kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

Postcards to the President, Syracuse Update & Your FEEDBACK

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Webmaster (
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 21:06:57 EDT

This is a message from a mailing list,
Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.

Good People & People of Faith,

This message has info on:

1. Post Card Campaign to the President - the time is now.
2. Syracuse Update - good newspaper stories, Federal trial Oct 30th.
3. Your FEEDBACK - on a wide range of topics.

1. Post Card Campaign to the President
This from Herman Ohme <>, an encouragement
to those effected by the nation's Child "Protective" Services
to write.  Send your cards before the weekend:

                         [ Send Postcard to]
> The President
> White House
> Office of Presidential Correspondence
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
> Washington, D.C. 20500
> On the envelope, left bottom corner write:
> Agency  Liaison/CPS
> State your case, what CPS did that was atrocious and your current family
> status:
> * kids in foster care
> * spouse in jail
> * can't get a job because of CPS false allegations
> *  whatever the case may be.
> * You may want to mention your State/County in the body of this brief post
> card.

> We must keep bombarding the White House with our grievances against CPS.
> Drs. Richard and Lillian Dunsmore

2. Syracuse Update - Federal trial October 30th.
Please check the site for recent updates as John Murtari moves
toward his trial in US District Court.  There has been good success
in getting News coverage from some regional newspapers in upstate
New York.  Not as much luck with the metro areas.  Copies of articles
at: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr/federal_trial.htm

>From John: "I got a call from my Federal attorney that the Asst. US
Attorney was willing to arrange a meeting with some senior Clinton
aids regarding our issues, but it would require I plead guilty to at
least one count.  This was easy to reject, neither condition would
have been acceptable. When this started the goal was a meeting for
parents with Senator Clinton. That is still a good and achievable

3. Your FEEDBACK - on a wide range of topics.

----- "Katy's" <> wrote regarding the Family Rights Act,

> Do you have any stipulations regarding unwed parents, women who get
> pregnant to only have a baby and not a mate, and fathers who don't
> even know that they have children?

> I also think a family mediator would be of invaluable help in such
> proceedings where a conflict arises over a decision regarding the
> child.  I think one should be required for a term after a divorse or
> birth in an unwed situation rather than parenting classes that
> adults can sleep through.  Later on though I think the mediator
> should be available (for a small fee to prevent abuse) to handle the
> small conflicts such as "can little Jonny get a tatoo at 13 years
> old or not."

> The marriage classes are a great idea except for in the unwed
> situations.  I would hope that family management and law classes
> could be offered in the junior high and high school classes so that
> children could know what they are getting into.

> The stipulation regarding one parent moving away from the other is
> very important.  I have seen several examples of parents
> intentionally moving away from the other parent to get the children
> away from the other adult.  One even quit her well paying job and
> went on welfare just to do it.

> I would really appreciate a response regarding the unwed parent
> issue or if you know of a different link that addresses that
> problem.

We recognize that unwed parents have the same issue when it comes to
kids that need both parents.  Kids should not be lied to by their
parents.  They have a right to be raised by both of their parents.  It
is a medical fact that every child has 2 parents.  Each of these
parents have a right to equal protection in the law.

If a father is not informed that he is father, this is child neglect.
The perpetrator of this crime must be charged and brought to justice.
We have a fundamental right to raise our kids and choose who educates
and socializes them (Troxel, USSC, 2000).

These constitutional rights are often overlooked, and our kids need
protection.  It is criminal to deny life from another person.  My kids
are my life, their lives depend on me.  The criminal charge and the
punishment, if convicted of that offense, must be commensurate.  Our
criminal justice system, our kids' lives, our future society depend on
our diligence bringing these truths to others.

------  Karl Mundstock <>

> I am a disenfranchised father who has faithfully supported his child
> despite my disenfranchisement. I committed the ultimate sin of
> "trying to work things out". I am fed up after a decade of
> oppression and I want to take (legal and meaningful) action to
> ensure that kids have the right to both parents. We all know our
> popular issues are tried in the court of public opinion. I say,
> fine. Send me there.

------  Jean Vasicek <> wrote:

> After many years and MANY foster children, I am slowly obtaining an
> opinion...not only about foster care but everything in general.  I
> believe that you are correct...children should NOT be taken from
> their parents in most cases.  Growing up in foster care is usually
> not better for the children.  It would take a very long time to
> explain.

> The problem in Wyatt's case is that he has no place else to
> go...without foster care, he'd be living in the streets.  And, you
> know that he is MUCH better with me.  He is a good kid.  I have
> signed him up for karate, he's trying out for basketball, etc.  The
> opportunities with me are endless...not so with most foster homes.
> More people need to get involved...not only in being foster parents,
> but in the guardian ad lidem program.  The guardian's try to
> determine and recommend to the judge what would be best..returning !
> the children or keeping them in care....a VERY difficult call.  So
> difficult, in fact, that perhaps we should not be allowed to decide
> unless the situation is in Wyatt's case.

guardian ad litem
[-ad-'li-tem, -äd-'le-tem]
: a guardian appointed by a court to represent in a particular lawsuit
the interests of a minor, a person not yet born, or a person judged

Guardian ad litem's are picked by the judge.  The same judge that uses
"Best Interest of the Children" as a standard for their discretionary
judgement.  The GALs earn their living from the court, so they say
what the judge wants them to say.

Did you know that CAPTA (a federal program dating back to Mondale and
the 70s) actually says that the objective is to place kids in Foster
Care?  Do you know that TANF (the federal welfare system) also
promotes the same guvmint interference in families?  States get more
federal dollars if they put kids in Foster Care and if they call child
support paid a child support collection.  This is a billion dollar
industry, guvmint sponsored.

There are many parents gettting their kids taken away for doing almost
nothing to their kids. The punishments don't fit the crimes.  This
perception spills over into divorce court.

There is total ignorance about constitutional law.  Everyone has
inalienable rights (and yes, having rights means that there is a
corresponding responsibility to assert those rights).  Among these
inalienable rights are certain fundamental rights.  A right to parent
is fundamental and it is endowed by our creator.  In other words,
whether you believe in God or not, these basic human rights cannot be
infringed by the guvmint.  The guvmint must have a compelling state
interest prior to any infringement.  For instance, the guvmint can't
kill by lethal injection without proving that a murderer committed the
crime.  The guvmint must use strict scrutiny when it so acts.

I'm saying that my relationship with my kids and my right to parent
them, chose who educates and socializes them, is as precious as
life-itself to me.  And, it should be so precious to everyone else
( ... society would benefit eternally for this obvious
acknowledgement).  My relationships with my 3 kids is 3 such lives.
Each of my kids' lives depend upon me being there for them ... there
are 3 more lives.  A total of 6 lives were at stake when that guardian
ad litem recommended to his judge to take those lives away.  The man
could barely spell or write a complete sentence.  You are not actually
suggesting to me that this one person (a GAL) should sever 6 lives,
are you?

There are many, but not nearly enough people, that understand what I'm
telling you.  It's simpy not BEST, to take a child from his/her
parent.  The parent MUST be an actual threat to the safety of their
child before the situation is raised to the level of a compelling
state interest.  It is society that has diminished this important view
of life.

To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to with the following 1 line in the
BODY of the message (Subject is ignored).

unsubscribe members

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 03:12:02 EST