You are browsing the archive for Megan's Law |

Sex Offender Registry

July 9, 2014 in California, due process, false accusation, justice

If you are like most parents, when you consider moving to a new location, one of the first things you check is the Sex Offender Registry. What you don’t know is that more often than not, people end up on the Sex Offender Registry for petty or stupid reasons.  The list is practically useless.

Sign, Wapello, Iowa. This was put up in reacti...

Sign, Wapello, Iowa. This was put up in reaction to Megan’s Law. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Some states, like California requires all sex offenders to register for the rest of the lives.  [Read about it here.]

Back in 1947 California became the first state to require sex offenders to register with law enforcement after being released from prison. Now there are just under 100,000 sex offenders on the state’s lifetime registry — most of whom can be found on the state’s public website. But here’s what a lot of people don’t know: California is one of just four states requiring all sex offenders to register for the rest of their lives.

The state board that oversees the registry believes it’s time to overhaul the registry to make it smaller and easier to spot those at high risk of re-offending. [Read more…]

I am a parent, I know how important it is to protect our children from predators but the way the list is now, it isn’t protecting anyone.  It splits up families.

One family in particular comes to mind.  The guy was 19, his girl-friend was 16.  He was prosecuted for statutory rape, put on the list and unable to spend time with his baby once it came.  I felt so badly for him.  His crime?  Falling in love with someone 3 years younger than him.  He’s still paying.

There are plenty more instances where the lives of innocent people are being ruined because of laws that make no sense at all.  Why can’t they write laws that protect people.  Innocent children are being affected by these asinine laws.  It’s time they were changed.  Learn more about the problem. Watch this video.


Fraud and Deception

June 13, 2008 in child abuse, DYFS, family court, New Jersey

New Jersey mom fights back against unfair treatment by DYFS system. Requests assistance.

I am looking for feedback regarding successful approaches to regaining custody from DYFS/CPS when fraud and deception is involved. At what point does DYFS return the child(ren)?

Review of discovery reveals that NJ DYFS withheld DYFS and police files to fraudulently remove my son and place him with the other parent who put my son at risk for sexual abuse by exposing my son to a Megan’s Law convicted sex offender.

I am particularly interested in comments that help me reveal the fraud, deception and violations to HIPAA Laws, Rules, Codes, New Jersey and U.S. Constitution violations, violations to New Jersey Domestic Violence Act, DYFS Policies and Procedures and Federal Violence Against Women Act, Federal Crimes, Tort Crimes.

Fraud and Deception -- New Jersey Case

Brief Case Overview

Below is a brief explanation of the situation.

Twice in June 2007 and July 2007 the Court ordered DYFS to provide reasonable efforts to prevent the removal. DYFS failed to provide these services. DYFS failed to properly assess the family and failing to control the actions of XXXXXX. Please note that DYFS often removes children from victims who fail to leave the abusive situation or report the abuse, however, the opposite occurred in my case. Claimant made obvious attempts to reach self-sufficiency free from abuse. If the police and the court negligently failed to stop the abuse perpetrated by XXXXXX then DYFS wrongfully capitalized on this negligence.

New Jersey employees failed to address and ignored the issue of domestic abuse and the harmful effects of exposing my son and I to XXXXXX. Claimant was not warned that reporting domestic abuse to the police who referred me to local victim’s center would make Claimant vulnerable and could lead to losing custody of her son to the abuser.

DYFS failed to investigate the tipsters and family dynamics, and altered case by withholding XXXXXX’s criminal and domestic abuse history from the courts, from the decision to place my son with the abuser over amending the case plan and from XXXXXX’s psychological evaluation although DYFS influenced Claimant’s state psychological evaluations by withholding the domestic abuse history from all evaluators and providing Dr. Xxxx with statements such as the DYFS reports made by the Claimant (at least two reports of child abuse perpetrated by XXXXXX were substantiated by DYFS — XXXXXX exposed my son to a Megan’s Law sex offender and XXXXXX who, per a DYFS letter to XXXXXX and DYFS reports, has a history of domestic abuse and is eliminated as a suitable caretaker for my son).

DYFS failed to investigate the “anonymous” tipster, XXXXXX who stated “[son] unsafe with mother, but father can take him,” then acquired Claimant’s phone number from a third party and sent an unsolicited text message stating, “Happy Mother’s Day,” to Claimant on Mother’s Day 2008.

DYFS violated HIPPA confidentiality protections by disclosing, without Claimant’s knowledge or permission, Claimant’s medical evaluations to a YMCA worker and abused Claimant’s XXXXXX Medical Center malpractice report to label competent, fit mother with mental health disorders and deprive rights, withhold unsupervised, unrestricted visitation and keep son with abuser in less sufficient setting. YMCA Worker possessed no medical expertise and per YMCA Worker, had “never done that type of work before.”

DYFS failed to have YMCA Worker appear for expert testimony although DYFS used his opinion during a hearing. Claimant did not have a chance to cross examine neither YMCA Worker, his opinion, mental health reports nor experts during the hearings in which judges relied upon the medical opinions and police reports to render a decision.

DYFS failed to present evidence and expert testimony during the removal hearing. DYFS supervisor, XXXXXX possessed no medical expertise nor a doctor’s report to support her statement, “[Claimant] has unaddressed mental health issues and is not taking medication,” nor link her statement with the need to remove my son. Currently, by ordering psych evaluations and continuing to withhold exculpatory evidence, DYFS is trying to manipulate this case to appear so. Claimant has no history of mental health issues and functions proficiently with her son and within society.

DYFS required Claimant to undergo counseling with local victim’s center then failed to consult with that center regarding Claimant’s progress and visitation although DYFS consulted with YMCA Worker who met with Claimant only once in October 2007. Claimant has attended regular sessions with local victim’s center since Fall of 2007 and had a safety plan in place prior to DYFS interference and fraudulent removal.

  • NJ Attorney failed to order discovery which was withheld from Claimant since the beginning of the case between January 2007 and March 2008.
  • Ms. State Attorney met with Claimant only once per year (in January 2007 and January 2008) regarding her defense.
  • Failed to object to DYFS’ claims.
  • Failed to protect Claimant’s due process rights and right to family association free from government interference.
  • Failed to require DYFS to present evidence and expert testimony.
  • Failed to provide Claimant with opportunity to cross examine DYFS’ claims.
  • Failed to present exculpatory evidence, such as the letters of completion regarding DYFS services and police report negating DYFS’ claim.
  • Allowed DYFS to coerce the court and lie to judges.
  • Fact finding hearing withheld from son and Claimant between October 2007 and August 2008.

Prior to being represented by Ms. State Attorney, DYFS services were ordered without Claimant being represented by an attorney, without providing Claimant a fair hearing in which she cross examined evidence and witnesses and defended herself, and although NJ DYFS sent Claimant a letter stating that allegations were unfounded and DYFS would not be providing services to family. DYFS interfered with domestic abuse proceedings as this case began under an FD docket number.

Funds were misused to litigate DYFS case over domestic abuse case under New Jersey Domestic Violence Act.

You can view my entire story on DYFS Reform, or leave anonymous informative/helpful comments on the blog site.

This is a brief synopsis of the situation, I have also posted the most recent Federal lawsuits filed against NJ DYFS.

Skip to toolbar