Copblock covered a story about the Henderson family a couple months back. They had their six children removed from their home by DCFS and local LEOs because of an allegation of abuse that didn’t stick. They were arrested for not wanting to allow the armed strangers into their home. LEOs used a battering ram to break into their home. They were taken to jail and their children were taken to foster homes. Eventually their charges were dropped and they were released, only to find they lost their home, their livelihood and their family. DCFS decided to keep their children because they concluded they endangered their children by resisting search and seizure without a warrant.
It has now been over a year. Despite the fact that both parents have fully completed every requirement ordered by DCFS… parenting classes, counseling, monitored visits, unmonitored visits… the case is still open and the children are still not returned. DCFS has stated that they “appear to have not gotten anything out of the experience.” And that alone keeps them from reuniting the family.
The Hendersons are orthodox Jews. They keep kosher, keep the sabbath and have a large family.
Baby number seven made his way into the world a little over a month ago. Erica and Jeffrey were ecstatic. Erica did nothing but hold and breastfeed him. But the day after his birth, a social worker was on the phone demanding he be made a part of the case plan and be assessed by one of DCFS’s “doctors.” The parents politely refused, stating that this baby hadn’t even been conceived when the case began.
Nearly a month later, the social worker obtained a warrant by telling the judge that he believed the child to be urgently in need of removal. The order stated that upon arrival the social worker expected to find the infant physically or sexually abused and/or he would find that the home was so unsafe it was urgently required that the baby be removed from the parents.
When he arrived with two LAPD officers he found nothing but a healthy newborn in a safe home environment. He reported that he found nothing amiss and he and his companions left the home.
Two full weeks later he returned with two different LAPD officers. When they arrived, Erica was having one of her unsupervised visits with her other children. Nobody else was at home. She was nursing her infant when the three public servants walked into the home without a warrant. The oldest Henderson boy announced to his mother that there were police in the house.
When she came out to confront them, they demanded she hand over her baby. She wept and pleaded for them to leave her nursing son with her. One of the armed officers threatened that if she did not hand over the newborn they would take all the children and place her under arrest.
Her oldest daughter cried and begged the officers to leave her baby brother and not arrest her mother. “I’m just doing my job,” the social worker told the ten year old girl. She began to sing a Jewish prayer through her tears. The oldest son likewise begged them to leave and said, “My Imma is a good Imma. She has done nothing wrong!”
In the end, Mrs. Henderson sobbed as she handed her five week old to the officers, wishing to not traumatize her other children further by having them removed by force while seeing their mother placed in handcuffs.
The LEOs and social worker left with the baby, leaving the unmonitored children behind to finish their visit with their mother. Somehow, Erica pulled herself together and attempted to finish the visit without breaking down.
A week after the kidnapping, judge Marguerite Downing held an emergency hearing which by law should have been done within 48 hours. Without the parents present (she refused their right to appear in pro per), she sustained the order for removal and further ordered that Mrs. Henderson’s unmonitored visits be cut in half and reverted to monitored visits. The children were listed as “adoptable”… a term that means they are on the conveyor belt toward being placed in strangers’ homes. Fortunate for the department, there is federal money they stand to gain for both the children’s detainment and their subsequent adoption.
We assume the change was made to cover up the obvious discrepincy between the emergency removal order and the unmonitored children left behind. Further, it is even more suspicious that the investigation resulted in the social worker saying he didn’t see a problem and then felt the need to take the infant.
As of now, the children have still not been returned and, although the family has submitted press releases to local media and put up a website with information, very few local Los Angelinos are interested in making a stir over an infant. But we think copblock participants care more about holding people with badges accountable.
Daryl M. Russel, Chief of Police, Hollenbeck office, LAPD 323-342-4100
Los Angeles County DCFS Director, Philip Browning 213-351-5602
Superior Court Judge Lee Smaley 213-974-5600
State Representative Gloria Molina 213-974-4111
Not these nutters again…when will they learn?
I am very impressed with this site and just want to say thanks for your effort in exposing this corrupt filth! One day I hope these officials look back at what they have done and really take notice of the lives they have ruined. God bless you cop block and God bless us all.
this is pretty common practice for Children’s services, no matter what the name or where they are located. once they get kids into care they dont like to give them back. no matter what it takes to keep them. they cover up abuse in foster homes and group homes.
cop block needs to take a week or so and investigate this crap specifically.
@NOCOMMONSENSE: YOU ARE THE EPITOME OF EVIL. SOMEONE SHOULD TAKE YOU TO THE SWAMP AND GO TROLLING FOR GATORS. THESE PEOPLE DID ALL THE THINGS THE KANGAROO COURT DEMANDED, THEN DHS IS ONCE AGAIN ALLOWED TO COME AND KIDNAP A CHILD.
FUCK YOU AND THE PIGS YOU SUCK. WIPE THAT COP CUM OFF YOUR CHIN ASSHOLE, YOU LOOK RIDICULOUS
I can see Wolfy’s pill wore off…take another you fuckin’ fruit-loop.
I guess you could say “Common Sense” is the resident pig here at copblock, If you go through the posted stories his ignorant pleas for attention are in every single post with open comments.
He is obviously a police officer with WAY too much time on his hands. When not trolling copblock he is masturbating to videos of swat teams shooting dogs and violating peoples rights.
Other interests include zoophilia, facism, and pedophilia. When not trolling copblock he is either hanging around the forums of PoliceOne, or Posting in the comments of TV news websites about how whatever local story they are discussing is somehow attributable to the poor performance of President Obama.
@Common, when you grow up, this could be you, and for no real reason. You think it’s just fun and games, but real people are being harmed by this crap.
I remember one person I know, who had a friend who’s kids were taken because they had ‘an unreasonable fear of the government.’
Well, they took the kids for no other reason than their view of the government. Doesn’t sound like unreasonable fear to me.
I swear, if these people did this to me…well, they have kids too. Maybe that is what it will take.
As for the cop saying “I’m just doing my job.” Is that what he’ll tell his family when he tells them he took a woman’s child for no reason other than he was ordered to, or will he hide what he did in shame?
common, I sincerely hope you’re a texas cop and that you make the foolish decision to violate my rights someday. I truly do. It will be a great day for the world to remove your presence from it.
I am sure we will see (lack of) Common Sense in the news one day. The victim of an autoerotic asphyxiation accident while surrounded by piles of goat porn.
This is the result of registering the child’s birth. It makes the STATE parens patrae . The guardian ward relationship takes over. It’s so sad the 99.9% of people have no idea the legal implications of registering a child.
@indio007: You erroneously assume that this baby was registered. You notice that in this article, there is no name given to the baby. The parents did NOT register the birth. The state has taken the position of ordering one be filed for him. Which begs the question… WILL THE STATE NAME HIM TOO???
Damn nanny state at it’s finest.
I really think it does more damage to a kid to take them away from their parents and put them in a string of loveless foster homes.
Not to mention it’s not the state’s business how someone raises their kids.
@Katie McCall: I agree with everything in your comment, except one thing; I don’t see how any of that begs the question :-/
How aggravating to hear about something like this, and I was also wondering if they will end up naming the baby, too. How sad, they could potentially send this baby anywhere, name it anything, and conveniently “lose track” of any records that would make it possible to get their baby back! This whole thing makes me want to cry and punch a wall all at the same time!
Oh and the, “I’m just doing my job” crap…what kind of person would actually agree to do a job like that in the first place? Nobody is forcing her to “just do her job” and she can’t just dismiss her personal accountability like that! UGH!!
I don’t know about California, but in at least one state (Arkansas), failure to register a live birth is a felony. Not registering would certainly give the DCFS goons the “reason” they needed to take the child.
@KBCraig: Not a felony in CA. Not even expected prior to one year because the system is so backed up with a bankrupt economy.
A story to warm Common Sense’s pedophillic heart.
Sorry, I will side with the State on this one (again), but you can donate to the Henderson’s if you wish, they take Paypal, Visa and Mastercard.
@DK
Yeah, whatever…
@shawn
You again make an assumption. What was the reason? You have no idea. You have no DCPS reports. All you have is the Henderson’s article (paypal link included).
Now, had you, or CB, or even the Henderson’s themselves, posted the DCPS reports, a police report, anything to perhaps shed some light on this, then perhapd I would be willing to believe. But in true form, they only tell you what they want you to hear, so all the little children will feel sorry for them and pay their rent.
Again, if you wanted sympathy, you dialed the wrong number.
But if you want a diddler of little kids, they need you on speed dial.
I have learned one thing in all these Cop Block posts/threads ,, WOLF is fascinated with the words cum and chin, he can’t keep away from the cum on his chin!
Let me guess, I should wipe the cum off my chin,,, yup,, you got me!
I have seen stories like this in Sweden and other European countries with a socialistic view on child care. Remember Hilary Clinton “It takrs a Village to Riase a Child”. This is the representatives of the Village in action as voters with NO understanding of consequences vote socialistic/communistic ideologists into office. Only a complete washout of all these elitist socialists, most of them on the democratic side of the isle,but the disease has spread to the Rpublican side as well, will cause change. Vote Conservative across the board in the next 2 or 3 elections, and we will have our country back.
They really need a great attorney because this is ridiculous….so anyone in California especially can have “The State” walk in your home unannounced and take your children when they want to without a warrant? So…do they have a “black market” baby selling ring? The older children are too old to just be given to someone else because they remember their parents…but the baby is only 5 weeks old and will not remember them. So are they also watching this woman to see “if” she is pregnant again and when she delivers so they can swoop in and take another child from her. This is so so sad…especially for the children….then they wonder how serial killers are born….being traumatized is being traumatized and seeing all of that go on in their home and going through it is ver traumatizing. And God only knows what lies where told to the children when they were NOT in the parents care….trying to convince them (the kids) that their parents actually DID DO something to them. How many young children start thinking what they have been told did actually happen to them …when in reality IT DID NOT HAPPEN!!! Sad to say..this has been going on for centuries…slavery days to sharecropping days to indentured servitude to what is now called kidnapping in 2012. It was all “kidnapping”…when you take a human being against their will and the will of their guardian. As a mom…I feel so sorry for the kids and the parents. God Bless them.
@Common Sense: As the writer of this story I read the entire DCFS (not DCPS) file. There is indeed a lot more to the story, as it has been going on for sooooo long. But there is nothing in the case file that makes these parents dangerous for their children to live with. They are no different than any other family. And I surely HOPE they have money donated to their cause. After all, the state is using stolen money to support their own… Very sad to hear that you support government sponsored kidnapping of children who very much miss their parents.
I liked the part where they completely omitted the reason for the children being taken in the first place. But what do you expect form copblock.org
Use that fancy PDF format, and attach the records, police reports and other documents.
Unless….
@Katie Well why aren’t they doing anything. The entire basis of taking a child is parens patrae. That comes from declaring a political allegiance . I won’t get into the details about the legal fiction of allegiance to a body politic which is impossible.
They need to go out and get theselves a Writ of Prohibition against the actors. They need to use tort law against these people in their private capacity.
They should use habeas corpus to get the child back on the basis that the child and the parents are NOT citizens. The need to claim the state is NOT the sovereign and by law CAN’T be. The prevailing case law on allegiance is Calvin’s Case
irst, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man…
4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta
Quote
The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrases has entirely resulted from the change of government The sovereignty has been changed from one man to a collective body of people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the state. “Citizens,” under our Constitution and laws, means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress. United States v. Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 7S5, 788 (citing 1 Kent, Comm. 292, note).
Now if anyone wants to be a “citizen” simply silently accept the legal fiction. Pretend there is a reciprocal obligation and carry on. They won’t correct you that’s for sure.
You must understand that a child custody proceeding is a determination of status and a proceeding in rem.
It is not about the child it is about the parents which are presumed to be subjects.
All a thousand plus pages? Or just the recent removal order that says there was nothing wrong with the infant or his surroundings? If the latter, I’ll be glad to. If the former, you’ll have to wait several months. Or you can come on over for tea.
Don’t forget to mention something about the flag having a gold fringe…that always works.
Don’t forget to mention to Common that there are little girls there… that always works.
I hope tha admiralty comment wasn’t directed at me CommonSense. If it was it only proves you are an ignorant dolt.
Calvins Case is cited as authority in over 400+ Federal Cases and several thousand cases across various states.
The part I posted about a proceeding status and proceeding in rem is straight of Corpus Juris Secumdum AND American Jurisprudence “parent & child”.
They also says the legal justification of all this is the doctrine of parens patrae.
Parens patrae is a consequence of sovereignty.
As I’ve already demonstrated sovereignty and citizen are two sides of the same coin.
It logically follows if there is no sovereignty there is no parens patrae.
Parens patrae is proven by a political declaration. That’s called the birth registration.
If you look in the US Secretary of States report to Congress,
http://archive.org/details/citizenshipofuni00unit
it demonstrates that citizenship follows the condition of the father.
Most revolting is they prove this by using the same legal reasoning to prove whether someone is a slave. Which not so coincidentally is where birth certificates originated.
What else could than the BC be for other than to fix the allegiance of the father and the child to the State that registers it?
Is the BC used as evidence of citizenship?
you know it is. Look at the Obama BS.
What did he proffer as proof of citizenship?
A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
The plain fact is allegiance to the body politic state is a legal fiction. Allegiance is the highest oath the law recognizes. It is between men directly with their soul as the cost of breach. The body politic being invisible and incorporeal can not BY LAW be the sovereign of any man.
Jurisdictional facts that do not appear on record of the case are presumed to exist. Failure to rebut the basic premise of state sovereignty instantaneously subjects you to the whims of the body politic and all the consequences thereof.
Such as Parens Patrae.
Well, you all can’t complain when you volunteered to join the government system. You got a birth certificate? You got a marriage license (aka contract) with the State? You volunteered to get them you know? The marriage license is a contract between you and the State. YOU went to the State for it, you paid them money, you signed. The State has jurisdiction and first right to anything the contract produces – CHILDREN! Show me the Common Law that requires any license to be married, any birth certificate to be gotten. There isn’t one. Did you also state you were a US Citizen? That’s a 16th Amendment corporate commercial slave that belongs to the Federal Government. Yep, they got it all locked up so it’s dang near impossible to exist without. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. They’re using the Uniform Commercial Code to rule over your decisions to belong. That’s not the law you ‘think’ they use…
common scent.
Does the quantum of Indian blood in the veins of the party determine the
fact as to whether such party is of the white or Indian race? If so, how much
Indian blood does it take to make an Indian, or how much white blood to make
a person a member of the body politic known as American citizens? Where
do we find any rule on the subject which nialces the quantimi of blood the
standard of nationality? Certainly not from the statute law of the United
States ; nor is it to be found in the common law. In the case of the United
States V. Sanders ) the court held that the quantum of Indian
blood in the veins did not determine the condition of the offspring of a union between a white person and an Indian; but further held that the condition of the mother did determine the question. And the court referred to the common law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the com-
mon law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a connection
between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from the
Roman civil law, that the owner of a female animal is entitled to all her
brood, according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem. But by the common
law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their
offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur
patrem prevails in determining their status. (1 Bouvier’s Institutes, 198, sec.
502 ; 31 Barb., 486 ; 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 147 ; ShanlvS v. Dupont, 3 Pet,
242.) This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen,
as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem. the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen, the other being a rule defining the ownership of property ; the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom, the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother.
No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or
any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam (31 Barb.. 486)
the court says: “The universal maxim of the common law being partus
sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.”
The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition
of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (p. 101), says: “As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” Again, on page 102, Vattel says : ” By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.
You sound like that guy in Idaho, right up til he rode the lighting.
When your before the justices, and they side with you with all your freeman bullshit, and it is all bullshit, then you can talk shit. But as it stands, all that strawman bullshit, the sovereign citizen bullshit, and the freeman bullshit, is at best, a scam to be played upon the fools (such as yourself) and did I mention that it is all bullshit and it never works, why? Because its all bullshit.
I show this site to my friends and they all laugh you people. Your clowns in your won circus.
Please show me a cite, from say this century, were someone violated a federal statute, and was found not guilty by using some freeman logic? How about a state case? Oh wait, its all a conspiracy.
You might actually be a looney as Wolfy.
The Secretary of State of the US wrote that in a report to Congress you dolt.
But why are you trying to compare apples to oranges?
We aren’t talking about crime. We are talking about the right of the STATE to take ownership of your child.
Crime is something entirely different. The State’s right to charge you with a crime has nothing to do with sovereignty in general.
In fact, ANYONE can prosecute a crime.
District Attorney’s didn’t even exist till the late 1800′s and plenty of crimes where prosecuted. The were prosecuted by individuals in the name of the people.There are two types of crime, mala prohibita and mala en se. There is always a right to prosecute crime mala en se but crimes that are mala prohibita (this encompasses acts prohibited by statute) are only prima facie an injury to the public. Strict violation of a criminal statute is not conclusively injurious to the public or the State. This is all properly addressed by demurrer not at trial. Which of course is why you will never see a “not guilty”.
If it goes to trial, you pretty much fucked up. Either because there is probably an injury IN FACT or you failed to object to there being no evidence of an injury IN FACT.
You knew all that didn’t you?
but really…
No you didn’t.
You have no idea what your talking about.
Just keep eating your blue pills.
My heart goes out to this family! While I don’t have ALL of the facts in this case, my instinct is telling me that CPS is overstepping their authority, possibly as an act of spite for their lack of cooperation. I sincerely hope they get their children back – they don’t seem like dangerous people and nothing I’ve read so far would suggest that the social workers are acting in the best interest of the children. I hope they all get exactly what they deserve!
KIDJACKED BY P BROWNING AND HIS THUGS>>>LEFT MY SON WITH CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ABUSERS DUI OFFENDERS AND LETS BRING IT TO THE COURTS ATTENTION ONE OF MY SONS “CARE GIVERS KILLED SOME ONE DRINKING AND DRIVING …WAY TO GO P BROWNING<<<<>>>ME LIVE SCANNED CHILD CARE PROVDER HOLDER OF UK VISA TO RESIDE HUSBAND HAS TSA CLEARANCE…COMPLETED EMT1 AND HAS PREFORMED RESCUES WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE WHY LEAVE CHILDREN WITH CRIMINALS AND MENTALLY UNSTABLE? OH YEA EX HAD 72 HOUR MENTAL HEALTH HOLD NORTHRIDGE CA 11-25-02 10 DAYS AFTER BECOMING A PARENT!!!STABBED HIMSELF<<<<BIG ISSUES WITH THIS GUY, BUT GREAT PARENT?????EXPLAIN THIS MR. BROWNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7446 [url=http://buypheromones.webs.com/]pheromones really work[/url] 4502 pheromones jakarta [url=http://usepheromones.webs.com/]pheromones yahoo answers[/url] org6yj3egeyto, [url=http://pheromone101.webs.com/]pheromones queen bee[/url]