Stop Incentives, Child Adoption Bonuses, & Rewards For Governors Pool Treasury

Trying to regain what was loss during a heavy court battle.

While the economy falls and the employment rate drops, the states still collect state adoption bonuses and rewards for placing a child up for adoption. The state bonus and reward incentive can and in some family court cases influence the outcome of a custody battle between the state and parent.  

Families in America are not being informed in public of the fight they will be up against once entering into the family courts where there are incentives for the states to hold onto a child. 

In some cases, a family court case can be moved to terminate a parents parental rights due to the state adoption bonuses and rewards.  

Should state child adoption bonuses and rewards be allowed for the states to collect following a termination of parental rights?

State child Custody Cases can be dragged out for months by the courts to achieve the 17 to 22 months time limit that gives the states reason to keep a child in states custody and terminate parental rights. 
The programs used during the duration of the family court case creates the time it takes for the courts to use the time law to terminate parental rights in some cases. 

Under Missouri law statute 452.000 to terminate parental rights abandonment, abuse, or neglect must be determined.

In a Missouri family court case,( The A.M.S. case) is a prime example case shown below in this petition, to show how a family court consisting of phychologists, counselors, Gardian Ad Litems, lawyers, juvenile officers, and therapist can all team up together to achieve an unlawful act of a wrongful adoption.

Abandonment, abuse, or neglect was not determined in the A.M.S. Case.


The State of Missouri Has proven by the A.M.S. case that they can select one child out of three for a state adoption, as the Mother in this case maintained custody of her other two children while the state of Missouri terminated her parental rights to the third child, the youngest one, of three. 
(The statement above can be shown on court records of the A.M.S. Case)
 
*The A. M. S. case, a case that was groomed, Judges making rulings out of carelessness, and recklessness,  endangering the child due to the judges carelessness and reckless decisions. 


*Court appointed counselors creating false hood in order to shadow the judges mistakes and errors and or deliberate intent.
 
*A group of family court officers who teamed up together against the parent to achieve the same goal.  

*In the end the state of  Missouri collected adoption bonuses and rewards for the adoption of the Mother's youngest child, who was selected out of a family of three children.  
                                                       * 

 Below are factual statements below on the (A.M.S. CASE) that have supporting documents from the Missouri Family courts.   
 
A. Judge Carolynn Whittington allowed the other parent to gain an instant child abuse restraining order without any "question or investigation first" while the other parent was on a court ordered visitation.
After leaving the child in the care of the other parent with an instant child abuse restraining order, the family courts would later use the same parent whom they gave the instant child abuse restraining order too as their reason to take the child into state's custody during the time the child was in the other parents custody maintaining a instant child abuse restraining order.
Instead of the Missouri family courts admitting their careless and reckless act, they chose to 1. not return the child back to the Mother, 2. cover up their reckless act by dragging the case out to a termination of parental rights that brought the child to a wrongful adoption and the state collecting bonuses and rewards.     

B. Judge Melvynn Weisman also committed the same act as Judge Carolynn Whittington.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified on court records)

C. Judge Melvynn Weisman did the termination of parental rights.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

D. Judge Susan Block did the adoption.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on the actual photo of when the adoption proceedings took place)

E. Appeals court Judges Lawrence E. Mooney P.J. Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, J.J. would throw out the appeals or dismiss it.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court records)

C. Guardian Ad Litim Margaret Donnelly recommended the Mother's parental rights be terminated to her youngest child, while the Mother maintained the care and custody of her other two biological children.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court transcripts, school and housing records)
 
D. Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar reported that the other parents allegations regarding the Mother were outlandish and delusional.
(This is a factual statement and can be seen on court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar's report)

E. Following the reports of the Court appointed phychologist, Lisa Emmenneggar, the St. Louis family courts continued to proceed toward terminating parental rights and unlawfully putting the Mother's youngest child up for adoption. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court records)

F. The family courts noted in their reports that the other parent made continuous hotline calls on a daily basis.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the reports made by social services and the family courts) 

G. The other parent was diagnosed with a mental desease that brought on sudden dullusions.
The St. Louis family court judges and social services had priviledged information on the other parents diagnosis. Social Services allowed the other parent to use their hotline as a means to harrass and make a full blown case, that lead to parental termination and the child going up for adoption.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the court records)

H. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported that they found evidence that the other parent was fabricating allegations to harrass the Mother and held the evidence in their locker room.
The family courts received information from the police that informed them of this information.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police report)

I. St. Louis County Police Detectives reported to the family courts that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed against the Mother. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives report)

J. Following the investigation of the police detectives report stating that the case would be closed and no charges would be filed, the Missouri family courts still wanted to carry the case to terminate  parental rights to the Mother's youngest child.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through records)

K. The state of Missouri dressed the Mother's youngest child in a costume shortly after they took her from the other parent whom the Judges gave instant custody orders too prior to taken the child.
(This is a factual statement that can be viewed on the photographs taken by someone who works within the system and the instant custody orders can by court orders)

L. The state of Missouri began to put the Mother into federally funded programs following the police detectives orders to close the case and that no charges would be filed against the Mother. The federally funded programs were used to gain the time in the system in order for the family courts to use the "time law" as a factor to terminate parental rights. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the police detectives reports and the state of Missouri's orders to begin their programs dated after the police report to close the case)                

M. On the witness stand, Social Worker, Becky Price testified that she signed a document knowing there was a lie written in it.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified through the court transcript of her testimony and by the actual letter in which she signed)

N. The purpose of that letter was a response to the Mother's request that they would let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back sense she finished and competed all of their programs that they required her to do.
The state of Missouri's response was to "not put anything in writing to let the Mother know".
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by the actual letters that the Mother sent requesting that they let her know what more she needed to do to get her daughter back along with their responding letter stating to the effect that they would not put anything in writing to let her know)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Supporters Of The Shredded Society Petition,

      The youngest child, out of three was lined up by the state officials and instructed to stand up against the wall with other children who were also apart of Missouri's state adoptions. 
     She was made to stand in a long line as she watched the court officials take two children into a room at a time, where the child would observe two children at a time being adopted out by Judge Susan Block from the St. Louis Family Courts.
                               *                        *                           *
O.Judge Susan Block has been noted in news articles along with Judge Melvynn Weisman who terminated the Mother's rights for their support together with an event called Adoption Fair Saturdays in St. Louis, Missouri. 
From Judge Melvynn Weisman terminating the Mother's parental rights, to Judge Susan Block doing the adoption of the Mother's youngest child,  to both judges working together on Adoption Fair Saturdays, gives the "ultimate impression" that they work together at acheiving the state of Missouri's adoption bonuses and rewards for children who they get adopted out.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by court records, news articles and from the memory of the Mother's youngest child who recalled the day of her state adoption)

P.  The Mother's other two children were attending school and living under her roof, under her care and custody when Gaurdian Ad Litem Margeret Donnelly, Missouri State Representative, who ran for the state of Missouri's attorney general recommended that the Mother's parental rights be terminated. 
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by school and housing records, and a court transcript)

Q. There was a rocking chair among many others placed in the small visiting room where the Mother was court ordered to visit with her youngest child who was held by the state of Missouri.
(The above statement is factual and can be seen on a photograph and the rocking chair was referred to in the phychologist, Lisa Emmenggar and social worker, Becky Price reports)
 
R. The court appointed psychologist, Lisa Emennaggar testified that the Mother rocked the child to sleep during one of the court ordered visits. Lisa Emennaggar stated to the effect that there was no communication between the child and Mother during that time which indicated to her that there was no emotional connection or bonding between the Mother and child.
(The above statement is factual and the testimony of Psychologist Lisa Emmenggar can be read on the court transcript in regard to the the Mother rocking the child in the rocking chair)

Under the Missouri law statute 452.00 in order to terminate parental rights, abandonment, abuse or neglect must be determined.
None of these three elements existed to terminate the Mothers parental rights.

S. The St. Louis Family Courts were allowed by the state of Missouri to terminate the Mother's rights, collect bonuses and rewards for the child, and destroy the files after the wrongful act was committed.
(The message left of the St. Louis family courts stating that the files were shredded can be heard in the video in the upper left hand corner of this petition)

Read the reasons below to terminate the Mother's parental rights by the St. Louis Family courts, signed by Judge Melvynn Weisman.

1: Due to the amount of time the child has been in the system, the bond has slowly diminished, leaving no reason to return the child to the Mother.

2: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a mental condition which cannot be reversed which renders the Mother unable to knowingly provide the child the necessary care, custody and control.

3: There was no evidence presented that the Mother suffers from a chemical dependency which cannot be treated and which prevents her from consistently providing the necessary care, custody and control for the child.

4: There was no evidence presented that the Mother has committed any severe or recurrent acts of physical emotional or sexual abuse toward the child or any other child in the family.

(The above numbered four statements is factual and can be verified by the court records)    
 
T. Social Services blocked out sections of the Mother's files with a black marker and sections of the files were deleted. 
(The statement above can be verified by the actual files that social services provided)     

U. On the very same day the state took the Mother's youngest child from the other parent, the state dressed her up in a costume and began to make her stand around and pose for them while they photographed her.
(The above statement is factual and can be verified by viewing the actual photographs, and if you view the video above in the upper left hand corner, you can also see them presented in the video)

Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition,

 Shredded Society

Do you feel that state child adoption bonuses and rewards should be allowed? If not, please feel free to sign the petition.
    
* * * * * * * *                       * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                 * * * * * * * * * * *

Just a short note for you,
     Thank you for reading the petition all the way to the bottom of this page, I appreciate the time you have taken to do this.