"CINC" County in need of Change

Journal entry PROOF OF COURT INCOMPETENCE

2009-05-19T16:15:00.001-07:00

Paragraph 14 on this journal entry page states I never filed a motion to have my daughter placed back in my home, The Judge did not even as much as flip through the case file to verify his "Findings" As this was the very same Judge who denied that motion 5 months proir to this hearing. See my previous post and the motion I filed and the courts journal entry filed as a result in that hearing. What is going on and how are courts, Judges, the system as a whole allowed to get away with these blantent fraudulent lies.

My Motion to end my Daughters suffering and let her come home MOTION DENIED Judge said it was never filed.

2009-04-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

Click on documents to enlarge

Journal entry DENYING my Daughters return home after PROOF of her suffering in States custody

2009-04-21T10:41:00.000-07:00

Click on documents to enlarge

My email Address

2009-04-07T14:13:00.000-07:00

Feel Free to email me with any questions or comments at b_haz@yahoo.com

Journal Entry The day I went to Jail !!!

2009-04-06T14:14:00.000-07:00

Please Click on this to Sign Family Court Reform Petition

2009-03-21T15:20:00.000-07:00

SRS POLICY ON "CINC" INVESTIGATIONS ARE THEY DOING THEIR JOB ? Click here for the entire Manual

2009-03-18T20:42:00.000-07:00

Sample of what you'll find:

Sec. 2474 While the ultimate decision to remove a child in SRS custody rests with SRS (subject to court review), the contract agency responsible for placement and services to the child shall have the lead responsibility in the removal decision (with consultation from SRS). Removal of a child is to be based on the best interests of the child.

Remember: It is not an emergency when a long standing circumstance becomes known to the agency or contractor. For example, the contract agency learns a foster parent is consuming alcohol on a regular basis and has been for several months. If there is no report of harm to the child in placement, this information would not warrant emergency removal of the child.

MY CHILD WAS REMOVED FOR ALLEGED "TRUANCY" YET FOSTER PARENTS CAN GET AWAY WITH THAT ??

State Approved Ashton's Nine (9) Year old cousin as her Foster Parent

2009-03-17T16:11:00.000-07:00

CLICK ON DOCUMENT TO ENLARGE !!!
Ashton's 9 year old cousin was Approved by the State of Kansas as a Her FOSTER PARENT WOW Kansas is really on a roll!!! I dont think this even deserves my time as to stating State laws, and Federal Laws as this is beyond explanation and reason and they want me to play by their rules, and they think that they know whats in the "Interest" of my child. Talk about a "Broken System" Where's the Accountability on this one ? How are they going to try and cover this up ?

PART 4: PROOF OF PERJURY BY SRS/CPS IN THEIR OWN WORDS

2009-03-10T15:19:00.000-07:00

Part 4 : Proof of perjury by SRS/CPS in the District Attorney's/ States own petition.

Remember you may click on the document to make it larger to read it better.

Paragraph T: 2nd paragraph " Aug. 26th 2008 "Mother Contacted SRS "

Why is that important ?

Paragraph V: "An order of custody for a child in need of care was filed on Aug. 27th, 2008, The Order States that reasonable efforts have been made to facilitate the case plan: " Srs made numerous ATTEMPTS to locate the parent Bambi Hazen in order to OFFER services to the family. " MOTHER DID NOT RETURN PHONE CALLS OR RESPOND TO HOME VISITS"

K.S.A 21-3805: Perjury. (a) Perjury is intentionally, knowingly and falsely:

(1) Swearing, testifying, affirming, declaring or subscribing to any material fact upon any oath or affirmation legally administered in any cause, matter or proceeding before any court, tribunal, public body, notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths;

(2) subscribing as true and correct under penalty of perjury any material matter in any declaration, verification, certificate or statement as permitted by K.S.A. 53-601 and amendments thereto; or

(3) subscribing as true and correct under penalty of perjury any statement as required by K.S.A. 75-5743, and amendments thereto.

(b) (1) Perjury is a severity level 7, nonperson felony if the false statement is made upon the trial of a felony charge.

(2) Perjury is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if the false statement is made in a cause, matter or proceeding other than the trial of a felony charge or is made under penalty of perjury in any declaration, verification, certificate or statement as permitted by K.S.A. 53-601 and amendments thereto.

I did contact SRS, the state was clearly aware of that yet the next day SRS told Judge Henderson I did not. THAT IS PERJURY !!!!

Due Process VIOLATION AGAIN.
There was also no notice of this hearing as required by law:

Statute 38-2243: Orders of temporary custody; notice; hearing; procedure; findings; placement; orders for removal of child from custody of parent, limitations. (a) Upon notice and hearing, the court may issue an order directing who shall have temporary custody and may modify the order during the pendency of the proceedings as will best serve the child's welfare.

(c) Whenever it is determined that a temporary custody hearing is required, the court shall immediately set the time and place for the hearing. Notice of a temporary custody hearing shall be given to all parties and interested parties.

WHAT IS THIS A LAWLESS STATE ? NO RULES APPLY ? ANYONE ELSE WONDER WHY THIS IS ALLOWED ?

Maybe this has something to do with it :

This is the prosecuting Attorney in my case Nola's Foulston Sedgwick County District Attorney's office is as corrupt as it gets. As exposed here the sad thing is my family is not the only family affected by the injustices of Sedgwick County, Kansas look it up on you tube you will be astonished with the numbers.

October 31, 2007

District Attorney Nola Foulston is pleased to announce Deputy District Attorney Ron Paschal has been recognized as Kansas Prosecutor of the Year for 2007 by the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association. Mr. Paschal was given the award on October 21^st for his dedication to prosecution and the children in Kansas. Mr. Paschal has been consistent in his continual efforts to improve the juvenile justice system within our state. He is currently chairman of the Child Advocacy Center Task Force, serves on the Kansas Supreme Court Task Force on Permanency Planning and heads up the Juvenile Division of the Office of the District Attorney.

Mr. Paschal is a long standing member of the Prosecutor Grievance and Ethics Committee for the Kansas Disciplinary Administrators Office, serves as part of the Wichita Bar Association Ethics Committee and is the Ethics Coordinator for the Office of the District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District of Kansas.

Part 3

2009-03-07T22:45:00.001-08:00

Part 3 Aug. 26th 2008 this is how the The State of Kansas Officer Nagy Wichita Police Dept. Exploited and missing children's unit kidnapped my child from our home.

In part 2 The State Of Kansas through the Dept. of SRS case worker Linda Kenney directed Law enforcement to not cancel the runaway report falsely made by Ashton's non-custodial father after I Bambi L .Hazen LAWFUL custodial parent called to cancel this "report"

Officer Nagy unlawfully:
without a warrant
without a court order
without probable cause
Entered
Searched
Seized A 13 Year old child
Arrested my 13 y/o Ashton AT HOME as a "Runaway"

KANSAS LAW REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF A RUNAWAY
Statute 38-2202: Definitions. As used in the revised Kansas code for care of children, unless the context otherwise indicates:
(d) "Child in need of care" means a person less than 18 years of age who:
(9) is willfully and voluntarily absent from the child's home without the consent of the child's parent or other custodian.

Okay Facts K.S.A 38-2202 says absent from the child's home ASHTON WAS AT HOME WITH ME HER LAWFUL CUSTODIAL PARENT !

Officer Nagy handcuffed Ashton 13 y/o and told her she was being detained for questioning in regards to a seperate incident that he was investigating.

Officer Nagy never informed Ashton that she was under Arrest.
Officer Nagy never read her her Miranda Rights.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ARREST REPORT

Page one of this arrest report (click on the document to make it bigger) has Ashtons home address 1526 s Greenwood:

A few lines later it has arrest location 1526 S Greenwood

SHE WAS UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED AT HOME !
SHE WAS NEVER A RUNAWAY !!!
OFFICER NAGY KNEW THIS I HAVE A RECORDED AUDIO CONVERSATION BETWEEN MYSELF AND OFFICER NAGY HERE IS PAERT OF THAT RECORDED CONVERSATION
:
Me (Bambi) : You said you were detaining her for questioning
Nagy: "uh huh, and for being a runaway"
Me: "No you did not"
NAGY: Bambi I'm not going to argue bout that, that's in the past, that's done and over with"
ME: No because you illegally seized my child

Later on in the same conversation

ME:"Your supposed to be there to protect my child and you took her out of my home in hand cuff's"
NAGY: "Yes she was under arrest"
ME: "For what? You didn't tell her she was under arrest did you ?"
NAGY: "For being a runaway."
ME: "Did you tell her that when you put her in handcuffs's in my home ?
Nagy: "It seems to me being put in hand cuff's pretty much insinuates that your under arrest !"

Page two of this Arrest report Ashton was arrested under K.S.A 38-1502 (a) (9)
Well K.S.A 38-1502 was repealed in 2007. So Ashton was not even arrested on a valid state law.

Now read where it asks for Parents name and address top line of that says Mother Bambi L. Hazen address: 1526 S Greenwood Wichita Kansas.

Below that the form says

State of Kansas: Sedgwick County, ss:

I, S.W. Creighton # 2211, of lawful age, after first being duly sworn on oath, on information and belief state:

On 8-26-08 @ 12:35 hrs. I located Ashton Baker 13, wt, 12-7-94 @ 1526 S Greenwood.

ANYONE ELSE REALIZE THAT ASHTON WAS AT HOME ??

THEREFORE NOT A RUNAWAY ?

Part Two this is the way the State of Kansas removes children !

2009-03-07T14:59:00.000-08:00

THIS IS ALL ONE DAY'S EVENTS HOW MANY LAWS CAN THE STATE VIOLATE ?
This is how Clear The State of Kansas corruption really is. Judge Henderson, Nola Foulston, Ron Pascal, Lynnette Herrmann, the Wichita Police Dept. Department of SRS/CPS.

I will include State Statutes, Federal Laws that apply.

THIS ALL HAPPENED IN ONE DAY
AUGUST 26TH 2008,

Paul L. Baker is Ashton's biological NON-CUSTODIAL father. Who is currently owes over $10,000.00 in Back Child support.

Paul and Ashton got into a disagreement and Ashton came home.
Paul thinking he would be relieved of his financial support obligation if Ashton was in states custody made a false "Runaway report"

Lawful Custodial Parent ME Bambi Hazen called ALL the proper entities including Wichita Police Dept., Exploited and Missing Children's unit , SRS to cancel the runaway report.

PARAGRAPH T: "Mother contacted SRS to inform the Agency that she was home, the child was NOT on the run and that she wanted to cancel the runaway report. Mother insisted the child was not on the run"

State Law required Officer Virgil Pinager with the Wichita Police Dept. to cancel the runaway report.

K.S.A 75-712c: Same; reports of missing persons; duties of law enforcement agencies. (b) The reporting party shall be advised to immediately notify the law enforcement agency in the event the missing person returns or is located. Upon location of or contact by the missing person, the law enforcement agency shall clear the case in the national crime information center and Kansas bureau of investigation databases.

PARAGRAPH T: "Ms. Kenney (SRS Case worker) contacted Patrol East and requested that the runaway report NOT BE CANCELLED"

Ms. Kenney from SRS/CPS and the Wichita Police Department CLEARLY conspired against my rights and my childs rights in their official capacity and as individuals.

FEDERAL LAW SAYS
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

PARAGRAPH T: "Ms Kenney made the recommendation that when the child is found that she be placed at the Wichita Childrens Home until the court hearing on Sept. 2nd 2008."

State law says:
K.S.A 38-2232: Child under 18 taken into custody; duties of officers; placed in shelter facility or with other person; application of law enforcement officer; release of child. If, after delivery of the child to a shelter facility, the person in charge of the shelter facility at that time and the law enforcement officer determine that the child will not remain in the shelter facility and if the child is presently alleged, but not yet adjudicated, to be a child in need of care solely pursuant to subsection (d)(9) or (d)(10) of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2202, and amendments thereto, the law enforcement officer shall deliver the child to a juvenile detention facility or other secure facility, designated by the court, where the child shall be detained for not more than 24 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

LETS CALCULATE THE STATES VERSION OF 24 HOURS AS ALLOWED PER KANSAS LAW
Tuesday Aug 26th 08
1. Wed. Aug.27th, 08 (24 HOURS) TIMES UP PER LAW AT THIS POINT
2. Thurs. Aug. 28th, 08 (48 HOURS)
3. Fri. Aug. 29th 08 (72 HOURS)
4. Sat. Aug. 30th, 08 (DOESNT APPLY WEEKEND)
5. Sun. Aug. 31th,08 (DOESNT APPLY WEEKEND)
6. Mon. Sept. 1st, 08 (holiday DOESNT APPLY)
7. Tues. Sept. 2nd, 08 COURT DATE

FEDERAL LAW SAY'S
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The Dept Of SRS through Ms. Kenney and her personal ,recommendation is contrary to State law, So in her official capacity under the color of law Social Workers are appearantly allowed to make their own laws and the other entities followed. That unlawful recommendation has resulted in and needlessly traumatized ALL 4 of my children, and in fact my WHOLE ENTIRE FAMILY.

SAME DAY AUGUST 26TH 2008 AFTER I CANCELLED THE FALSE RUNAWAY REPORT AND AFTER THE STATES RECOMMENDATION TO THE WICHITA POLICE DEPARTMENT

3 Uniformed Wichita Police Officers 1 in Plain clothes Officer Nagy with Exploited and Missing Children's unit arrive at my residence.

No Warrant, No Court order, No Probable cause.
Unlawfully enter and Search my home

Kansas State Statute
K.S.A 77-702: Public policy; purpose of act. On and after January 1, 1996, it is the public policy of the state of Kansas that state agencies, in planning and carrying out governmental actions, anticipate, be sensitive to and account for the obligations imposed by the fifth and the 14th amendments of the constitution of the United States and section 18 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas. It is the express purpose of this act to reduce the risk of undue or inadvertent burdens on private property rights resulting from certain lawful governmental actions.

KANSAS CONSTITUTION

Bill of Rights

§ 15. Search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inviolate; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or property to be seized.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What makes these official's acting under the "Color of Law" to perceive the laws of the land do not apply to them ? Can anyone answer me that ?

WAIT TIL YOU SEE PART 3 YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS BAD SOOO MUCH MORE.

THE SAD PART ABOUT IT IS THIS DAY AUG. 26TH 2008 IS NOT OVER SEE PART 3.

This is where it all started PART ONE !!

2009-03-07T14:12:00.001-08:00

This is the State of Kansas's actual SECOND amended petition you dont have to be a lawyer to figure out a Court hearing requires "NOTICE" its called Due Process.

Any Attorney interested in a contingency basis feel free to email me.

LINE G : "NO SERVICE VACANT HOUSE "

LINE I: "The court Adjudicated the child as a child in need of care as to father and continued Adjudication as to Mother TO OBTAIN PROPER NOTICE !!

The court/Judge Henderson/ The District Attorney's office knew proper notice/Due process had not been obtained. Lack of service/notice/due process makes any court orders null/void, invalid, unenforceable.

LINE I: "THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF SRS"

The court, Judge Henderson knowingly, and without proper authority over the said child, without proper authority over the Lawful custodial mother, without procedural, substantive due process placed MY CHILD IN TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE STATE.

HERE ARE A JUST A FEW AUTHORITIES ON DUE PROCESS/ VOID ORDERS

Kansas ex rel. Koontz v. Clubb

However, when a judgment is attacked under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4) as being void, there is no question of discretion on the part of the trial court.

Medina v. American Family Mutual - A judgment against an alleged tortfeasor that is void due to lack of personal service cannot be successfully used to collect under the injured party's underinsured motorist coverage when the insurance company has not otherwise submitted to jurisdiction in the case.

"a void act cannot be ratified." In re Garcia, 105 B.R. 335 (N.D.Ill. 1989).

A party may attack a void judgment at any time in a motion separate and apart from a section 2-1401 petition. R.W. Sawant, 111 Ill. 2d at 310; City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Comm'n, 65 Ill. 2d 108, 112 (1976); Barnard v. Michael, 392 Ill. 130, 135 (1945); see State Bank v. Thill, 113 Ill. 2d 294, 308-09 (1986); Cavanaugh v. Lansing Municipal Airport, 288 Ill. App. 3d 239, 246 (1997); In re Marriage of Parks, 122 Ill. App. 3d 905, 909 (1984); First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brown, 74 Ill. App. 3d 901, 905 (1979).

A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.

A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972)

A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

"Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court", Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. Mcdonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

"The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal", Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Also: "The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F. Supp. 150.

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.

Though not specifically alleged, defendant's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under Rule 60(b)(4).Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff'd, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).

Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (8th Cir. 1997) (as long as there is an "arguable basis" for subject matter jurisdiction, a judgment is not void).

Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972) ("A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect.").

Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171- 72, 59 S.Ct. 134 (1938) ("Every court in rendering a judgment tacitly, if not expressly, determines its jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.");

Geico v. Jackson, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16814, *1 (1995) ("[A] default judgment constitutes an implicit ruling on subject matter jurisdiction and an erroneous determination does not make the judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4)").

"Either a judgment is valid or it is void, and the court must act accordingly once the issue is resolved." In re Marriage of Hampshire, 261 Kan. 854, 862, 934 P.2d 58 (1997).

"A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time." 261 Kan. at 862.

"A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)

A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970).

A void judgment is one of the grounds for relief under Rule 60, Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. See Rule 60.02(3).

When the law prescribes a place of imprisonment to which a convicted defendant can be sentenced, the court cannot direct a different place of incarceration, and, if it does, the sentence is void and the defendant is entitled to resentencing. State v. Bouck, 2001 ND 153, 633 N.W.2d 163

There is no time limit for attacking a void judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv). Eggl v. Fleetguard, Inc., 1998 ND 166, 583 N.W.2d 812

Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to attack a void judgment or sentence. See Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 224, 225 at n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d at 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (opinion on original submission); Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).

A void conviction may be challenged in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181; Heath, 817 S.W.2d at 336; Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851; Burns, 441 S.W.2d 532; Jenkins, 433 S.W.2d 701; Higginbotham, 382 S.W.2d 927; Strother, 395 S.W.2d 629; Rawlins, 255 S.W.2d 877.

If such an action by the trial court in Seidel rendered the dismissal void, then an even stronger case can be made that the violation of Article 1.13(c) in the instant case rendered the resulting conviction void. By Article 1.13(c), the Legislature has specifically prohibited a trial court from accepting a defendant's waiver of a jury trial until the court has appointed an attorney to represent him. Here, not only was "[t]he trial judge's action ... not authorized by law ...," Seidel, 39 S.W.2d at 225, the action was specifically prohibited by statute. Requiring an objection at trial in these circumstances would lead to a Catch-22 situation: a defendant must object to not having an attorney appointed to advise him as to waiver of jury trial, without having been advised by an attorney that he was entitled to such representation and advice. Given the absurdity of such a situation, we chose in the past to characterize the resulting conviction as "void" and allow the defendant to raise the issue in a habeas corpus proceeding. Otherwise, defendants, such as appellant, are left without a remedy even though there has been a clear violation of a mandatory statute.

Thus, in a long line of cases, most notably Heath and Seidel, we have held that some defects, even though they are "just" statutory defects, are so egregious that they are cognizable on habeas corpus. See Heath, 817 S.W.2d at 336; Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221 at 225; Ex parte McIver, 586 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). In Heath, we characterized these defects as rendering the conviction "void." 817 S.W.2d at 336. However, we could have properly characterized as "fundamental" errors those "unauthorized sentences" and "statutory defects" which render a sentence void. No matter what we choose to call these "errors," the underlying purpose is the same: to balance a convicted person's interest in the vindication of his legal rights and the State's interest in the finality of convictions.

In Texas, a defendant has a statutory right to have counsel appointed before he can waive his right to a jury trial. The Legislature has decided that the right to a jury trial is so important that before a defendant can waive that right, he should have the opportunity to consult with counsel. If a trial court denies a defendant that right by refusing to appoint counsel, equity demands that the balance be struck in favor of the defendant. Therefore, a defendant should be allowed to contest, in a habeas corpus proceeding, a violation of Article 1.13(c).

The court then concluded that, in the case before it, the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter because it was a circuit court which has jurisdiction of all felonies and that any objection King had to jurisdiction over his person was waived by his personal appearance. (State v. King, 426 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1982)]

Conviction of a nonexistent crime results in a void judgment not subject to waiver. People v. McCarty 94 Ill. 2d 28, 37 (1983).

A recent discussion of the Rule 60(b)(4) grounds for attack on a void judgment may be found in Fisher v. Amaraneni, 565 So. 2d 84 (Ala. 1990). The judgment was set aside for lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service by publication. The court defined a judgment as void "only if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Id. at 86 (citingWonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1173 (Ala. 1978)). It should be noted here that a Rule 60(b)(4) motion involves a different standard of review than the other Rule 60(b) subsections since the court held "[w]hen the grant or denial turns on the validity of the judgment, discretion has no place for operation. If the judgment is void it must be set aside ...."Fisher, 565 So. 2d at 87.

"The consequences of an act beyond the court's jurisdiction in the fundamental sense differ from the consequences of an act in excess of jurisdiction. An act beyond a court's jurisdiction in the fundamental sense is void; it may be set aside at any time and no valid rights can accrue thereunder. In contrast, an act in excess of jurisdiction is valid until set aside, and parties may be precluded from setting it aside by such things as waiver, estoppel, or the passage of time." People v. Ruiz (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 574, 265 Cal. Rptr. 886

Held: Petitioner was not accorded a fair and impartial trial, to which he was entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; his conviction is void; the judgment denying habeas corpus is vacated; and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings affording the State a reasonable time to retry petitioner. 366 U.S. 717

See American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 166-67 (1932) (applying res judicata to action seeking to set aside judgment for lack of jurisdiction);"Browning v. Navarro, 887 F.2d 553, 558-59 (5th Cir. 1989) (res judicata applies to actions to void judgment for fraud).

Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the "reasonable" time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that clause Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.

In a long and venerable line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that, without proper jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all, but can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit. See, e.g., Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126; Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43. Bell v. Hood, supra; National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 465, n. 13; Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 531; Secretary of Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676 , 678 (per curiam); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 ; Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 721; and Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 86—88, distinguished. For a court to pronounce upon a law’s meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, an ultra vires act. Pp. 8—17.

Recent Decisions

…And there is no indication in the statute that! such relief cannot be granted because the judgment also involve a judicial error which may have caused the surprise.

In the instant case did not the court have statutory jurisdiction over its judgment although it may have committed a judicial error in its rendition? That is dependent upon whether or not a judgment given in excess of a stipulation, and when the party interested is not present, is one taken against him through his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or inexcusable neglect" Under a statute precisely like our own in the Oregon court held, that, "a judgment rendered against a party contrary to an understanding or argument with his adversary is taken against him by 'surprise' within the meaning of this section" (Durham v. Commercial Nat, Bank (1904) 45 Ore, 385, 387, 77 Pac, 902; Bellinger and Cotton Comp.. Stats., § 103 (Ore,).) A Kentucky case reached the same result. (Sebree v. Sebree (1907) 30 Ky Law Rep. 709, 9 S. W. 282.) On the other hand, the court in the case under consideration arrived at a contrary result. However, the cases cited in support of this decision, with one exception, do not come within the statutory jurisdiction conferred by the code, because the applications for relief had not been made within six, months after judgment, The only exception was in a case where the facts precluded any possibility of surprise, as all parties were present when the order in question, granting relief in excess of a stipulation, was rendered. (Dyerville Mfg. Co. v, Helles (1894) 102 Cal. 615, 36 Pac 928; Egan v. Egan (1891) 90 Cal 15, 27 Pac, 22; the exception is Mann v. Mann (1907) 6 Cal. App, 610, 92 Pac. 740.) In all the other cases the court had to rely upon its general jurisdiction over judgments, but has already shown, it has no authority to correct judicial errors therein, and as the error in these cases came within that category the court naturally could give the applicant no relief, Therefore, if the appellate court was basing its negative answer, to the question above propounded, upon these cases it would seem that its conclusion was unjustifiable.

The question then may be asked, what difference does it make whether this relief be granted or not; the party has his remedy by motion for a new trial or an appeal, If the judgment were vacated, in all probability, another trial would be necessary to get a proper judgment. But suppose a mistake like this, in the judgment, is not discovered until after sixty days from the entry thereof. The time for moving for a new trial, or appealing would have expired. Then the only remedy would be under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there the injured party is given six months in which to ask for relief. So, although the practical result of this case, at first glance may not seem to be harsh, still there are situations where this decision would deprive a litigant of a right to which, apparently, he is entitled, and which other jurisdictions would give him.

Pleading: Motion to Vacate Judgment by default: Mistake by Attorney — "The policy of the law is it have every litigated cause tried on its merits". Barri v. Rigero (1914) 168 Cal, 736, 740, 145 Pac. 95. An indication of how far the courts are willing to go in order to bring a case to trial before them on its merits is given by the decision of Toon v, Pickwick Stages (April 7, 1924) 43 Cal. App. Dec 808 Pac. 628, reversing an order deny...

egregious, adjective: Conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible.

cog·ni·za·ble Knowable or perceivable. Law. Able to be tried before a particular court.

2009-03-06T20:13:00.001-08:00

This is Ashton the Picture on the left was before she was kidnapped by Officer Nagy Wichita Police Dept. EMCU

The Picture on the right was taken during one of our "Supervised" 1 hour visits after the Wichita Children's Home and Youthville drugged her up without my knowledge.

WHATS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE
ALL FOR A FALSE REPORT OF TRUANCY.

Part 1 "In the Interest of Ashton L. Baker" PAY attn.

2009-01-12T09:47:00.000-08:00

This is how it all begins: Part 1 "In the Interest of Ashton L. Baker" Case no. 08 JC 371

This is why our Child Protection Services keep Cases Confidential, So noone will be able to see the lies, corruption, crimes being commited by the District Attorney's office, Police officers, Social Workers, Judges, and all the contractors they hire as foster care/ Adoption agency's dont believe me follow along as I will be posting video's and you be the Judge. It has nothing to do with the fact that there are minor children involved and they are trying to protect our children. It's a Billion Dollar business paid for by ME AND YOU .

Very good information for all the non believers ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY !!

2009-01-07T02:03:00.000-08:00

http://iperceive.net/stephen-baskerville-on-a-system-that-steals-children-plunders-parents/

ALL YOU NON BELIEVERS ITS NOT ABOUT THE "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD" ITS ABOUT THE BILLION'S OF DOLLARS OUR STATES ARE MAKING OFF OF LEGALLY KIDNAPPING OUR CHILDREN. WITH THE ECONOMY CRISIS THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP FUNDS FLOWING IS BY CHILD-TRAFFICKING, AND CALLING IT FOSTER CARE . NOW THE STATES ARE GOING AFTER THE ELDERLY AS WELL KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR GRANDMA AND GRANDPA TOO !!! PAY ATTENTION TAX-PAYERS WE ARE FUNDING THIS CORRUPTION !!!

REPORT CPS/SRS/ FALSE ALLEGATIONS HERE

2009-01-06T23:46:00.000-08:00

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Inspector General
Report Fraud
Phone:1-800-HHS-TIPS(1-800-447-8477)
Fax:1-800-223-8164
TTY:1-800-377-4950
E-Mail:HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov
Mail:Office of Inspector GeneralDepartment of Health and Human ServicesAttn: HOTLINEPO Box 23489Washington, DC 20026
Download the Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct Poster (PDF)Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files.
Reporting Fraud
All HHS and contractor employees have a responsibility to assist in combating fraud, waste and abuse in all departmental programs. As such you are encouraged to report matters involving fraud, waste and mismanagement in any departmental program(s) to OIG. To assist you, OIG maintains a hotline which offers a confidential means for reporting vital information.
Information is for official use only (For information on confidentiality please contact the hotline and ask about our confidentiality source program).
Each caller is encouraged to assist the OIG by providing information on how they can be contacted for additional information but caller may remain anonymous.
To the best of your ability, please provide the following information when contacting the Hotline:
Type of complaint:
Medicare Part-A
Medicare Part-B
Child Support Enforcement
National Institute Of Health
Indian Health Service
Food And Drug Administration
Centers For Disease Control And Prevention
Substance Abuse And Mental Health Services Administration
Health Resources And Services Administration
Aid To Children And Families
All Other HHS Agencies Or Related Programs
HHS department or program being affected by your allegation of fraud waste or abuse/mismanagement:
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Office of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Indian Health Service (IHS)
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Office of the Secretary (OS)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMSHA)
Administration on Aging (AOA)
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
Other (please specify)
Please provide the following, if you would like your referral to be submitted anonymously please indicate in your correspondence or phone call:
Your Name
Your Street Address
Your City/County
Your State
Your Zip Code
Your email Address
Subject/Person/Business/Department that allegation is against:
Name of Subject
Title of Subject (if applicable)
Subject's Street Address
Subject's City/County
Subject's State
Subject's Zip Code
Please provide a brief summary relating to your allegation.
Report Fraud Accessibility Privacy Notice Disclaimers Site Map
What's New E-Mail List Contact Exclusions Database Guidance Practices
HIPDB HHS Internet IGnet USA.gov

typical Kansas Practice corruption, lies and cover up

2009-01-05T20:20:00.000-08:00

Sheriff: Parents didn't report boy missing for a decade
Story Highlights
Sheriff says no trace of Adam Herrman found after 1999
Parents did not report him missing until recently
Police say they don't know if he is dead or alive
Adam was 11 or 12 in 1999
Next Article in Crime »
var clickExpire = "-1";

(CNN) -- Authorities in Kansas are looking for a boy who disappeared about a decade ago, but was not reported missing until a few weeks ago.

Adam Herrman has not been seen since 1999, when he was 11 or 12.

"We don't know what happened to Adam Herrman past '99, when he was last seen," Butler County Sheriff Craig Murphy said at a news conference in El Dorado.
"Is he alive, is he dead? That one I can't answer because we don't know," he added.
Adam was 11 or 12 when he was last seen, Murphy said. At the time, he was living in a mobile home park in Towanda, a small town in southern Kansas, with his adoptive parents, Doug and Valerie Herrman. The couple did not report him missing, Murphy said.
A few weeks ago, a person notified Sedgwick County Exploited and Missing Children's Unit of a "concern" regarding Adam, Murphy said.
The agency did not immediately return CNN's phone call seeking additional information.
Wichita attorney Warner Eisenbise, who is representing Adam's adoptive parents, said the couple "really rue the fact that they didn't" report the boy missing.
"They feel very guilty" about not doing that, he said in a telephone interview. The couple told him the boy had run away frequently, he said, and they believed him to be either with his biological parents or homeless.
Although the Herrmans did not report him missing, "they were very worried about him," he said.
Authorities have searched the Pine Ridge Mobile Home Park, where the family had lived, and discovered an "answer" to one of their questions, Murphy said, without explaining.
"We did find one of the answers we were looking for, but I am holding that one very tightly," he said.
Eisenbise said authorities also executed a search warrant on December 15 at the Herrmans' home in Derby, a town just outside of Wichita. They took the couple's computer, he said.
Murphy said the couple is cooperating and had not been charged with anything.
Citing a relative, the Wichita Eagle reported the Herrmans had taken Adam into foster care and later adopted him.
Michelle Ponce of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, which oversees adoption and foster care, said she could not release any details regard Adam's case, and could confirm only that he had been in foster care at some point, but was no longer in foster care in 1999.
Adam had been placed in the Herrmans' care when he was about 2, Murphy said in a phone interview. He had been named Irvin Groeninger III when he was born on June 8, 1987, Murphy said, and it was not clear when his name was changed.
His biological parents relinquished their rights as parents about two decades ago, and Adam and his siblings were put in different foster homes, CNN affiliate KWCH reported.
"I thought what I was doing for them was in the best interest of the children and evidently it wasn't," Irvin Groeninger told KWCH. "If he was still in my custody this would have never happened."
Adam's sister, Tiffany Broadfoot, 22, said she last saw her brother about 14 years ago at a birthday party.
A year or two later, he sent her a Christmas card, she said. "And that was the end of my contact with him," she told KWCH.
"He had the cutest little round face, little bitty freckles right up here on the tip of his cheek," she remembered.
"I'm just awestruck as how something like that could actually happen, and how he could be missing as long as he's been and nobody say anything," she said.
Murphy said Adam's name appears on a legal document later than 1999. "We know that he was listed in a legal action as if he was still living at home, and I'm not certain of the date, but it was beyond 1999," he told CNN.
E-mail to a friend

Share this on:
Mixx Digg Facebook del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon MySpace
Mixx it Share
All About Missing Persons

TAKE BACK OUR FAMILIES / MAJOR CASE LAWS

2009-01-02T16:41:00.000-08:00

They are not Immune from their actions, the trauma our families are going through is not going unnoticed it is being addressed I found this website to very useful you might to.

http://www.futureamericanhistory.net/cpscaselaw.htm

2008-12-25T16:49:00.000-08:00

I am honestly exhausted of preaching to the choir only for everyone to turn a blind eye to whats going on in our American Juvenile/ Family court system . Tragic ,traumatic, terrifying tale that has forever needlessly, traumatized innocent lives and are victims of these monsters, I have 4 children and I just got out of jail for protecting my 13 y/o daughter the only 1 out of 4 that was "kidnapped" By Officer Nagy she was arrested in our own home on Aug. 26th 2008 without a warrant, without a court order, without even a crime commited by (in my opinion) A crooked Wichita Police officer Michal Nagy and a corrupt Sedgwick County District Attorneys office in Sedgwick County Kansas and Lying Social worker who committed purjury under oath. My daughter has been unlawfully held in states custody since. After her arrest that day the same arresting Officer Nagy delivered court documents of a hearing that was held on August 5th 2008 that was based on false allegations of truancy when she was proven on the record that she was properly, lawfully enrolled in a "non-accredited" private school registered and verified by and through the Kansas Department of Education to the reporting school 10 months prior to the state filing the false charges on July 14th 2008 WHEN SCHOOL IS NOT EVEN IN SESSION, I was never served a summons, never notified of that hearing on Aug 5th 2008 violating all state and federal rules of substantiave, procedural due process laws required in any and all court hearings, That hearing held placed my daughter in states custody!! I did not know of any of this til my daughter was arrested in my home Aug. 26th. I was never even given a 72 hour hearing required by law after her unlawful detainment, arrest. Judge Henderson signed an order stating she faced imminent danger if she was not immidiatly removed from my home AFTER she was arrested, what crime did she commited? (still a question not answered) if she was in so much danger any reasonable person would assume the other 3 children that reside in the same home would be too right ? Nope the social worker even deemed my home appropriate and the fact that I contacted the Associated Press in regards to the "kidnapping" of my daughter and exposed the corruption before they could even try to come for my other 3 children. The state has deprived me, my husband, my children of our substaintive, procedural, constitutionally protected fundemental rights. My daughter couldnt take the physical, mental, emotional abuse she recieved while unlawfully detained in the Wichita Childrens Home, Me, my husband, and 3 other children were allowed only 1 supervised visit per week, FOR FALSE TRUANCY CHARGES CAN YOU SAY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR OUR WHOLE FAMILY !!! I filed a motion for emergency placement back into our home along with professional medical documentation supporting the fact of Ashtons deterioration since her unlawful removal including documented weight loss of 23 lbs in 17 days, Fainting on at least 3 occasions, Throwing up after every meal unable to partcipate in PE due to excessive weakness reported by the PE teacher herself, and I provided all proper, lawful per state laws homeschool veriification and registration which was compelling evidence of innocence of the original false allegations of truancy that our Da's office filed. I did some research and learned that a hearing held without proper notification to the affected parties is void for lack of due process I sent out acknowledgements declaring my rights and it states in the acknowledgements that the temporary custody order in not voidable but simply void due to due process violations, and supreme court has clarified that on numorous occasions throughout time . Judge T. Henderson ignored all of it and denied my motion, letters, acknowledgments and made it worse for Ashton and our family by ordering that she had "no contact" other then our already court ordered 1 hour SUPERVISED visit per week FOR ALLEGED TRUANCY IN JULY ! Well Ashton couldnt take the abuse anymore so she ran from the childrens home, She is safe now thank god !! The state dont give a DAM about her best interest, dont even know their own best interest and wouldnt know the meaning if it slapped em in the face they just want their profit they recieve for children being in states custody. I was escorted out of the last court hearing December 12th 2008 in hand-cuffs and thrown in Sedgwick county jail with no bond for contempt of court when I refused to disclose my Daughters location to state officials invoking my parental rights to protect my child from abuse and officer Nagy the same arresting officer again charged me with a level 7 personal felony for "Aggrivated interferance of parental custody" and 2 counts of "Contributing to the mis-conduct of a minor child" bond for the first charge was $150,000 .On top of the contemp charge. My parental rights are not revoked, suspended, in any way shape or form and never has been, as a matter of fact she still has not yet even been adjudicated as a child in need of care yet, The law states that a hearing must be held within 30 days of the state filing a petition, IT WAS FILED ON JULY 16TH 2008 Hearing is scheduled for JAN 30TH 2009. WHAT IS GOING ON WHY IS THIS ALLOWED ? IS ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION HERE ? Here is the story to first published story by the Associated Press, following the first story I have provided a link to the USA Today article written when I was arrested and put in Jail.

Saturday, Oct 11, 2008
Posted on Tue, Oct. 07, 2008
Critics contend Kansas county too quick to take kidsBy ROXANA HEGEMANAssociated Press Writer
WICHITA, Kan. _ When a local middle school mistakenly reported a 13-year-old home-schooler to the state as a truant, it seems like the matter could have been easily cleared up.
Instead, Ashton Baker ended up in the Wichita Children's Home, having been dragged into the state child-welfare system in a county that critics contend is one of the most likely places in the U.S. to take children from their parents.
Along the way, Ashton's mother, Bambi Baker-Hazen, missed a court hearing, which she says she never received notice of, and her ex-husband was given temporary custody of their daughter. After Ashton ran back to her mother's house, police arrested the girl as a runaway. A judge subsequently found a lack of supervision at the mother's house and ordered Ashton placed in the Wichita Children's Home, although Baker-Hazen still has custody of her three other children — ages 6, 8 and 16. The girl ran away from the home on Monday and was still missing Tuesday, according to her mother.
Baker-Hazen contends that the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services misled the court when it said it made reasonable efforts to keep her family together. The department and the local district attorney's office won't discuss the case, citing privacy laws, but Baker-Hazen produced documents confirming that truancy was the reason for the department's involvement.
Her allegations aren't unusual in Sedgwick County. While the state agency says it complies with all federal rules, the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform claims that the department is evading requirements that reasonable efforts be made to keep children out of foster care and that it is underreporting cases to a central federal database. Critics contend officials in Sedgwick County are overreacting to some high-profile child abuse cases, such as a 2006 one involving two Wichita children allegedly starved, beaten and tortured by their father and stepmother.
Advocacy groups and angry parents have pointed to comments from the head of the state agency, Don Jordan, who indicated in March that his case workers felt pressured by the Sedgwick County district attorney's office to include false information in court documents to ensure children are removed from homes. Jordan has since retracted that statement and the district attorney's office denies the allegation, but a complaint from local family advocacy group Citizens for Change Inc. led to an audit of the state agency by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Results haven't been released, but the federal agency has noted that the Kansas department will be implementing an improvement plan soon.
According to National Coalition for Child Protection Reform's analysis of official numbers, 6.3 per every 1,000 children in Sedgwick County were removed in 2007, up from 4.2 per 1,000 children in 2006, when the national removal rate was 4.1 per 1,000 children. National statistics aren't yet available for 2007, but the group's executive director, Richard Wexler, expects the removal rate for the country to remain largely unchanged.
While some other counties across the U.S. had much higher rates in 2006 (for example, Philadelphia County, Pa.'s rate was 10.2 and Franklin County, Ohio's was 10.6), Wexler's Alexandria, Va.-based group contends that 80 percent of children removed in Sedgwick County may not show up in official numbers.
"If you counted all of the off-the-books placements, Sedgwick County would be a candidate for the child removal capital of America," Wexler said.
He said Kansas, unlike other states, uses a loophole in federal law and does not count in its foster care placement numbers those children taken into "police protective custody" who are returned days later.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services, Michelle Ponce, said the agency reports all cases that involve the department, as required by federal regulations. She said she has not seen any good data involving the numbers of children taken into police protective custody, when the department is not always involved.
According to its Web site, the Wichita Children's Home took in 1,861 children from police referrals in 2006, compared with 631 children from the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services and 69 from parents.
Ashton ended up at the children's home after a middle school that mistakenly had her on its rolls reported her as truant, even though her mother's home was properly registered as a home school. Baker-Hazen has since enrolled her other three children in public schools.
Although the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services stated in court documents that it made numerous attempts to find the mother before a hearing on the truancy matter that led to the father gaining temporary custody, Baker-Hazen said the only thing the agency did was deliver a summons to her vacant former address. The girl's father, Paul Baker, called police and reported the girl as a runaway when he found her missing from his home. Police found the girl at her mother's house and took her away in handcuffs, something police say is common in cases involving runaways.
Both parents are now trying to get Ashton back, but Baker-Hazen said that because the girl ran away from the children's home she would end up in a juvenile detention facility once she's found. The mother said she had not heard from her missing daughter.
"I think she is scared. I know she is scared," Baker-Hazen said Tuesday.
And although Baker had concerns about the education his daughter was receiving at her mother's house, he said he agreed with his ex-wife about one thing: "She should be with one of her parents."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/states/kansas/2008-12-12-1120627356_x.htm#uslPageReturn