04/23/2025
https://gofund.me/bd3460a8
Audio
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BjFfPkBIadxhf60LWcIFB8vtaOoGalhv/view?usp=drivesd
Must I resort to extreme actions, such as STANDING on the Precipice of The Horace Wilkinson?, To attract the attention of the media and those in power who can effect change and protect all children, including my own?” So Families Stop Having to Standing Alone?
Anonymized Detailed Statement on Violated Rights and Representation Issues(For Public Record - Anonymized)
To: The President of the United States
The Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court
The Governor of Louisiana
The Attorney General of the United States
The Attorney General of Louisiana
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Distinguished Members of the Louisiana Legislature
Representatives of Media Outlets
All Other Relevant Authorities
Bella's Voice: Fittingly named – for SUCH Reform. Empowering Children (Note: Bella, meaning beautiful, reminds us, all children . \ voices should be regarded as such. Parens Patriae- pa·rens pa·tri·ae
{noun} — the government, or any other authority, regarded as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves.: "parens patriae jurisdiction". * /ˌperenz ˈpatrēˌē,ˌperenz ˈpatrēˌī/
The State of Louisiana has an inherent right and an absolute duty to protect its most vulnerable children. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as the state's agent, serves in this endeavor, formally tasked with ensuring the safety and well-being of these children.
Regrettably, the prevailing reality exposes a disconcerting deviation from the DCFS's fundamental mandates. The agency's operational conduct and instances of inaction have departed substantively from its designated function, thereby engendering considerable detriment and cultivating a precarious milieu for the children under * its purported protection. Consequently, those children intended to be shielded!
The Department of Children and Family Services' violations in my children's case have resulted in adverse consequences for both my children and myself. These infractions form part of a broader pattern of institutional misconduct. The details of my case are substantial, and the consistent nature of these violations is irrefutable. I wish to unequivocally assert that I have never subjected my children to abuse.
These exigent circumstances compel a troubling inquiry: to what extremes must a mother resort in order to secure due attention? Is it necessary for her to be driven to a point of crisis, perhaps symbolically positioned at the precipice of the Mississippi River Bridge, to obtain the consideration of legislators and those in authority who possess the capacity to implement urgently required reforms? The persistent infringement upon my fundamental right by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to be apprised of actions pertinent to my children evinces a systematic pattern of intentional obfuscation and dereliction of duty to convey crucial information.
Part 1: DCFS Violations Against My Family & Systemic Failures
The Department of Children and Family Services' (DCFS) actions and omissions in my children's case have caused substantial harm not only to my children but to me as well. These are not isolated incidents; they represent a pattern of institutional misconduct and systemic failures within both DCFS and the family court system. This pattern suggests that the family law framework itself is fundamentally flawed.
The evidentiary support for my case is extensive, and the consistent nature of these infractions cannot be denied. I categorically deny ever having abused my children. The DCFS's mishandling of my case has resulted in severe emotional distress, psychological trauma, and irreparable damage to the parent-child relationship.
I contend that the DCFS failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, relied on biased and unsubstantiated allegations, and disregarded exculpatory evidence. On top of that, the family court system failed to protect my parental rights, afforded undue deference to DCFS, and rendered decisions that were contrary to the best interests of my children.
The consequences of these institutional failures have been devastating. My children have been deprived of their right to a stable and loving home, and I have been unjustly separated from them. This has caused them significant emotional and psychological harm, and has jeopardized their future well-being.
The systemic deficiencies within the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the family court system necessitate immediate redress to avert further detriment to families and children. It is imperative to conduct a comprehensive review of DCFS policies and procedures, enhance oversight and accountability, and reform the family court system to safeguard parental rights and ensure decisions align with the children's best interests.
This present circumstance ensues from prolonged tribulations. In July 2021, my children were forcibly taken by their father , who physically removed my youngest child from my possession, resulting in documented physical harm. Notwithstanding a court order granting me sole custody, the Sheriff's Department declined to enforce it. This declination, ostensibly deliberate and potentially influenced by an existing personal relationship between a responding officer and , The Fathers contravened the legal mandate, leaving my children in his custody.
These exigent circumstances raise a fundamental inquiry:
What level of adversity must be endured to elicit action from those empowered to implement change?
Must a state of acute crisis be reached, such as a public demonstration of distress, before legislative and executive authorities acknowledge the exigency of reform?
A fervent plea is made for intervention
and to bring attention to this situation
to secure reunification with my children.
My Right to be Apprised of Actions Concerning My Children
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has engaged in a persistent pattern of violating my fundamental right to receive timely and accurate information concerning actions affecting my children. This represents a systematic course of deliberate obstruction and failure to fulfill its obligation to communicate critical information.
This pattern predates the removal of my Younger Daughter into state custody. Several weeks prior to the removal, DCFS neglected to inform me that her previous protective case involving the Father had been closed, despite my specific and direct inquiries regarding her safety in light of the Father's actions. Had I been provided with the requisite notification at that time, I would have been able to undertake measures to prevent the subsequent state intervention.
When the Younger Daughter was removed from the Father's care and taken into state custody on her eighth birthday in early July 2024, DCFS once again disregarded mandatory notification requirements. Notably, the primary caseworker who had previously overseen the case and who was intimately familiar with me and possessed my contact information was purportedly present during the removal. Nevertheless, I was not contacted; I received no notification, despite the agency's knowledge of my return to Louisiana in mid-April 2024 and possession of my current contact information (as confirmed by retained messages from another involved parent). The agency failed to notify me of the Younger Daughter's removal in any manner. It is my belief that DCFS intentionally withheld this information because, in my distress and concern for my children's well-being under the prevailing circumstances, I had previously referenced the possibility of retrieving my children myself—in the same manner they were taken from me—to ensure their happiness and safety. I apprehend that this statement was misconstrued and utilized as a pretext to exclude me from the process.
I only became aware of the removal at approximately 8:00 PM that evening through information provided by the Father's former partner (who is also the mother of my children's half-sister, the Father's fourth child). Upon immediately contacting the assigned caseworker (a different individual from the primary caseworker present at the removal), she acknowledged the call originated from a Georgia area code but acted evasively. Significantly, my Georgia telephone number was the emergency contact number DCFS had on file for me. However, this caseworker feigned ignorance of my presence in Louisiana, purportedly acting as though she merely inferred it might be me due to the area code rather than recognizing the number explicitly documented as my emergency contact. She implied the number was neither saved nor recognized, notwithstanding its official record. This occurred despite recent communication confirming my return to Louisiana. Similarly, the assigned investigator reportedly assumed I was incarcerated. Agency personnel allegedly instructed others, including my Older Daughter and her guardians, not to inform me.
This failure to notify was compounded by DCFS's failure to conduct an immediate follow-up investigation concerning me or my residence subsequent to my contact that evening. On the day of the removal, the agency reportedly did not request any evidence related to me, inquire about my relationship with my children, or even ascertain the children's recent contact with me. Instead, agency personnel proceeded to conduct a birthday celebration for my Younger Daughter.
This pattern of deliberate exclusion continues unabated. DCFS consistently fails to provide me with due and proper notification regarding subsequent case status alterations, court filings, submitted reports, and other critical legal events, frequently leaving me uninformed until it is too late to formulate an effective response. Communication failures remain pervasive; for instance, the investigator has not returned my calls or messages. This overall lack of communication gives rise to grave concerns regarding my Younger Daughter's welfare.
My Right to Truth and Freedom from Defamation
Personnel of the Department of Children and Family Services have committed egregious violations of my fundamental rights to truth and freedom from defamation. These violations have been perpetrated through the following calculated and malevolent actions: The deliberate fabrication and documentation of spurious information regarding my personal circumstances, with the express intent of constructing a mendacious and injurious narrative. The calculated manipulation and coercion of professionals involved in my case, including medical personnel, therapists, and social workers, in an attempt to subvert their professional judgment and align them with the aforementioned false narrative. The willful obstruction and denial of requisite healthcare services, encompassing medical treatment, therapy, and medication, which has engendered a deleterious impact on my physical and mental well-being. The indiscriminate dissemination of this fabricated narrative to other agencies and individuals, resulting in further and widespread damage to my reputation and personal relationships. These actions have precipitated substantial and enduring harm, including profound emotional distress, acute anxiety, debilitating depression, and a fundamental breach of trust in the institutions ostensibly designed to safeguard and serve families.
Lying to Probation Officer & Attempted Manipulation (Late 2024)
In December 2024, the Caseworker persistently requested information regarding my Georgia Probation Officer, notwithstanding the knowledge that I was under unsupervised probation with no mandated reporting. Subsequently, it was discovered that the Caseworker was concurrently disseminating inaccurate information to the aforementioned Probation Officer. Specifically, the Caseworker provided a false statement asserting that I was not maintaining contact with my Younger Daughter due to alleged 'active substance dependence and refusal to engage in treatment.' This assertion was entirely unsubstantiated, as the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was actively preventing my access to my daughter at that time. I interpret this as a deliberate endeavor to induce the Georgia Probation Officer to take adverse action against me, including but not limited to ordering toxicology screenings or initiating probation revocation proceedings, based on these misrepresentations. Such measures could potentially culminate in my detention and extradition to Georgia, effectively incapacitating me and facilitating the termination of my parental rights.
Misrepresenting Case Origins & History to My Doctor (Since Early 2025)
I commenced therapy with my current physician in January 2025. Subsequently, beginning in approximately March 2025, personnel from the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided inaccurate information to my physician regarding the foundational aspects of this case. They attributed the case exclusively to my personal history, specifically the arrest and probationary status in Georgia and prior substance use. Consequently, they purposefully withheld crucial, documented context: the alleged physical maltreatment of the Younger Daughter by her Father (a central issue in this case) and of her brother (in a previous case), as well as the aforementioned history concerning the 2021 incident and the disregarded custody order. Additionally, a DCFS Supervisor erroneously stated in an email dated March 25, 2025, that I had not disclosed my history to my physician, which is demonstrably false as this information was already in the physician's possession. This deliberate misrepresentation, which provided the physician with a fundamentally inaccurate understanding of my situation, can be corroborated by extensive email correspondence between myself and my physician, also communications with dcfs in regards to conveyance of these allegations.
Obstruction of My Necessary Medical Care (Recent: Late March/April 2025)
Employees of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) are reportedly undertaking actions that obstruct the requisite medical treatment for my diagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). It is of paramount importance to acknowledge the considerable variance in individual responses to pharmaceutical intervention; pharmacological treatment is not universally appropriate. Since January 2025, Desoxyn has been legitimately prescribed by my physician due to adverse reactions to standard ADHD treatments, which proved either ineffective or detrimental to my health. This medically necessary treatment, tailored to my specific physiological needs, is being contested by DCFS personnel. Despite awareness of these circumstances, they have recently provided information to my physician that appears intended to impede or prevent the continuation of my legitimate prescription. These efforts to disrupt my personalized treatment plan seem to be driven by a preconceived narrative that necessitates my characterization as an individual with substance use issues. Such interference constitutes a significant escalation and endangers both my health and personal liberties.
My Right to Participate as a Parent
The Department of Children and Family Services has persistently obstructed my parental authority concerning my Younger Daughter. My repeated and documented requests for family therapy, grounded in legitimate concerns regarding the emotional trauma sustained by my children, have been summarily dismissed. Moreover, I have been systematically excluded from essential medical appointments and decision-making processes pertaining to my Younger Daughter's health and well-being, which represents a clear contravention of the established case plan. In addition, access to my Younger Daughter's medical records has been unjustifiably denied to me.
What's more,
significant placement decisions concerning my Younger Daughter are rendered without consultation or consideration of my parental input, indicative of a disregard for my parental rights. Despite repeated assurances since November 2024 to provide photographs of my Younger Daughter, these commitments remain unfulfilled, depriving me of visual connection with my child. The aggregate impact of these actions results in a profound sense of alienation and distress, as I am consistently barred from participation in the care and upbringing of my Younger Daughter.
My Right to Maintain Family Bonds
The right of my children and myself to maintain our familial bond is consistently infringed upon by DCFS, specifically through capricious and fluctuating visitation regulations intended to impede contact. As of this statement (April 2025), access to my Younger Daughter has been denied since August 29th, 2024. A formal agreement reached at an August 2024 Family Team Meeting stipulating weekly telephonic communication was disregarded. Subsequent to the agreement, while I was engaged in temporary employment in Georgia (of which the Caseworker was duly informed), the Caseworker unilaterally revoked this policy for the Younger Daughter, mandating exclusively in-person visits, which were logistically infeasible. This effectively terminated all communication, resulting in the breach of a commitment I had made to my Younger Daughter. The subsequent rationale provided cited a therapist's recommendation following legal counsel intervention.
Obstructions are deliberately placed in the path of visitation scheduling. For instance, following a complaint filed in July 2024 regarding insufficient contact, the Caseworker responded with an offer of a visit on the subsequent day, affording less than twelve hours' notice for transportation and preparation. Though the visit was attended, the abruptness suggests an intention to induce unpreparedness and potential failure. The requirement for in-person visits exclusively, particularly during periods of out-of-state residency, appears unreasonable and incongruous. Video visits, which were mandated during the COVID-19 pandemic and previously utilized successfully in prior cases involving out-of-state work assignments, are now denied. This denial, despite a willingness to make arrangements, functions as punitive measures for both myself and my children, presenting an arbitrary barrier intended to obstruct contact. Requirements for visitation progression are inconsistent and subject to arbitrary alteration. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), for example, explicitly stipulated a negative hair follicle test as a condition for unsupervised visits, referencing prior protocols. However, even upon satisfying or completing such requirements, unsupervised visits are not granted. Instead, new, previously unstated requirements, such as a specific court order, are introduced, impeding progress.
Obstruction of Parent-Child Communication & Suppressing Children's Voices (Bella's Voice)
DCFS actively works to silence my children, control the flow of information, and interfere with the parent-child relationship.
Observations gleaned from direct interactions with my children, which serve as the cornerstone of "Bella's Voice," albeit with specific transcripts available herein, paint a concerning portrait.
"They're gonna try and get... to do things, and pull things.”
“ They're gonna s- gonna do a lot of stupid things."
When I asked her how she could know this, her explanation pointed directly to the conclusions she had drawn from her own observations and lived reality:
“Its the State”
"I... It's the system."
"Saw it with my own two eyes. I see it now."
This exchange demonstrates more than just apprehension; it reveals a profound understanding, gained firsthand, of the systemic issues and detrimental patterns of behavior she has personally witnessed. Her words encapsulate the sense of impotence engendered by these experiences within the very system meant to protect children.
My children possess nuanced insights regarding the system; however, they harbor substantial apprehension and trepidation about articulating their sincere viewpoints to judicial and legal authorities, particularly considering their present milieu and attendant pressures. They express a fear of adverse consequences should they offer truthful testimony.
"This fear is not abstract; it manifests in specific anxieties about the process itself. When discussing the possibility of speaking to the judge and lawyers, my daughter expressed this directly:
'Yeah, but I don't want to be by myself, especially not here. I'd rather them come to get me from school or something.'
She further explained, 'I get anxiety talking in front of people.'
This highlights the intimidating nature of the environment for a child and the barriers to obtaining their truthful account."
In reflection of her perception of the bureaucracy's apparent indifference, my child articulated a sentiment of resignation, potentially tinged with cynicism, conveying an expression approximating, "It is the state; cruelty is inherent in its operations, such is the nature of the system!" This assertion encapsulates the profound sense of impotence engendered by their lived experiences.
It is abundantly clear that both daughters have received explicit instructions from the agency to withhold crucial information. This is a blatant violation of their rights and well-being. The elder daughter, in a courageous act of trust, confided in me about the younger daughter's confinement outside the residence in June 2024. This resulted in her Guardians taking punitive actions against her, a clear demonstration of the fear and control instilled by the agency.
Following this incident, the elder daughter's communication with me was fraught with anxiety and apprehension. She resorted to hushed tones and written notes, which were subsequently destroyed out of fear of further reprisal. This is a heartbreaking illustration of the lengths to which the agency has gone to suppress information and manipulate these children. No child should ever be subjected to retribution for reporting misconduct, especially to their own parent.
Furthermore, it is my firm belief that DCFS is actively engaging in a campaign to alienate the elder daughter's Guardians. Evidence suggests that DCFS personnel, including a DCFS Supervisor during a February 2025 home visit, have visited the Guardians' residence and disseminated biased and unfounded allegations. This constitutes a gross overreach of their authority and an insidious attempt to manipulate the Guardians' perception of the situation. The direct and devastating result of this is that the elder daughter is currently being denied communication with her parent, causing irreparable harm to their relationship.
Notwithstanding the Caseworker's full awareness of the Younger Daughter's explicit desire to reside with me, and the court's cognizance of both children's aspirations for familial reunification, this impediment persists.
Notably, the Older Daughter communicated to me, shortly prior to December 24, 2024, her profound regret concerning the guardianship determination. She articulated that her impetus for consenting to the guardianship was exclusively predicated upon apprehensions regarding the welfare of her Younger Sister and their Youngest Half-Sibling. She voiced considerable contrition over the present arrangement and entreated me to contest the guardianship, asserting a prevalent assumption that I would refrain from doing so. These factors, considered in aggregate, compellingly imply that the impediment to reunification is not merely fortuitous or inadvertent, but rather evinces a premeditated and calculated endeavor to preclude the children from being reunited with their family.
Subsequent to my endeavors to advocate for the safety and well-being of my elder daughter, I have encountered what appear to be retaliatory menaces directed against her. Upon informing DCFS personnel of video evidence pertinent to my elder daughter, supervisors of the Department of Children and Family Services, my daughter was subsequently threatened—ostensibly by individuals affiliated with the agency or her younger sister's placement—with the revocation of their visitation rights with one another. This action has profoundly distressed my elder daughter and substantially jeopardized the valuable relationship between the siblings, thereby exemplifying a severe measure employed to ensure acquiescence and preclude dissent.
The regrettable circumstances surrounding my children mirror my own past experiences and expose a glaring inconsistency within the family law system. My diagnosed Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is, in large part, a consequence of my childhood entanglement in the dysfunction of this very system – specifically, the protracted conflicts of my parents' divorce and the persistent parental alienation tactics utilized. My fervent desire to reside with my mother was overridden by the court, citing my perceived lack of maturity.
Conversely, the same legal institution, though initially under a different presiding judge, permitted my minor daughters to render significant decisions concerning their place of residence. These decisions, regrettably, were swayed by external pressures and circumstantial factors, which they now lament. It is unjust that my children bear the weight of such regret, a burden imposed by an inconsistent and flawed system that seemingly applies its principles arbitrarily. This critique extends beyond the Department of Children and Family Services; the entire framework of family law is fundamentally defective, constituting what could be termed
My Younger Daughter's Right to Safety & Stability (and My Right to Protect Her)
The fundamental right to safety and stability of the Younger Daughter is contravened by the Department of Children and Family Services' (DCFS) neglect of warnings and placement decisions that are demonstrably detrimental. Prior to the Younger Daughter's removal, duly documented safety warnings, including proactive reports detailing specific concerns regarding the child's situation with the Father (such as a prior incident of being locked out for two weeks), were disregarded. Subsequent to the removal, DCFS knowingly placed her in a precarious foster home wherein the foster parents were undergoing divorce proceedings, culminating in the foster mother relocating with the Younger Daughter to an apartment. This condition of instability coincided with, and likely exacerbated, the Younger Daughter's pre-existing anxiety and behavioral challenges.
Prior to my return, apprehensions regarding my children escalated. In March 2024, my Younger Daughter experienced a significant emotional disturbance while I was present with her at her caregiver's home. This incident served to strengthen my determination to finalize arrangements for permanent relocation to Louisiana. Unfortunately, approximately one week thereafter, she experienced a severe breakdown that required hospitalization. Simultaneously, I received formal approval from my Georgia probation officer for unsupervised status and authorization to leave the state of Georgia.
Despite the well-documented history of trauma and clear indications of emotional distress exhibited by the Younger Daughter, the Department of Children and Family Services has chosen to ignore specific, evidence-based concerns raised about the significant emotional harm and behavioral problems that her current placement is demonstrably causing. The Department is in possession of concerning reports from the Younger Daughter's counselor, which highlight a marked deterioration in her mental and emotional state, further substantiating the trauma she is currently undergoing. Additionally, the Department is aware of a history of abuse that the Younger Daughter has suffered, making her emotional well-being an issue of paramount importance.
I maintain, "She is my child and has endured significant hardship. She already faces considerable challenges. It is distressing to contemplate her current emotional state," This further underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for intervention to protect the Younger Daughter's mental and emotional health. The Department's failure to act on this information and address these concerns represents a significant dereliction of duty and a threat to the child's well-being.
My oldest daughter states my youngest daughter has expressed fear of speaking freely about wanting to be with me and felt abandoned when calls were blocked. Her own words convey her consistent wish: "Since [the Father] pried her out of my arms 3 years ago, This baby has made it abundantly clear... She just wanted to go home to her mama". Despite the Younger Daughter stating "she feels safe with me" and having "never once Express she did not feel safe with me", I am made to feel like a danger: "Why am I being made to feel like I'm being treated like I'm a danger to her?"
My Right to Fair Treatment & Due Process
The systemic violations I've endured extend far beyond isolated incidents; they represent a pervasive pattern of injustice that has consistently infringed upon my fundamental rights to fair treatment and due process. These violations are deeply ingrained within the operational fabric of both the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and the court system, manifesting through a multitude of biased actions, procedural irregularities, and a blatant disregard for established legal standards.
This pattern of injustice is evident in the unequal treatment I have received, compared to other individuals in similar circumstances, and in the consistent failure of both DCFS and the court to adhere to established legal procedures and protocols. These failures have resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice, causing irreparable harm to both me and my family.
Bias & Double Standards:
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provides potentially biased and incomplete information to professionals, such as the physician and the Younger Daughter's therapist (Therapist 1), which may compromise assessments and recommendations. Specifically, a recommendation against mother-child contact was made in approximately November 2024. A significant inconsistency exists in the handling of allegations and concerns. The Father was subject to serious allegations and documented concerns in early 2023, including neglect during visits, substance use concerns, threats of violence against a minor, leaving children unsupervised during a drug screen, statements indicating intent to flee, and causing fear. However, therapeutic recommendations (from Therapist 2) focused on restricting the Mother's contact rather than the Father's. The Father's contact was limited solely due to a restraining order issued as a result of child abuse..
There exists a blatant and concerning disparity in the application and enforcement of legal obligations and repercussions. This inequality is glaringly evident when comparing the handling of my own minor legal record with the alleged and repeated offenses of another party.
In my own case, a past Georgia conditional discharge, which legally does not equate to a conviction, has been consistently misrepresented and weaponized against me. This mischaracterization has ranged from falsely labeling it as "federal probation" to erroneously branding me a "felon."
Conversely, the other party's alleged history of severe transgressions, including alleged domestic abuse and defiance of court orders in 2021, appears to have been met with minimal consequence or scrutiny. The lack of stringent enforcement in these alleged instances starkly contrasts with the undue attention and misrepresentation my own inconsequential legal record has received.
This disparity raises serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of the legal process in this context. It underscores a potential double standard where certain individuals are seemingly held to a higher level of scrutiny and their minor infractions are magnified, while others with far more serious alleged offenses are seemingly given leniency or overlooked entirely.
Procedural Failures:
Following the removal of the Younger Daughter from my custody, a series of concerning events and procedural missteps occurred. The Younger Daughter was not adequately questioned about my involvement in the alleged incident that led to her removal. Equally important, I was not promptly notified of her removal, which is a direct violation of my parental rights.
The evidence I possess to support my case is blatantly disregarded. This evidence included photographic documentation, audio recordings that could potentially corroborate my account, visitation confirmations that demonstrated my active involvement in my daughter's life, and records pertaining to numerous incidents that might have provided context and background. The dismissal of this evidence without due consideration raises serious questions about the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation.
The conduct of the personnel involved in the case was unprofessional and displayed clear bias. This bias was evident in their interactions with me and in their handling of the evidence. In one particularly egregious instance, a DCFS Supervisor made a derogatory comment about my physical appearance during a home visit, specifically pointing out the presence of under-eye circles. This unprofessional remark not only demonstrated a lack of respect but also suggested a preconceived notion about my character or fitness as a parent based on a superficial observation.
Interestingly, the Older Daughter also exhibited significant under-eye circles, a detail that the supervisor conveniently overlooked during a subsequent visit to the Guardians' residence. An objective and unbiased observer might have recognized this as a potential sign of shared stress or emotional distress experienced by both children. Instead, the supervisor's comment about my under-eye circles was used as a negative judgment against me, further highlighting the biased nature of the assessment.
It is my firm belief that the under-eye circles observed in both children were likely a direct result of the immense stress and duress placed upon our family by the Department's actions. The removal of a child from their home and the subsequent separation from their parent can be a traumatic experience that can manifest in various physical and emotional ways. The fact that this was not taken into account and instead used as a basis for negative judgment against me is a clear indication of the biased and unfair treatment I received.
Another alleged DCFS worker was recorded glorifying violence; based solely on the information I previously provided from that recording, the worker stated regarding a hypothetical person,
"Uh, she would be like telling me who I can have in my mo*********ng house.
I, I, I'd be like, 'You know what, come on over,'
and then drag her the f**k in."
(Note: This specific quote is transcribed)
The irregularities surrounding the closure of this case are of grave concern and involve multiple facets. Discrepancies in the home inspection procedure, conflicting declarations and actions by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) personnel, and questionable judicial decisions have been identified.
Home Inspection Irregularities:
The home inspection procedures were compromised by inconsistencies and deviations from established protocols. Notably, a staff member asserted that self-funded drug tests would be inadmissible, a contravention of standard procedure. Besides, evidence in the form of documented text messages confirming a home inspection in August 2024 is contradicted by DCFS denials of such an event. Conflicting communications from the caseworker, initially reporting a successful inspection and later claims by DCFS that the inspection failed and the home was unsafe, further underscore the disorganization within the home inspection process.
Drug Testing Concerns:
Drug testing protocols exhibit a pattern of inconsistencies, raising serious concerns about the process's reliability. Reservations have been expressed regarding the methodology and sterility of a contracted local facility, similar to issues in a prior case in a neighboring Parish. The presence of an untested urine sample and ambiguous directives concerning testing requirements, payment obligations, and result acceptance, evidenced by incidents in May 2024 and November 2023, engender an environment of distrust.
Judicial Oversight Concerns:
The judicial decisions made prior to the judge's recusal in January 2025 prompt inquiries regarding judicial impartiality. The denial of a petition to relocate the children to Georgia under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), despite positive recommendations from both the Georgia Probation Officer and the Georgia Department of Children and Family Services, constitutes a significant judicial error. The absence of a justifiable rationale for this denial suggests potential arbitrary action, thereby obstructing a potentially beneficial resolution for the children.
The mismanagement of this case, characterized by irregularities, contradictions, and questionable judgments, has adversely affected the children involved. The lack of clear and consistent protocols, coupled with deficient communication and transparency, has generated an environment of instability. These concerns necessitate a comprehensive review of case closure procedures, home inspection protocols, and drug testing practices to ensure fairness, consistency, and transparency, and to prioritize the welfare of the children.
Arbitrary Rules & Lack of Guidance:
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has exhibited a pattern of inconsistent adherence to its own rules and guidelines, which has resulted in significant operational inconsistencies and detrimentally impacted the involved parties. This inconsistency is glaringly evident in the lack of clear, standardized procedures for various aspects of DCFS operations.
One specific instance highlighting this procedural deficiency occurred in May 2023. A formal reprimand was issued due to the presence of additional individuals during a scheduled visitation. However, this reprimand was unjustified as the assigned caseworker had been informed of the arrangement beforehand, and no explicit rule existed prohibiting the presence of additional individuals. This incident underscores a significant lack of uniformity in rule implementation and clarity of communication within the agency.
Further illustrating this inconsistency is the imposition of last-minute requirements, such as the demand for a place inspection mere days before a scheduled visit in July 2023. This created unnecessary obstacles and resulted in the cancellation of the visit to accommodate the urgent inspection. The lack of foresight and timely action on the part of DCFS created unnecessary complications and disruptions for the parties involved.
In addition to procedural inconsistencies, the agency has also engaged in conduct that can be characterized as unprofessional and lacking in equitable treatment. This is exemplified by the premature and unauthorized disclosure of confidential information pertaining to the Father and another mother involved in the case, potentially jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the parties involved.
Also, the agency displayed negligence by failing to address the Father's outstanding warrants and unlicensed driving, particularly while he was transporting minor children. The explanation provided by Caseworker-1, that her supervisor did not want to give the appearance that the agency was targeting the Father, raises serious concerns regarding the agency's priorities and commitment to child safety. Despite explicit knowledge of the Father's legal issues and unlicensed driving with his children, the agency failed to intervene for an extended period, even though intervention was repeatedly requested. This inaction represents a dereliction of duty and parallels the prior failure of law enforcement to act upon a custody order. The agency's apparent prioritization of public image over child safety is a matter of grave concern and raises questions about its fitness to carry out its mandate.
The disparity in treatment is further highlighted by the fact that similar circumstances would likely have resulted in immediate arrest for individuals not involved in the case. This underscores an apparent bias and casts serious doubt upon the agency's competence, impartiality, and dedication to ensuring the well-being of the children under its care.
In conclusion, the DCFS has demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent application of rules and guidelines, unprofessional conduct, and questionable decision-making. These issues have resulted in significant harm to the parties involved and raise serious concerns about the agency's ability to fulfill its responsibilities in a just and equitable manner.
The Department of Children and Family Services has undertaken actions prejudicial to my interests. A persistent and systemic failure to ensure the protection of child welfare is evident within DCFS and indicative of widespread deficiencies in the family law system. Documentary evidence corroborates this, including photographic evidence of physical maltreatment, specifically a contusion inflicted by a belt,
upon my minor daughter (then four years of age) while under DCFS custodianship in another jurisdiction.
This suggests the issue is not isolated but reflects a deep-seated institutional failure. This systemic nature is further substantiated by a previous incident in an adjacent parish wherein a report of abuse was met with indifference by DCFS personnel, who stated, "There is no recourse available to you." This response indicates a deficiency in institutional accountability. Subsequently, I retained private legal counsel who successfully resolved the matter. My official abuse complaint in that prior instance initially encountered an alarmingly apathetic response, exposing a potential systemic deficiency. Due to the severity of the situation and the agency's inadequate response, legal representation was imperative. My attorney's intervention proved successful, underscoring the critical role of effective legal advocacy in cases of systemic failure. This prior successful resolution stands in contrast to my current circumstances involving court-appointed representation. As detailed in Part 2, the provision of court-appointed counsel does not guarantee a substantive defense. The efficacy of legal representation is of paramount importance.
My Character vs. DCFS Mischaracterizations
To counter the negative image presented by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), it is crucial to provide a comprehensive understanding of my background and motivations. My role as an ordained minister has been a cornerstone of my life for many years. My faith has been a guiding light through substantial challenges, and in times of personal hardship, I have found solace and direction in engaging in theological discourse with those who were also seeking spiritual support.
This calling led me, on two separate occasions, to immerse myself within the homeless community of Atlanta, including extended periods within Woodrow Wilson Park, a location that also played a significant role in the early life of Tyler Perry. This was not a purposeless endeavor; rather, it was driven by a profound belief that I was divinely appointed to this specific ministry at those points in time. Even during the most difficult circumstances, my aim remained centered on serving and connecting with those who were struggling.
I fully recognize that the specific conditions of living amongst the homeless were not appropriate for my children at that time. It is my deepest desire for my children to live with me in a safe and nurturing environment, as we once were and I trust that this will happen when the time and circumstances are right according to a higher plan. This portrayal of my character and motivations stands in stark contrast to the inaccurate and misleading image that DCFS is attempting to portray.
Likewise:, it is important to emphasize that my choices, while unconventional, were always rooted in a deep sense of spiritual conviction and a genuine desire to serve those in need. My commitment to my faith and my community has never wavered, even in the face of adversity. I understand that DCFS may have concerns about my past choices, but I firmly believe that those choices do not reflect my ability to provide a loving and stable home for my children.
I am confident that a thorough and unbiased examination of my life and character will reveal a person who is deeply committed to faith, family, and community. I am eager to work with anyone to address any concerns they may have and to demonstrate that I am a fit and loving parent who is capable of providing a safe and nurturing home for my children.
My return to Louisiana in (April 2024) involved immense personal sacrifice, undertaken because suggestions from DCFS anticipated the father would eventually falter again, necessitating my presence to regain custody and protect my children. I had just started a new business in Georgia, but I gathered all of my equipment to bring with me and quit my dependable job to move back. I have done exactly what DCFS asked, yet they still fail to return my children.
Adding to these struggles, in early June 2024, while I was navigating significant medical issues, my business partner exploited the situation. Because I refused to submit to a quid pro quo proposition – because I refused to be a 'me too' statistic – he effectively snatched my business contributions and efforts out from underneath me. I made that stand because I knew I had to show my daughters that we women can make a difference and stand strong, that “WE TOO” don't have to be victims of “ME TOO”.
The current situation demands accountability and change – not just within DCFS, but within the entire family law system. There must be a plea for children to be returned home and an end to the alleged negligence and systemic flaws that perpetuate harm.
DCFS has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of my unfitness under the Santosky v. Kramer standard.
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has exhibited a pervasive failure to uphold its legal mandate to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification concerning the Younger Daughter. This systemic failure is evident in the agency's persistent refusal to provide essential resources, referrals, and support services, such as family therapy, despite clear identification of challenges hindering reunification.
DCFS's documented actions reveal neglect, including instances where I was explicitly denied assistance and informed I would bear sole financial responsibility for personal counseling. Similarly, the agency prohibited the child's participation in such therapy, effectively creating insurmountable barriers and undermining reunification. These violations extend beyond service denial and include: Lack of Proper Notification (I was not adequately informed, potentially deliberately as explained in paragraph 21-22);
Dissemination of Misrepresentations (false information impacting my ability to reunify); Denial of Parental Participation (I was excluded from decision-making); Obstruction of Familial Bonds (actions hindered the parent-child relationship); Suppression of Children's Voices (child's wishes not respected, children fear speaking, explicit threats made);
