The Jury's Verdict is in!!

**Mother Vindicated**

" I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace." - Thomas Paine

“Nobody, especially the government, is above the law. You don’t seize a child from a mother until there is a life-threatening emergency.” Shawn McMillan

 http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20161107/woman-stripped-of-sons-custody-wins-3-million-from-la-county 

http://mynewsla.com/crime/2016/09/19/lose-custody-of-your-kid-from-false-neglect-charges-by-social-workers/ 

https://medicalkidnap.com/tag/rafaelina-duval/

********Roughshod Against Families Under The Color of The Law ******

Join The Fight Against the Unjust Seizure of Children by 
D.C.F.S. in Los Angeles County From Fit & Loving Families!!

Baby Ryan had feeding difficulties since birth. His mother was addressing those issues with the help of medical professional. At the same time, his mother was in a very nasty custody battle where Ryan's dad was accusing the mother of not feeding the baby. He wouldn't allow baby Ryan to go to necessary medical appointments. After a pediatrician recommendation, Ryan's mom took him to a nutritional consult and his dad began to accuse Ryan's mother of not feeding him. The nutritionist called DCFS and that is how it all started. He was only 15 months old.

Social workers did not properly investigate. They grabbed the baby without a warrant, they didn't call baby Ryan's pediatrician, they lied on reports under penalty of perjury, fabricated evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence and discriminated against baby Ryan's mom.   

Deposition of Social Worker Susan Pender Vol. 1

 


On Nov. 3, 2009, a jury found that Ms. Pender seized Rafaelina Duval's baby without a warrant, without reasonable and proper cause showing exigency in time to get a warrant to detain baby Ryan and she did it with malice, oppression and fraud. 

 

Pender Vol 2 Video Depo. Excerpts

 Ms. Pender has a habit of lying about parents to judges under penalty of perjury, falsifying documents and withholding exculpatory evidence that could exonerate parents in order to seize their children from their care and custody. 

This is Supervisor Kimberly Rogers. Ms Rogers was Ms. Pender's supervisor in Nov. 2009. Ms. Rogers decided to override the assessment tools results for the Duval family to high risk in order to detain baby Ryan from the care and custody of his loving and fit mother Rafaelina Duval. 

 

 Trimarchi Vol 2 Video Depo Excerpts

** Additionally, the jury found that the county DCFS had “an official custom and/or practice of seizing children from their parents without a warrant” and failed “to enact an official policy or procedure when it should have done so.”

 

Trimarchi Vol 2 Video Depo Excerpts 

Person most knowledgeable for the County of Los Angeles on Policy creation for DCFS.   

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Assistant Regional Administrator Muzeyyen Balaban as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al.

She was Ms. Rogers' supervisor at the time. She signed documents under penalty of perjury as well. 

 

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Elba Pinedo as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al.

Ms. Pinedo drafts detention reports based on false allegations, she writes these petitions that judges read without verifying any of the information on the file and she adds her own interpretation of the evidence so the department can get more funding. She makes up the allegations that will be on the detention report for judges read.

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Candis Nelson Dependency Investigator.

**On Nov. 3, 2009, a jury found that Ms. Nelson discriminated against Rafaelina Duval.

-Ms. Nelson violated policy by attaching an upfront assessment to court reports. 

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Candis Nelson as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al

-Ms Nelson lied to a judge about Ms. Duval and withheld exculpatory evidence favorable to exonerate mother. 

-She never disclosed to a court that she was being investigated by the civil rights unit for discrimination.

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Melissa Egge, M.D. as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al

- Dr. Egge purposely misdiagnosed baby Ryan to blame his mother for his medical condition.

- Dr. Egge have been found to harbor biases against good parents to make children warden of the state. 

- She wouldn't allow baby Ryan to undergo proper testing to find the cause of his medical condition so she may continue to blame his mother.

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Melissa Egge, M.D. as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al.

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Victoria Scheele as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al.

- Ms Scheele used to be a social worker for Los Angeles county and now works for OC Social Service Agency. 

- Ms. Scheele also lies and falsify reports under penalty of perjury to keep children from their parents.

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of Victoria Scheele as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al.

- She practices social work in a fraudulent manner violating positions of trust with her clients.

- Ms. Scheele discriminates against disabled parents to keep their children in the custody of the state. 

Excerpts of Video Taped Deposition of RA Stephen Sanders as played to the jury in Duval v. County of Los Angeles et al

- Dr. Sanders makes mental health diagnosis of parents without ever meeting them, without having their full medical records or interviewing them even though he knows he should not do that.

 - He requested for the discrimination findings to be reversed internally violating due process of a parent to appeal it.

Watch the entire highlight video of the deposition of Dr. Charles Sophy, the Medical Director for Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services gives testimony under oath with plaintiff attorney Shawn McMillan in a deposition his declaration under penalty of perjury in the Duval vs County LA County et al..

 Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy – The Psychiatric Diagnosis Used Against Parents to Remove Children from Their Home

http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/07/28/medical-director-of-la-child-welfare-testifies-under-oath-that-he-does-not-know-the-law-regarding-seizure-of-children/ 

At about the 7:30 mark in the video (full video below) McMillan begins to question Dr. Sophy about Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a controversial psychiatric diagnosis that is used against parents often to justify removing children from the home by medical doctors. The diagnosis is often made when the parents disagree with doctors over medical care, and when the parents want to continue seeking out other medical advice, or second opinions, when doctors allegedly believe there are no medical conditions present.
In his testimony, Dr. Sophy admits that Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSP) is a “very tough diagnosis to make, and it is not a very easy diagnosis to make.”
McMillan asks Dr. Sophy if there is an “empirical test” that one can do to determine if someone has Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Dr. Sophy replies: “Not a real black and white clinical test. It’s more by things not being present.”
Mcmillan then references two medical articles that state Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is an “exceedingly rare mental illness” affecting only 2 out of every 100,000, according to the two articles referenced. McMillan then asks:

And yet, don’t you tell us in your declaration that you have treated many patients, many families affected by Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy?

Dr. Sophy then proceeds to clarify his written statement by saying:

That doesn’t mean I had direct contact with them. I was involved somehow in the case.

McMilllan then asks:

“You’re not necessarily meeting with the patient, looking at the patient, talking with the patient? You may just be involved somewhere over on the sidelines?” Dr. Sophy replies: “Correct.”

McMillan then asks:

“What qualifications does it take, legally, to be entitled to tag someone with that MSP moniker?” Dr. Sophy replies, “I do not know.”

Dr. Sophy also responds that he has been a doctor since 1982, and the Medical Director of LA DCFS since 2003, but he states he does not know what qualifications someone needs to legally tag a parent with the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy diagnosis that can result in the removal of their child from their custody.
At about the 18 minute mark in the video deposition, McMillan asks:

“So potentially any pediatric case you see could be a Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy case?” Dr. Sophy replies, “Could be.”

McMillan then asks if Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy could lead to the death of a child? Dr. Sophy replies,

“It can. But not very often.”
McMillan: “In fact it is exceedingly rare for a child to actually die as a result of a parent suffering from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, right?”
Sophy: “I don’t know for sure. But I would imagine, yes.”
McMillan: “What does the generally accepted and respected medical literature tell us?”
Sophy: “It’s rare.”
McMillan: “Exceedingly rare?”
Sophy: “Rare. Exceedingly rare.”

 At about the 16 and half minute mark of the video, McMillan asks Dr. Sophy what percentage of his income comes from his private practice, and how much comes from his position as Medical Director of the Los Angeles DCFS. Dr. Sophy replies that it is about 20% private practice, and 80% from his position at DCFS, but that he “really didn’t know.”

Damage to Children When Removed from Home

McMillan: “Do you give training to your workers regarding the damage that can be done to a child’s brain when they are seized from their home?”
Sophy: “Yes.”
McMillan: “Tell me about that.”
Sophy: “What do you want to know?”
McMillan: “What kind of damage can be done to a child’s brain when they are seized from a parent’s home?”
Sophy: “What did you learn when you watched the video? It’s devastating.”
McMillan: “Ok, it is devastating when a child is removed from it’s parents home. And that’s whether there was abuse or not, correct?”
Sophy: “Period.”
McMillan: “Period. What do you mean when you say it is devastating to the child?”
Sophy: “Well, it’s physically and emotionally devastating. From a physical perspective, it changes his brain; growth development.”
McMillan: “What sorts of changes?”
Sophy: “Neuronal changes. Neurons…”
McMillan: “Neuronal changes – I don’t know what that (means).”
Sophy: “You know, just the growth and development of the brain. The brain can be affected, when the child is removed from a home.”
McMillan: “Is that referenced somewhere in generally accepted medical literature?”
Sophy: “Yeah.”
McMillan: “Ok, what are some of the articles I would look for?”
Sophy: “Mine. Harvard has done some studies. I think Yale has done some…”

Legal Issues on Entering a Home – Sophy Admits He does not Know the Law

Next, McMillan questions Dr. Sophy on the law regarding when a child should be removed from a home:

McMillan: “The law defines for us, and for you and for your social workers, the circumstances under which it is appropriate to seize a child from a home without first getting a court order, correct?”
Sophy: “Correct.”
McMillan: “Do you know what those circumstances are?”
Sophy: “Not off the top of my head.”
McMillan: “Based on your training and experience the last 12 years as the Medical Director with the County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, is it appropriate to go out and seize a child without a court order, when we’re lacking sufficient information?”
Sophy: “I don’t have an opinion.”
McMillan: “You don’t know?”
Sophy: “I don’t have an opinion.”
McMillan: “Do you know what the training is that you give your social workers?”
Sophy nods his head yes…
McMillan: “In that regard.”
Sophy: “Generally yes, not specifically.”
McMillan: “Ok what is that general training? What do you tell your social workers about seizing a child without getting a warrant when they don’t have sufficient information?”
Sophy: “I’m not sure. Specifically.”
McMillan: “Well just generally. That’s all I am looking for.”
Sophy: “Well, I think that they need to have whatever it is they are told they need to have. If it is a checklist of information, or whatever it is they need, or they have to get approval from their supervisor. There is a chain of command or whatever that needs to be in place in order to do it.”
McMillan: “Ok, and what is the nature of the information that they need to be in possession of before they seize a child without first obtaining a warrant?”
Sophy: “Well again, if I knew I would tell you. You are asking me for specifics – I really don’t know them.”
McMillan: “Are you aware of whether or not the law specifically defines the type of information a social worker must have before they can seize a child without first obtaining a warrant?”
Sophy: “I do not.”

No Apparent Training of Social Workers on Constitutional Rights of Children and Families

McMillan: “Let me see if I can help you. Turn to the second page of exhibit number 7. And it says there a social worker’s duty includes protecting Constitutional rights of children and families. That is the title of the slide there. Did I read that right?”
Sophy: “Yes.”
McMillan: “Have you ever heard or learned that concept during your 12 years as Medical Director of the County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services?”
Sophy: “I’ve heard of it. Not in necessarily these words, but yes.”
McMillan: “Have you ever offered any training to your workers in the last 12 years regarding this concept of their duty to protect the Constitutional rights of children and families?”
Sophy: “No.”
McMillan: “Have you ever heard of anybody in your entire 12 years with the agency… have you ever heard of anybody offering training on this concept that a social worker’s duty includes protecting the Constitutional rights of children and families?”
Sophy: “Not to my knowledge.”

At about the 31:18 minute mark in the deposition video McMillan continues on the issue of Constitutional rights:

McMillan: “When we’re talking about the Constitutional rights of parents and children, one of those rights… well, maybe you don’t know. Do you know whether or not one of those rights includes the right not to be seized from the child’s home… unless there is a warrant, or some other circumstance that justifies it?”
Sophy: “I don’t know.”
McMillan: “You don’t know? And you never ascertained that knowledge in your 12 years as the medical director of the agency?”
Sophy: “Not to my knowledge.”
McMillan: “Well if we look at this particular slide, it sort of answers the question. It tells us a ‘CSW will always need to determine if she/he needs a warrant or court order.’ Have you been privy to any training where this concept was taught to your social workers?”
Sophy: “No.”

McMillan then moves on to another exhibit of written material in the deposition at about the 33:45 mark.

McMillan: “It says when a court order is required.., a CSW (pauses to clarify that “CSW” means “Children’s Social Worker”) must always obtain an order PRIOR to: 1. Entering or inspecting a home, 2. Interviewing a child, 3. Conducting a visual inspection of the child, 4. Obtain a medical exam of a child, or 5. Removing a child from a parent or legal guardian’s custody. Just looking at this as a psychiatrist, do you have any understanding what the significance of putting “prior” in all caps bold would be? Why would we do that?
Sophy: “Maybe the typewriter was broken?”
McMillan: “Would we do it to draw emphasis?”
Sophy: “Absolutely.”
McMillan: “And the reason we do something like that to draw emphasis is because it is an important concept?”
Sophy: “Yes.”
McMillan: “How long does it take to get a warrant in Los Angeles County?”
Sophy: “I don’t know.”
McMillan: “Now, looking at the slide that is in front of you …. It tells us that exigent circumstances must exist if we’re going to seize a child without getting a warrant, right?”
Sophy: “Right.”

At about the 53 minute mark in the deposition video, McMillan returns to the issue of “exigent circumstances.”

McMillan: “Turn to page 33 of exhibit 7. This one is really cool. Because it actually defines for us….if you recall earlier in your testimony, you were unable to define for me what was meant by the phrase ‘exigent circumstances’… this page 33, you see at the bottom there, it cites a case, Wallace vs. Spencer, 9th Circuit 2000… And I’ll represent to you that that date there, 2000, that is the date at which the law, in regard to exigent circumstances, was made perfectly clear to everyone residing in the 9th Circuit. That being said, the slide is titled: Exigent Circumstances Federal Definition. CSW can act without a warrant/court order if CSW has reasonable cause to believe child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and the scope of CSW’s intrusion is reasonably necessary to prevent that specific injury.”
McMillan: “What specific injury was it that the social workers were seeking to prevent by seizing this child (in the case in question) on November 3rd at the end of the team decision?
Sophy: “I have no opinion.”

 Excerpts from the Video Taped Deposition of Beth Minor as Person Most Knowedgeable for The County of Los Angeles in Ferguson v. County of Los Angeles et al.