stick approach to protectionism
and one which authenticates foster funding, ‘carte blanche’.
A legalized mandating of agencies and by those who are of the opinion,
that “we” simply acquiesce, be subordinate,
relinquish our rights, throw our hands up, say uncle, and submit
to whatever. Conveniently, step aside and allow a C.P.S., this ‘certified
right’, to peremptory vilification of the family. And not
at all due to their “good faith” effort’s, but
rather and moreover as a best interest “doctrine”.
One which in the aggregate, values the “child”
and simply as nothing else, but a, or just another “business
unit”. More appropriately and as the norm, child
plus ‘care giver’, equals
“family unit”. Or, CAPTA/CFSA, CPS/CAS, S.O.S
--- different country.
Therefore, and as described by this next sequence
of events, we who know this scenario all too well, recognize the
common threads, which bind this seamless “business”
side of child protection, and in this day and age, of dysfunctional
institutions. A child is removed/apprehended. More
often than not, from a “single mom”. Counsel advises
client to waive probable cause, though as exampled
in Canada, this issue is set aside at the onset of the ‘cause
of action’, or application if you will. Just skip the reason
the kids were taken and go straight on and right up into, a or some
judicially orchestrated, “best interest”, protection
personified resolution. Most commonly referred to, as the
and as evidenced, in the U.S. framing of the due process
clause and within the Canadian Charter, fundamental justice,
we find no “transparency” in either application , or
in terms of relevance that is. In this, the “fair” adjudication
of “most, if not all” child protection cases. And oh
yes, of course, all of this plus more, as we are assured right to
counsel, and purportedly ‘free of charge’.
Most certainly and only the very best of the best, absolutely, just
ask em’, and qualified too. Truly high end lawyering, no billing
required. And of course, free, if indigent that is, although subject
to reimbursement. As these usually unfortunate, uneducated and culpable
individuals, who have placed their unwavering trust in “the
system”, will soon come to discover. Realize all
too late, about this, a systematic con job, the
one that’s just dumped them and their kids off into oblivion.
If only someone could have forewarned them, helped them to see all
about this evil that lurks within. Only now to find themselves,
grasping, searching and in their darkest hours, for that glimmer
of hope, a supportive voice. The little “due” voice,
that will never get heard. As engagement, a vigorous defense and
sympathy, was never intended to be a part of this equation, not
today, next week, nor any month forthcoming. And that my friend
we’ll call “protocol”. Or more of the same, and
again. When counsel, our delegate protectors in charge and judicial
bias, “rubber stamp”, defendant (U.R.F,,,,, case#XXXX),
P.A. or P.O.C., “next”, next victim
Yes, sold down the river without a prayer
and without ever having one centile of a clue, as to what has just
been done to them. So thereto, once the process takes hold,
the nightmares begun, and the case is all but settled.
Over before it’s started. Roger that and just forget about
it. The cannon of ethics, “zealously, impropriety, competently”,
all of that used car sales/lawyering up styled hype. Let’s
just call it, say, the thank you, f— you, one way school of
lawful accommodation. Cause dear respondent,
sorry, but it’s better you find out now, rather than later.
As it’s ineffective counsel and pick your poison time. Go
along with the “plan” or “don’t” and
face the consequences, of. The, a lawyer, who perceives his “only“
obligation, as just showing up for the “hearing mill routine”,
and as counsel, who seldom or “never”,
contradicts or takes issue with, the plaintiff or applicant and
on the defendants behalf. Due process? An absolute
biased/partial court of jurisdiction. The C.P.S.
manipulation of all circumstances and “always”,
in favor of the “best interest” of their investment.
In a nutshell, the lawyer, judge and child protectors have
become all for one and one for all, and in what is or was
suppose to be, the development of a system whose mandate was, the
protection of “our” children, not “their
investments “. Fact is, on one side of the
aisle, the conscience has left the courtroom.
And then again, what we have here, is a conundrum
of which there is no good, one-size fits all solution. Though and
know matter how you cut it, the veiled deceit represented here and
by all C.P. is and remains, contemptuously punitive and deeply rooted.
Yet and let’s not be mistaken, as was opined in the opening
paragraph, where it is us, we and
as “citizens”, who must shoulder much of the blame,
in “our” ignorance and in “our”
failing to reign-in these designated protectors.
Oh, most definitely. Then again, there are those who would have
us believe, and in their “all omnipotent”
wisdom, that, how they are more able and capable than we, in caring
for “our” children. These God-sends,
appointees, indignant, self-righteous pragmatic types, screwed up
ideologues, we know all too well, who truly believe in their cause.
Those that are firmly entrenched in their belief, whereby they have
concluded, that alleviating “unacceptable”
circumstances in a home and in a/the least intrusive or disruptive
manner, is not subject to any singular interpretation, as to which
or whose method can be deemed, “appropriate”. Where
compliance or should I say, “non-compliance”
has become the preferred, hold -8- your feet to the fire method
of, an all too familiar “spin the wheel”, point
the finger of C.P. blame games. That is at least in their
skewed mind set anyway. Unfortunately though, the why and how best
to fix a family, of CP totalitarianism remains fully entrenched.
And therefore, as it stands, both opponents and proponents remain
at odds in this search for a common ground. Conflicted and with
no real consensus of popular opinion and as to whose, or even what
concept is most likely to succeed.
That being said, there can and must be, but one and
only one, ultimate goal. The protection of the “family
unit”. Or in the least, one which allows for a C.P.S.
organization, that does their job in a way that is most conducive
to the overall “best interest” of a child. Though ultimately
and when considering or determining, if a child “who
may be, or might have been”, in need of protection, needs
to be protected. And
most certainly, not as a “pretext for job opportunism”.
Since, vilifying a ‘care giver’ into “penal servitude”,
in as far as I’m concerned, serves no useful purpose. Just
as and no more than, sending some scared little kid off
to a strangers home and in many cases, because mom
has little money or food. And what is that all about anyway?
How and why did we get to a point, where poverty became “neglect”
and “neglect” was officially annotated as “abuse”.
Fair and impartial? Well of course. Rather, let’s just call
a spade a spade. For today’s quid pro quo of C.P. remains
firmly intact, as it is what it is. Utterly repugnant and gestapolistic.
Excuse my German, for a lack of better terms. Remember, it was not
I that apostatized the principles of the P.S.,
in C.P.S., as in the abstract nature of infecting
the “abuse” issue and as by an acronym, which
has or is now vastly recognized as synonymous with a, or this, the
“Cancer” in C.P.Services.
Though, lets take a deep breath, think on it for a
minute, not quite rush to judgment and for the sake of argument,
be too overly contemptuous of those given charge and as relegated
to serve on our behalf. Cause fact is, far too many “sick”
individuals abuse children and most certainly, deserve to be held
accountable. Point being, kids do in fact, need our adult help and
supervision, however and not at the expense of causing or creating
irreparable harm, while in the name of some ‘protective repair
job’. For most certainly, “hair-trigger child
protection”, is and can by no means, be the appropriate
recourse, nor will we continue to permit its application unchecked.
Though, this still remains to be the case and as a pre-disposed
guidance for removal/apprehension. As such, I/we, are of the following
That if the ‘burden of proof’ cannot
meet a threshold, and at a minimum, of “clear and
convincing evidence” v. “preponderance-more
likely than not”, then one can only ascertain, that a states
interest, “parens patriae”, does not meet our
requirement for an intervene and on behalf of the child(ren).
Therefore, we offer this CFSM
policy statement. “It is a fact of life that the
dynamics of the family is by nature an ongoing, evolving process
of introspective evaluation and adjustments. Accordingly, we submit
, that there are situations that present themselves, which require
the necessary and authoritative protection of the “child/children”.
- In conclusion. The definitive nature of
child abuse & protection, is such, that one can merely
attempt to extrapolate from its narrowest of interpretations, some
intended directive. While on the onerous side of the equation, I
would contend, that these issues are more about perception than
guidance. That in the context, of any nexus one could attach to
these “phrases”, there is an underlying theme, just
waiting to surface. An ideology, long overdue, which equates a moral
necessity to protect, with an obligation to stem “real”
abuse. Yes, “real” not manifested. As such, while we
follow this course, whose path is yet undetermined, it remains imperative
that all of us, you, I, a care giver, parent, adults, each and every
one, hold dear and embrace this noblest of all causes, “the
children”. Do all that we can, until we’ve accomplished
all that has been placed before us. Stop,
discontinue advancing more of the same old same old. This rhetorical
prognostitizing, of chasing down another one of yesterdays inconveniences.
Ya all know, be part of the blame game and simply rest on ones laurels,
or just do what comes easiest. Go along with the status quo and
let somebody else carry the flame. Complacency, I think is the term
or in other words. Either bluff your way through, or let others
deal with the bad hand they’ve been dealt and as an act of
disrespect, just get up from the table and walk. Leave them stuck
in a real world game, where there exists no “reasonable”
propensity for success. No, don’t be pro-active or stand with
them shoulder to shoulder! Why and what the hell for, and for that
matter, why get involved at all? Simply sidestep any “real,
positive” dialogue and just keep on, keepin’
on, driving those same ole beat up opinions in neutral.
All the time considering, that on both sides of the aisle of this
problematic issue, there exists a common thread of systemic vulnerability.
Understanding, knowing all to well, “these voices,
the small, helpless, those unassuming few, who cry out from the
darkest corners of loneliness”. Children
of all origins, race and nationalities. Your friends and neighbors
children. A community of “the protected” which has permitted
itself to be cornered into submissive persecution. These and along
with other such misguided infringements and by “those
who would abuse” and while in the name of
Therefore, and as to our continued tolerance of such
treatment and in the simplest of terms. Well my friends, I submit,
that our patience is wearing increasingly thin. Thus and accordingly,
we will seek to reverse those circumstances, which have maliciously
pilfered away our rights, and by those who would choose to deprive
us of ‘fundamental liberty’ and ‘freedom’
of expression. And, in doing so, forward an ideology, and one with
no other agenda, other than, a, the “covenant protection
of the family domain”.
So then and in going forward, let us not shirk these
or any other responsibilities that have come before us. Whether
by smile, handshake, community service, donation &/or, as an
advocate, worker or ‘care giver’. Yet and then above
all else, let us be a more appreciative, compassionate and understanding
people. Make a benevolent investment of due respect and gratitude,
towards “family”, first and foremost. That and when
all else seems hopeless and at the end of the day you find yourself
staring aimlessly off into space. Wake up. Get back and refocus,
keep your eye on the prize, the “child”, our legacy.
Breath a crescendo, an uplifting spirit of dedication back into
the struggle. Move forward a more positive, less antagonistic agenda,
and one which breaches unacceptable norms and therein, by reconstituting
a more “tantamount” admiration of and for the “family
unit”, notwithstanding, and at the apex of humanity. Or as
a standardized covenant of our moral heritage, if you will and for
“all of Gods children”, past, present and future . .
for Social Morality” .org
P.S. This expose is dedicated, in
part, to Mr. B. Bevans, WECAS, Ontario, Canada proper and for his
and their continued abuse of child and family rights. In kind, we
salute U.S. government, state, federal and it’s C.P.S. The
agency, department, “the enterprise”, and one which
has come to “epitomize mans ability to be inhumane”.
In this, it’s inexplicable and vehement propensity to abuse
its, “the citizens”, just because it can. By
authority of law, by black letter permission. In this legislative
capitally of the “family”, and by this, their “representative
collateral destruction”. Of those, mom, dad, the child(ren),
each and everyone, remember us “all”, and in
your very worst of nightmares. For it has been long ago,
simply forgotten, back in that place in time, in a day and age,
and where both principles and values, were “paramount”.
Then in reaching back, that is if you can or so choose, and in seeking,
“in longing for a better life”, rediscover, reconvene
and by your very deepest reflections, of the past. Memorialize those,
the very principles, as set forth in their subtlest humility, that
legacy, as left before us, by others, by ‘our forefathers’.
Gather in the “spirit and intent”, the truest meaning,
of “ We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
and in doing so, cease this erosion of their ideals and give them
that, their due respect. For I submit, if the “framers”
could speak to this issue from the grave, they would not have voiced
their approval. With that said, and in reverence to the
struggle which formed this unions foundation,
and if you don’t mind, that is, we thank “you”
not, the current bureaucracy, and for your “indignant”
lack of understanding and compassion. As being victims of bad government,
is not at all what should have been expected. Whether in Lansing,
D.C., nor anywhere else. So now and having said all that need be
said, what’s indelibly etched and dry in my mind, is this,
and that it is simple! ”Do what is right”. What
you were suppose to do. As I submit my friends, that the
P, as in Paycheck, is nor ever can equal, the value of the
P, as in the “protective” mandate, once placed
in your charge.......
Print this page